Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath

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

Statement by closing bureaucrat

I appreciate all the views expressed here and will state my reasons for my closing it as successful given all the talk that occurred within and outside this RFA. Our primary reason for being here is to build an encyclopedia; which does mean article writing. The opposes are mostly centered on this issue and it ended numerically in the discretion range. A person does not consist solely of a heart and mind. A person also needs bones, cartilage, antibodies, and a myriad of other things. Likewise, our encyclopedia is not built solely by article writing, many other tasks, including admin tasks, need to be carried out. Like us all, Aervanath has made a few mistakes, but overall he has shown a good knowledge of policy and sound judgement. The bottom line is that the community feels the candidate will be a net benefit to the project as an admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath

Final (94/35/4); Closed by Rlevse at 13:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath (talk · contribs) – One of the issues that has brought me to oppose people in the past has been the lack of substantive article building, it's an area that I generally find very important (primarily in vandal fighters) because it represents a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work. Yet here I am nominating a candidate with minimal article building experience, so what is the difference? Well, the biggest difference is that my expectation isn't really for article work, but rather something wherein the candidate contributes to building the encyclopedia and Aervanath does that. Generally, people who lack article building experience are vandal fighters or fill particular niches. Aervanath is the later. Aervanath has a proven track record of discussing policy and procedures. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his stances, one doesn't have to look far to realize that he has a clue. Which leads me to the other big difference between Aervanath and the typical person without article building experience, Aervanath does his edits manually, which means that people can see how he thinks.

Aervanath is a niche contributor, and people who know me, know that I like nominating niche candidates. While vandal fighting candidates are a dime a dozen, it is the niche candidate that brings a different perspective to the project. It is the niches were we need different sets of eyes, and people with the bit may overlook. Aervanath contributes to a virtually unknown area: The Orphanage The Orphanage is a Wikiproject that attempts to ensure all articles are adequately linked. In other words, Aervanath does contribute to the development of the project---just not in a stereotypical manner. There are reasons a person working the Orphanage might need the tools, but I'll let Aervanath explain them.

When I asked Aervanath about conflicts or other potential issues that he thought might endanger an RfA, Aervanath mentioned three things. 1) A case where he was a little bity but that is almost 2 years old, so I think enough time has passed that it isn't an issue. 2) He also mentioned a dispute with a well respected editor (but one with a reputation) related to links in articles. Looking at the discussion, I found Aervanath's behavior in the discussion was civil and courteous despite some serious allegations. That he distanced himself from the debate when the other editor started to make it personal and that others sided with him has to be taken as a positive. 3) About a month ago an admin, User:Cirt informed Aervanath about the essay pertaining to non-admin closures at XfD. Cirt wanted to let Aervanath know some people object to non-admin closures of non-unanimous XfD's. In his note, Cirt wrote, Though I tend to think your closure assessment was correct, might be best to leave these types of drawn-out discussions for others. Though so far your judgment seems pretty good, so I'll leave that up to you. While he wasn't an admin, I found myself agreeing with his decisions as well.

The biggest reason, however, that I think Aervanath deserves the bit is because he is already an admin---we just need to make it official! A quick look at Aevanath's talk page will show you somebody who is civil and thoughtful. A person that people come to seeking guidance and help. When I see people who are sought out by others, that IMHO, is the most important factor in granting the bit. Of course, the fact that he responds to help request is also a boon.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I just got an email asking about this: In several places I have referenced conversations with Aervanath about his chances, article building, and his options. This was all done on wiki, to see that conversation, please see this discussion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: After that glowing recommendation, I have to accept.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Well, as Balloonman said, I do mainly focus on WikiProject Orphanage. The admin tools wouldn't really help in directly de-orphaning articles, except for the occasional CSD candidate that I come across during my orphan scanning. However, it would allow me to support the project by personally contributing to the maintainence of {{orphan}}, {{articleissues}}, and other fully-protected templates that are associated with the project. I think I'd start helping out with {{editprotected}} requests, as well, since it's a logical extension of my CAT:ESP patrolling. As I do some responding to {{helpme}} templates as well, I'd probably also start tracking {{adminhelp}} requests. In addition, I've also started contributing at WP:Requested moves recently, and that's an area that could use another admin.

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

A: This is a really hard question for me to answer, because I have never taken anything to Featured or even Good status, and I don't by nature stick around one particular topic of article, so there's nothing concrete that I can point to and say "Hey! I did that." I don't really think of myself as a wikignome, but I guess that best describes my work. That said, I'm proud of the way the WikiProject Orphanage page looks now, as I've taken the main responsibility for maintaining it over the last 6 months. I would be proud of how many articles I've de-orphaned, but I don't actually know, and I've never bothered to count, so it's probably not as high as it feels like, and there's so many orphaned articles I feel like I shouldn't brag about that.

I'm also proud of the non-admin closures I've performed over the last few months, with a record of exactly zero being taken to WP:Deletion review.

But I think my best contribution to Wikipedia has been assisting other users. My work as an account creator, requested moves clerk, and CAT:HELPME monitor all help the encyclopedia by helping my fellow editors, and that's what makes it worth it for me. I'm not a great researcher, but being able to make it so the actual researchers and writers can get on with their work is, for me, a worthwhile goal.

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: The conflict that caused me the greatest stress was when I was accused of trying to "ruin" the encyclopedia. I don't actually think that Tony and I are all that far apart on the correct amount of linking, and now that I go back and review that discussion without the immediacy it had then, I see that he wasn't being as WP:POINTy as it felt like then, but that really made me angry. I think any of us would get hot under the collar with that sort of accusation. I at first responded civilly, but later got a little huffy. I kind of wish I'd dropped if before that, but I did in fact drop it, so I don't feel like I was complete m:dick. Basically what I got out of that experience was that sometimes it's best to step back from the situation and go do something else to get perspective back. If I find myself getting really steamed about something, I know that's the time to go take my dog for a walk.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dlohcierekim Hello, Aervanath. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You may remove or not answer this question if you so choose.

4. When you look at speedy deletion candidates, do you search for sourcing and verifiability? Or do you consider the article entirely on its merits as it sits?

A: I consider the article as it relates directly to the speedy deletion criteria. For most items, this has nothing to do with sourcing or verifiability. For criteria A7 and A9, which have to do with notability, I will do a quick Google search for the topic to ensure my suspicions. I've been surprised a few times that something that seemed on surface to be completely non-notable turned out to have quite a few potential sources. If it does, then I will add a referenced sentence or two to the article to ensure nobody else comes along and re-tags it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional follow up questions from Dlohcierekim

5. In dealing with the other classes of CSD nominees, do you check for sources to see that a plausible sounding is in fact not vandalism or a hoax?

A: Looking back, I think my answer to the last question was probably too narrow. In general, when considering an article for deletion, by whatever route, if the article looks plausible then I will look for sources. Since hoaxes aren't eligible for CSD, I would PROD it or send it to AFD if I couldn't find any other sources. Vandalism is certainly eligible for CSD, but if an article looks plausible enough to prompt me to look for sources, it is probably not outright vandalism, and therefore not eligible for CSD.

6. In looking at unsourced articles, do you seek and add sourcing whenever possible?

A: Usually I'll go and try to find a few sources to back up the notability of the topic. If it's not a topic I'm interested in, then I won't spend the time to add inline <ref> tags, but I will put them into a references section for other editors to dig deeper into.

7. Why have you have removed speedy deletion tags with the edit summary " speedy declined," giving the impression that you are already an admin?

A: I use that edit summary because I thought that was the done thing, regardless of whether you're an admin or not. I generally try to use edit summaries that I've seen commonly used so that there's no ambiguity about my edits. "Speedy declined" is only two words, and it very concisely describes my edit, so it seemed very natural for me to use it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath, it is appropriate to give some sort of explanation why. I'll typically add at least something like "important company & seems not exclusively promotional & can be improved" or whatever fits the situation. As an admin, it will help to always explain what you're doing. The person who placed the speedy deserves at least some kind of indication. DGG (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Balloonman

8. A lot has been made from the fact that your article building experience is limited, yet you have over 2300 (40%) edits in the mainspace. Can you explain what it is that you do in the mainspace? Can you provide some examples of some of the challenges that you've encountered working there? And finally, of those 2300 edits, what percentage are manual as compared to tools?

A. Well, the last question is easiest. According to SQL's editcounter, I have 141 edits using various scripts. Not all of those are in mainspace, so probably less than 100 edits in mainspace are script-assisted out of that 2300. As to what I do, here's a typical sequence of events, as illustrated by a case study, 2008 Sydney snowfall:

1. I find the article and add some sources.[1]
2. I go back some time later and remove a section of original research that isn't supported by the sources.[2]
3. I perform a minor fix [3] or two [4].
4. I either find some other articles that should link to this article, or find that it already passes the orphan criteria, so I remove the orphan tag.

Some other typical edits: responding to an editsemiprotected request[5], making minor contributions to the Ted Stevens page [6], and responding to requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves [7]]. You'll also see me removing copyrighted material from articles.[8]. It's nice when you realize that there's actually something salvageable about the article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Aitias

9. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes. If the page is obviously vandalism, or a copyright violation, then that would be a reason to ignore the hangon tag.

10. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I would look through the applicant's contributions looking for some evidence of vandal-fighting. If it's there, and there aren't frivolous reverts, then I would grant it.

11. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. Very rarely. According to our criteria, the picture would have to be irreplaceable. For example, a picture of a person with a distinctive look for which they became known, but they no longer look like that. For example, if Marilyn Manson were 80 years old now, and living in an old-folks home, then a picture of him in full make-up at the height of his career would probably qualify, as long as there were no free equivalent.

12. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?

A. In the situation you describe, it seems clear that there is no real conflict of interest. Vandalism is vandalism, whether it's on my userpage or not. I would block the IP, and then report at WP:ANI that I'd done so. This way, if another admin feels the block was improper, it could be quickly reversed. It would have to be clear vandalism of my userpage, though. If I felt there was any way that somebody else might think it wasn't vandalism, then I would report it to AIV so someone uninvolved could act.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Aervanath's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Aervanath: Aervanath (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Moving great discussion relating to necessity of article building to main RFA talk page. Strongly encourage those who are interested or feel it is necessary to discuss there and to read discussion before !voting here. Copied also to this RFA's talk page... but I think the discussion should continue on the Main RfA talk page, as it has wider implications than one RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Every one of our very best admins, with no exceptions that I can see, are at least moderate content creators. Many are mainly process janitors - but almost none exclusively so. In fact, if you examine all the admins that the community gave support to in arbcom elections, all have serious content contributions. (Indeed all of our present arbs have done major content work). The problem is that people who do content a lot, seldom have the time to hang about here, and so it is the people who do who set the criteria, based on their own interests. I'd frankly like to ban anyone who has not some limited level of content experience from being an admin - the project would certainly benefit. Editor first, janitor second. Someone said "Some just like supporting more than creating" - absolutely fine by me. But not participating in content contributions at all, or almost at all, is not. Admins need clue, an ability to communicate in English, a grasp of NPOV, an ability to recognise what's good content from what's not. Now tell me why on earth would anyone possess all those skills, and hang about an encyclopedia for months on end, and never contribute content????? Now, maybe there could be the odd person who has those skills and doesn't ever use them to build content, but we are constantly seeing such candidates at RfA (and we are seeing them all support one another). I find this strange and worrying. Now again note, I am only looking for very minimal content relating to article building, the sort of thing most people with the skill base needed to be an admin would find themselves doing almost accidentally if they spent months on this project. How can you view thousands of articles and never once use want to your skillset to substantially build the content of at least one? I find the easiest explanation to be that the user does not, in fact, possess the skills needed to be a good admin. The skills of a content builder and the skills of a good admin are somewhat commensurate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at wt:rfa---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Absolutely! I was just wondering what was taking you so long to apply for adminship. All my encounters with you have been positive, and you really do put a lot of effort into some of the more neglected areas of the encyclopedia. I'm confident you'll do great with admin tools. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Excellent nom, Balloonman! Sam ^Blab 12:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, good contributor. -- Mentisock 12:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support clean block log, good contributions where they are needed, good nominator; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 13:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Aervanath and I had a recent exchange about two articles which needed to be merged. S/he had a solid grasp of how Wikipedia worked. While Aervanath asked me to do the merge, s/he had a pleasant tone while explaining that that s/he didn't have the background to do the merge (I had enough background). Royalbroil 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   To clarify, background on the subject, not background on how to merge the articles ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   You're right, I meant background on the subject/topic, so thanks for the clarification. Royalbroil 19:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

6. Herm, thought he was an admin already. Best of luck. —Ceran^{(sing / see)} 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support With a nod to the oppose regarding content creation, but on balance a net positive. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Adminship is not about article writing but about cleaning up. So there is no reason to deny the tools to a good contributor. SoWhy 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   From another point of view: its about cleaning up other people's article writing, though.--Banime (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Adminship is not cleaning up other people's article writing. Not at all. Tan | 39 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

10. Support - I can see that he/she is an avid Wikipedian and has been working hard. He/She deserves Adminship :) DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Support - I've never met this user before, but looking at his contribs and nomination - I'm very impressed. iMatthew 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Good contribs. America69 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Support - No reason not to trust this user. — neuro^(talk) 18:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Debating over stance, no longer support, not sure if I should neutral or oppose. — neuro^(talk) 02:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

13. Support. Though I wish you would have taken my suggestion to get some article building experience first. Good luck anyway! Malinaccier (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Weak Support - niche candidate. WP:WTHN. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)_{Switching to Neutral}

    Note: RockmanQ reinstated his support below.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

14. Support - Niche candidate is always cool. Article building doesn't have to be there if the user can point out clue levels. And the user seems trustworthy. Enough in my book. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Support as candidate has never been blocked (I would not always hold blocks against editors as if you are around long enough someone might accidentally block you or block you in bad faith, but never being blocked is a good sign perhaps) and also as any of the discussions in which we both participated the candidate seemed reasonable enough that I would probably trust judgment in closing discussions. --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - I don't care if the candidate has article work, but I do care for the maintenance this user does. macy 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Very good contributor. Good luck for the adminship. ApprenticeFan (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Admins do not need to have work creating articles. Creating articles and doing admin work are two completely different skill sets. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
19. Yes Article creation is one important way to understand how this place works enough to push the buttons, but it certainly isn't the only one. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per the Why Not? Doctrine - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. I am not convinced by the opposition. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
23. Support any editor can validly remove a speedy tag except the creator of the article--see WP:CSD, the italics at the top. I consider practice at this excellent preparation for adminship, because it lets us see the quality of the decision-making. Looking, I think he's been doing OK here. DGG (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
24. Support A civil, good faith contributor, but I still think I'm right about the "orphan" template though... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support - Trust this user + WP:WTHN --Flewis^(talk) 02:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Article writing isn't a very important skill for an admin, other topics should be looked at as more important, which he succeds in. Voyaging^(talk) 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
27. Weak support. Although I do like to see more article building from candidates, overall, I trust the candidate will properly handle the tools. DiverseMentality 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
28. Support The user is well experienced, and the only strong point brought up by the opposition is lack of article building. Even though Aervanath hasn't created many articles and doesn't have any GAs or FAs under his name, he obviously has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. He has also made very valuable contributions in maintaining Wikipedia, which I think has made up more than enough for thead lack of article building. I think this experience and a good understanding of policy is what's gong to help him as an admin, not creating articles. He should definitely get the mop. Chamal ^talk 03:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 03:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak support: WTHN ? But plz promise to work more on article building -- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've already started.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Perfect . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

31. Support per nom. Experienced user, no problems. Verbal chat 09:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - THEREISMORE so keep up the good behind-the-scenes work. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 10:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, the oppose camp's main argument that you have only a limited amount of edits flawed, in my opinion. Yes, it is important that those elected to be Administrators should have some experience, and be serious about there contributions, but I think that quality is more important here than quantity. Editors who contribute to a limited range of articles but contribute well and provide high-quality information, are worth far more to any encyclopedia than just someone who builds up his edit count with hundreds of minor grammar corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Marlow (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
34. Support, my natural inclination would be to oppose as the process of article building creates "a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work." (see nom) but the candidate seems to understand this principal(see answers to question 8) and contributes some references to articles created by others rather than just adding a template and leaving others to do the legwork Mjchesnel (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
35. support - Garion96 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
36. Support - My personal opinion is that a maintaining an encyclopedia and building an encyclopedia can be kept separate. If you can do both, excellent but if not, never mind. I have no objections to this user becoming an admin. Ollie Fury _Contribs 18:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
37. Support - Checks out for me...but a bit more article editing would help! Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Seems more than fit for the role.--Koji† 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - this candidate can be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
40. Support His work shows he will make good. Article work is not required a lot. — JoJo • Talk • 21:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Just because Aervanath doesn't write a lot of articles we should not get all carried away and start saying this editor isn't a contributor. Writing the content in articles is merely one way to contribute constructively to this project. Knowing how to correctly block someone doesn't require extensive article writing experience. Aervanath has shown that we can trust him/her with the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Em, please do study what the opposes are actually saying. I would not oppose on the grounds that he "doesn't write a lot of articles" - it is the fact he's written virtually nothing. The bar here, for me, is extremely low.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    I got your meaning the first time through. I contend that there are editors with zero content contributions who are making encyclopedia contributions of sufficient quality to warrant handing them the mop. Writing the articles is just one thing that needs to be done around here, it gets more weight because it just happens to be the most obvious thing to do. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

42. Weak support admins really should have some content creation experience and so it was with that in mind that I set out to find more reasons to oppose this editor yesterday, but my search came up bare (except for a few minor lapses in judgment that failed to show any worrisome pattern) so I guess I will go with a weak support as IMHO article lack of article writing is not a sturdy enough pillar to support a whole Oppose. Icewedge (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
43. Support per WP:WTHN. Content creation is not part of the role of admins, and so admins should not have to be content creators. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Why not.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
45. Support- I'm not concerned about the lack of article writing. As I said in another RfA, Wikipedia is a big place that requires, unfortunately, that people spend time on things other than writing articles. Aervanath, from what I can see, is involved in doing some of these things and does a good job. This user would be a gain to the 'pedia if given the tools, and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned. It would be a different matter if there was some sort of correlation between a user's lack of article contributions and their likelyhood of going rogue and abusing the tools, but there isn't. Reyk _YO! 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    The only way to ensure that admins don't fall prey to WP:Adminitis is by making sure that they engage in article writing. Many admins are busy socializing, telling others what to do, and they have no time for DYK, GA or FA. This has a negative impact on Wikipedia. And the only way to ensure that an editor understands the fundamental policies of Wikipedia (such as WP:N) is by analyzing their article work. Thus it is important for editors to write articles before they become admins. AdjustShift (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    The only way to ensure that admins don't fall prey to WP:Adminitis is by making sure that they engage in article writing. Er no, sorry,. Demanding people work with articles only ensures that those who are already predisposed to work with articles will do so. A person who is happiest working with templates will continue to work with templates. A person who is happiest working with lists will continue with lists. A person happiest helping at the reference desk, will continue working there. A person happiest working in another esoteric area of the project will continue working in those areas. Wikipedia is a large enough of a project that there are multiple areas where people can (and should) be active. Demanding adherence to one area does not mean that they will ever touch that area again. I did some new page patrolling before running for admin because "it was expected" at the time. I have NEVER touched new page patrolling since then. Different people get experience in different areas and contribute to the project differently. There is no way to ensure that somebody doesn't succumb to adminitis. Let me repeat that, there is NO WAY. The best we can do is find people who have found THEIR niche. Again, their niche not yours, not mine, but where they are happiest contributing to the project. I was also taught that the strength of an organization was built on diversity and differences, not clones and "yes men." I like non-traditional candidates because I think they bring something new to the project. If all we ever did was promote clones, then the project suffers.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Balloonman, I've no problem with a person who works on templates, a person who works on lists, and a person who helps at the reference desk, I'm worried about admins who are busy socializing, and do little article work. Who are the clones and "yes men"? If you think that people who contribute DYKs, GAs, FLs, and FAs are clones and "yes men", then your are incorrect. Balloonman, you have opposed RFA of some editors who have done more article work than Aervanath, and I find it strange that you going out of your way to advocate this candidate. And if you really don't want this project to suffer, please stop your admin coaching. Please remember what Friday said. "Those trying to teach people how to pass RFA, rather than teaching people what the project is about, should seriously reconsider whether their actions are helpful or harmful to the encyclopedia."[9] Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    After analyzing many RFAs and performance of admins who have received admin coaching, I think admin coaching can be useful. Yes, it is important to teach people what the project is about, but admin coaching can help people to learn new things about Wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    This RFA has actually vindicated Balloonman's admin-coaching. Balloonman, by nominating Aervanath, is implicitly doing the opposite of "teaching people how to pass RFA". Rather than encouraging his coachee to get involved in areas of the project that do not interest him; jumping through the arbitrary hoops imposed by people like you just to pass an RFA, Balloonman has asked the community to consider Aervanath based on his (A's) true interests and colors. Some admin coaching programs are/have been about passing RFA, but if this RFA is in any way indicative of the norm for Balloonman, it should be fairly obvious that he is not in the "Passing RFA 101" group. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Ok, I just want to say that if you want to become an admin, contribute to articles. Aervanath is in a right path. One good thing about Aervanath is he didn't try to get the "right numbers" before applying for adminship. If he does more article work, I'll wholeheartedly support his next RFA. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    We met through a coaching request. I reviewed him and told him that I him that if he went through coaching that it would be gaming the system because, IMHO, he has all of the tools that coaching could provide (and that his only potential obstacle might be article building, but that I thought his other contributions made up for that weakness.) If you look at my coaching, you will see that it is anything but how to pass an RfA. My number 1 concern is to get the person involved in 2-3 areas of their choice in the project and then it is largely an intense ongoing editor review---with questions thrown in as a tertiary aspect. Heck, one of the reasons I've opposed RfA's in the past is because the coaching was a "how to guide." Take a look at my talk page right now where I have another coach asking for advice on how to avoid that, because *I* have opposed 2 or 3 of his coachees in the past because his coaching was "how to pass an RfA." If my goal was to coach to pass an RfA, I would have strung Aervanath along for a few weeks/months, but didn't think that was necessary. He has the trust of the community. His edits show a knowledge of policies and procedures. He has shown calm under fire. He's active in several "adminly areas." He has everything an admin needs, he just is light in an area that some would like to see. But he has everything an admin needs.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    BTW, I never said that people who worked on GA/FA/DYK etc are "yes men." What I said is that if we are only going to pass only people who fill one particular niche, then we create an environment that will lead to mere "yes men" and that does the project a disservice. I believe in diversity, not one size fits all. Distinct difference my friend. Which is also one of the differences with my coaching, I go to where the candidate is, not bring the candidate where I want them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Some of the things I said above were to analyze your thought process. Your reply tells me that you are a level-headed person. I've analyzed many RFAs and I found that many editors try to get the "right numbers" before they apply for adminship. I like the fact that Aervanath didn't try to get that before applying for adminship. My concern is that he doesn't have sufficient article work. Trustworthy editors like Ironholds and Ecoleetage, who have started and developed 100s of articles, couldn't pass their RFA. If Ironholds or Ecoleetage become an admin, I don't think either of them will abuse the tools. In many failed RFAs of editors with substantial article work, people who oppose tend to focus on too much on one or two mistakes made by the candidate. This is due to anchoring, a cognitive bias. People should also remember that a candidate with 10,000 edits will make more mistakes than a candidate with 5,000 edits. Failed RFAs of editors like Ironholds and Ecoleetage deters me to support RFAs of candidates with less article work. AdjustShift (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    So basically, what you are saying is that because two editors whom others found legitimate fault in their edit histories failed, you will oppose a candidate whom nobody has been able to give a serious reason to oppose except for not having a thousand edits to a single article? Neither Eco nor Ironholds failed due to lack of article work, but rather because of lack of judgment (and in Eco's case civility during his RfA.) I think you are using an unfair standard, especially when said standard leaves no room to evaluate individual candidates where they currently stand or for what THEY bring to the project?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    No, I'm not talking about just two candidates. I can give you many other examples. See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena. Many editors with 10,000 edits and no history of incivility have unsuccessful RFAs. BTW, I've talked with Eco many times, and he is civil. Failed RFAs of editors with serious article work deters me to support RFAs of candidates with less article work. I'm not using an unfair standard; if you want to become an admin, please contribute to some articles. I'll wholeheartedly support RFA of a candidate who has 5/6 DYKs or 2 GAs. I'm not asking for a featured article, I'm just asking for some article work. AdjustShift (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've decided to switch my !vote to neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

46. Support I acknowledge the oppose !votes, most of which are perfectly reasonable and logical reasons to oppose an RfA candidate. But I believe this user's access to the buttons will be of benefit to the project with little or no possibility of misuse. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Although I agree with the reasoning of the opposes, and although I've disagreed with Aervanath on several style issues, Aervanath's mainspace edits, his instincts, and his temperament tell me he's not going to be a bad admin. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - WTHN, "it's not a big deal" and THEREISMORE all describe what I think. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Scott Mcdonald, Iridescent, et al, raise some valid points, but also make some leaps of logic. The content/no content admin debate will go round and round similar to the Great Age Debate. Sigh. This Editor is not a vandal, or "uninterested in content", will not break Wikipedia, has shown over time that he is here for the benefit of Wikipedia and its editors. There is a huge assumption that someone (someone with 2300+ content edits no less) who works in a niche/gnomish area couldn't possibly understand how to correctly push a new button (block,protect,delete) on the top of the browser window. That's a huge assumption, and while possibly correct, it's not correlative and therefore not a qualified "standalone" reason to oppose a dedicated editor, IMHO. As an example (actually, I could probably name dozens of examples) someone with hundreds of articles "under their belt" could be equally, or even more, inept at pushing a new button (block/protect/delete) on top of their browser window because they are overinvested in content and are unwelcoming to new users that might be trying to improve "their" articles. Seen it happen. However, I would also be mistaken to assume that "primarily content builders" will therefore, as a group, be bad admins (and I'd get flamed for it no less). Not correlative. Adminship is a character issue - not a content issue, and to claim that someone "doesn't belong" or "no content therefore no admin" is a logical fallacy, an overgeneralization, and in a very convenient way, a civil attack on someone's intelligence and character. If there are diffs that show Aervanath being a dick, or overreacting, or underreacting, or being uncommunicative, then perhaps more time/experience would be helpful prior to adminship. In my contribution check, I see no evidence of those "qualities", therefore I am compelled to support. Keeper ǀ 76 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Actually the assumption that people who don't build content make (in general) poorer admins is borne of bitter experience - and the fact that those who build content have learned to have less trust in pure-process and policy admins. Sure, this user may turn out to be an excellent admin, or he may blow up the wiki, and without a crystal ball who knows? But then, this whole process is about trying to assess future competence, based on informed guesses. Admins need several things 1) commitment to basics of the encyclopedia 2) grasp and practice of NPOV 3) ability to interact properly with writers 4) ability to handle disputes 5) ability to communicate in good English with other users. The best way to judge that skill set is through looking at a user's article building work - why? Because any user who has those necessary skills will most certainly be able to build article content at least to a small degree; as the admin and writer skillsets are at least somewhat commensurate. Anyone who can be a good admin, could be a reasonable content editor. So prove it. If this applicant has the skills for adminship (which is what the supporters contend) then doing a little content work should be no problem at all. And frankly, I have no understanding or empathy with anyone who says they have this skillset, spends months on an encyclopedia project, and does almost nothing to build its content. I just don't understand it. So, all we ask is that he goes and uses his skills in one of the many ways that build content, and then return. That's a very low hurdle indeed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    If he did that, you would oppose him for gaming the system. I don't understand people like you Scott. I was going to say something else here, but I know I would regret it, so I won't. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Actual article writing is only ONE way to demonstrate the skills that you ask for. If this user didn't have solid communication skills, as is born out on his talk page (where people seek out his help) and other areas where he participates, then I too would be in the oppose camp. The areas that you highlight are routinely the reasons why I oppose (and I think people will agree, that I am one of the tougher critics out there.) BUT this candidate has shown 1) a commitment to the basics of the encylopedia, 2) grasp and practice of NPOV 3) ability to interact properly with writers 4) ability to handle disputes 5) ability to communicate in good English with other users. The proof of that is in his edits and contributions. If the oppose camp were to actually look at the editor, rather than judge him based upon a preconceived notion, I think they'd see that. The only thing this user doesn't have, is a history of working on a specific article, but that is not what defines a good admin. Again, if he were a vandal fighter, which is where the problems you described usually arise, then I'd agree completely. But Aervanath, is committed to improving the encyclopedia, he just chooses to do so in a different manner than you. That does not make his commitment, dedication, or motivation any less than yours.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    (edit conflict re to scott macdonald)As I said, you make valid points. Que sera, we all have our hangups and our criteria for adminship, and I respect that. My problem, and not particularly with you per se, is that the "very low hurdle" you ask for is actually a hoop, one that will garner more opposition to an adminship bid for "gaming the system" when he/she jumps through it. Aervanath seems to have the skillset to push tabs correctly, as evidenced by his contributions. I have the skillset In Real Life to write FAs, by the way. I get paid a lot of money to write things in real life. They (FAs) are ridiculously easy to write, the difficulty is getting them through the wiki-bureaucracy. Anyone with half a brain, some caffeine, and a couple of years of high school level writing experience can research a topic (seriously technical or scientific topics notwithstanding), write grammatically correct sentences, and post them to a wiki. The difficulty, again, is MOS-warriors, the in-politicking, etc etc. Show me an editor that can navigate the bowels effectively, civilly and competently, I'll show you a qualified admin candidate. The mistaken assumption is that the only "bowels" to navigate are those that are for content improvement. Yes, if someone can navigate the improvement guidelines, they have shown evidence that they may make a good admin. I agree with you here. Again though, to assume that's the ONLY way to show competence, or an "admin skillset", is a broad assumption. I've spent months on the encyclopedia. I dare say, no ego intended, that I'm welcome here and have done well as an "editor" for the last 15 months and admin for the last 10. I choose not to write FAs, but that's really ok, because there are several very very good editors here (I'll assume yourself included although I'm not sure we've interacted before) that choose to go through the FA process and add content. The fact that you "just don't understand it" (why someone would choose to do something other than add content) is really a way of very civilly questioning someone's motives. An assumption of bad faith disguised, for lack of better text, as dumbfoundedness. Again, my intent is not to change your mind, simply to challenge the narrow view of valid admin-qualifying criteria contained in it. Regards, Keeper ǀ 76 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    (to Keeper) My argument in cases like this isn't that "no content" admins would make bad admins or don't understand what's going on; it's that they have a very high chance of making unempathetic admins. I've no concerns about A's ability to push the right buttons, but am concerned over what happens when someone doesn't agree they're the right buttons. I'm not asking for "brilliant refreshing prose" – as I believe I may have mentioned once or twice, I have a grand total of zero DYKs and zero FAs. However (as per the boilerplate sentence I generally paste into this kind of oppose), as you're aware one of the most important admin tasks is explaining to irate good-faith users why their edit's been reverted/article's been deleted and I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the "low content" admins are generally more by-the-book and "the policy says no",and less willing to put in the time it takes to do the "here's what was wrong with your article; here's what you need to do to improve it) side of things. Yes, I do realize very well that there is currently a "how dare you delete my article" thread on my talkpage in which I show zero sympathy. Some articles aren't worth saving. It's not foolproof – although, despite my "serial opposer" reputation here, of all the 70+ RFA's I've ever opposed only 3 went on to pass, so I'm not a ranting voice in the wilderness – but I do believe that in a content-driven project, those in perceived positions of authority need to demonstrate some feeling for said content. – iridescent 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    I'm starting to remember why I logged out and started editing as an IP :-). I'll simply state again that I think Scott M (and you, Iridescent) make valid points. I don't intend or expect to change your mind(s) or vote(s), I simply, and respectfully, disagree with the conclusion you (plural) derive from "content building=good admin", or as you say it, "content building=empathetic admin". Yes, that is true. Sometimes. Not always. I think you and I could easily come up with a list of dozens of "content building admins" that are far shy of the "empathetic" mark when it comes to admin functions. I don't even think it would take very long to build such a list. But that doesn't mean I will start opposing "content builders" that are seeking adminship. There is no correlation, no "cause-effect", for either side of this mini-meta-debate. Empathy, like competence, civility, fill in the blank, is a character trait, and can manifest itself in many ways. I support content builders, both as an admin and with my admin buttons, and in my RFA "voting history", because content builders are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia. I won't blanket oppose them simply because I know several content/admins that are unempathetic dicks, that would be assumptive. Aervanath's contribs indicate to me (save apparently one borderline UAA filing), that he has the clue needed to admin effectively. Keeper ǀ 76 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

50. Support Per Keeper. Aervanath is not going to break anything. Also, I find it very interesting that at least four people who opposed this RFA for "too few" article contributions also supported my RFA, even though I have, for all practical purposes, zero article contributions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
51. Support — RfA is about trust, as in, do we trust this candidate with the tools? Do we trust his judgment enough to give him a few extra buttons? I always appreciate an article writer, especially those with a string of FAs and GAs. Of course I appreciate administrators who spend their time writing articles. After all, we're an encyclopedia. But going back to the meaning of RfA, I trust this candidate with the tools, even though he hasn't written a series of FAs and GAs. I seldom support candidates who use Huggle as a primary form of contributing, and who make thousands of edits a day doing such. While vandal fighting is indeed important, those are the editors that need to explore the mainspace and edit/create/improve more articles. I can hardly say the same for an editor who has 2316 edits to the mainspace. Just as much as Wikipedia needs more quality articles, Wikipedia needs editors who help maintain the project. I really hope that Aervanath becomes at least slightly more active with article writing, but I trust him with the tools. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
52. Weak support. The perceived "lack of article building" does not concern me in the least. Some people are just not content builders, and prefer to lend their talents in the form of a copy editor rather than a content contributor. Does this make them any less trustworthy, does it demonstrate a lack of competence or an inadequate amount of clue regarding policy? Nope. Adminship is not a content-building niche and candidates should not be judged for their (lack of) content building. That said, I do have some minor concerns over some UAA reports brought up below, but it's not distressing enough to make me withhold support. Cheers, Shereth 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Keeper puts it well, but also this candidate seems trustworthy to me, is obviously experienced enough. and has a clean block log. I take the focus on orphans as a positive. Opposes don't greatly trouble me, yes a probably promotional name needs this and some AGF unless and until they edit in breach of COI. So if UAA was one of the areas that the candidate was planning to work in then I would be a little concerned, but as he isn't I'm not going to oppose over that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Administrators don't deal in solely article work, so I don't see why that appears to be the deciding factor. As long as he understands all admin-related policies then I don't see a reason to oppose. We're voting on how fit he is to be an administrator, not how well he could be a novelist. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - WP:WTHN, niche candidate. _{Why don't you come out and play?} RockManQ ^(talk) 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Breaching my own norm of almost never !voting on RFA. Concerns mirroring Keeper's about assumptions, and about good adminship candidates who may be pushed to engage in a part of Wikipedia they understand but are not hugely drawn to. Ideally a rounded set of experience would be good for all, but not all feel inclined to all major roles on-wiki and forcing round pegs into square holes tends to have a discouraging effect. (Will we see multiple opposes to FA writers based upon "Only edits content, has never dealt with conduct disputes, cannot be trusted with adminship or tools", asking them to meet a relatively low requirement of 3 months dispute resolution, block reviews, template fixing, or anti-vandalism patrolling before returning to RFA?) As an author of many articles, I'm looking at this candidate and just not seeing anything that says he/she would not understand content work well, even if not him/herself massively involved in it. "Being a proven content writer" in itself isn't an RFA critierion I require. Being trustworthy in editorial judgement, calm, insightful, clued-in, and with excellent attitudes is. If those were challenged, I'd not feel inclined to say a word. But despite around 80 views to date, there isn't compelling evidence of this, and there is at the least fairly solid and uncontested evidence of the opposite, including mainspace work in the form of consistent "wikignoming". Even so this is at least in part from "gut instinct". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
57. Candidate seems relatively humble, the sole most important attribute in an administrator. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. I reviewed this RfA several times in the past few days. I was initially inclined to oppose but I've come around to the position that Aervanath would probably be a pretty good admin. — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
59. Lots of mainspace edits that are directly improving the encyclopedia. Talk page shows lots of civil, helpful interaction. I cannot imagine how this editor would not be a great help if given the admin bit. Many of the opposes below provide solid evidence that this editor is not the 100% perfect quintessential candidate, creating FA’s and GA’s and DYK’s in their spare time. But this is Wikipedia, not Utopiapedia, and I can’t understand why we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
60. Strong Support Wikipedia is a huge project, we have many different areas where people can help out. Some of these areas are overlooked because they are esoteric in nature and people get caught up in their own little niche that they fail to see the value of others areas. I firmly believe that the project benefits by having admins with diverse backgrounds and diverse experiences, not mere clones of one another. We need experts in more areas than just the MOS. Come on, the two keys to being an admin should be 1) Do I trust the user? 2) Will promoting him harm the project? If you can answer both of those positively, then you should reconsider your oppose. It amazes me how many people are saying (here, on his talk page, and WT:RFA) , "Yeah, I trust this user, I don't think he's going to hurt the project, he's an asset to the project, but because he doesn't fit my model of what an admin should be I'm going to give an auto oppose." Those who are providing auto-opposes without looking at the candidate are doing the candidate and the project a disservice.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - I encountered this user on the last discussion to move New York. And even though the result went against what we wanted (that even though IMO "New York" more commonly refers to the city worldwide, New York is currently the state), Aervanath had the sense and initiative to indicate that the discussion really wasn't going anywhere. This is the kind of judgment I want in an administrator. --Jh12 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
62. Support The work here is great, and it really doesn't bother me that there aren't "vast amounts of content creation." Admins user their tools to make Wikipedia better, and every one of them doesn't need to do everything. So, my question is, will Aervanath make Wikipedia better with the tools? Absolutely. - FlyingToaster 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
63. Support The UAA concern is not much of a concern, considering how often someone shows up at one of the username pages to find they have a faulty case, and learn not to do that; this editor is no worse than so many others have been, and is now suitably chagrined. As for the "you can't possibly be trusted with those other things unless you have done this one most important thing", I disagree. Demeanor and regard for others must be the guidestars when evaluating whether someone can be a responsible admin. Much of below begins to sound like guild masters arguing about apprenticeship tenures. How can we promote this editor until they have demonstrated a sufficient masterpiece? Double praise to editor-admins, yes, but not no praise to the "insufficiently productive". Shenme (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Trust this editor to use the tools wisely. Like what I see from a review of contributions. Darkspots (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
65. Support, the opposes are unconvincing, and I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC).
66. Support. I looked at the opposition here, and then turned to the contribution list expecting to see an abundance of edits in Wikipedia space, with the only mainspace edits consisting of tagging things for deletion. (That at least, is the pattern of a candidate I would oppose for lack of work with the encyclopedia itself, since an editor like that is unlikely to have empathy with content writers, and may wind up being more of a bureaucratic policeman than a service-minded steward.) However, looking at the contribution list, I am pleased to see a different picture. Even though his record is not strong in the sense of contributing large chunks of prose, he has done several small improvements over a variety of articles, and been willing to help anons who want to make a change to semi-protected articles. Working with articles is more than just writing articles from scratch, the business of improving articles is also an important aspect of article building, and the candidate is at least not empty in that regard. Although lots of minor improvements over several articles does not extract the glory as writing a new article does, it does provide the experience required in mainspace. Since the general judgment of the candidate has also been sound, my vote is to support adminship, since my admin criterion is met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
67. Support abf /talk to me/ 12:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
68. Strong support I don't see anything wrong or lacking with Aervanath's contributions - quite the opposite. I like to see how admin candidates behaved when they first arrived. So, I checked the first month or two of contributions. I found Aervanath removing spam [10] thanking other editors for their contributions [11] helping out other editors [12] and editing mangled sentences and grammar [13], [14], [15]. This seems to be the editing pattern of the ideal Wikipedian - wikiing away editing, protecting and improving articles in a courteous, helpful manner - what more could the project want in an Admin? Paxse (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - admin tools require trust, not prolific editing. In a hard-bound copy of an encyclopedia, the content writers are definitely the most visibly important people in its construction. But there is more to it than that - there's copy-editing, proof-reading, ensuring that the writers have a comfortable environment to work in (e.g. aren't harrassed), resolving disputes that may arise between colleagues, etc. etc. In the real world, these tasks are not handled by writers - they are handled by specialists. Disputes between workers are handled by HR or people detached from the process, copy-editing/proofreading are often completely separate disciplines, etc. As Wikipedia grows, editors and administrators will have to specialise in order to be able to meet the demands placed upon them by the sheer scale of what we are accomplishing, and it is my own opinion that this will ultimately be to our benefit, not our detriment. I have no reason not to trust this editor - support Fritzpoll (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
70. Support; I've waited quite a bit before deciding if I was to remain neutral or chime in — but given that the opposition has not managed to raise objections more substantive that quantity of contents, that I trust that this editor will not misuse the tools, and that he has demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively, there is no reason to not give him the bit. — Coren ^(talk) 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
71. HiDrNick! 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
72. Support, support, support! - That's a support per nom. Aside, I've always found the focus on a candidate's article building and FA/GA achievements unfair. Of course Wikipedia would be nowhere without article builders, but it couldn't survive without vandal fighters, image uploaders, techies, and niche contributors. They are just as important for the project. The writer who looks down on the paper supplier makes a big mistake.    SIS  22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
73. Support agree with Keeper76, JoJo, etal.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
74. Support trustworthy with the tools; if he ends up in situations where greater experience in article-building is required to lend perspective, then I'm confident that he will (a) not rush in (b) seek wider input (c) not do anything stupid (d) learn from experience. Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
75. Very Strong Support As a member of WikiProject Orphanage, as soon as I saw this RfA, I was immidiatly very supportive. Yes, he has a lower edit summary usage and edit count than I usually like, but I trust Aervanath with the mop. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
76. Support. Writing is a core component of the project, for sure. However, it is not the only aspect that needs the admin bit, and as with any organization there is a need for a wide range of talents. In my dealings with Aervanath, I've seen him remain calm under pressure in some rather heated situations, something that is of great importance when dealing with the day-to-day reality of adminship. As well, and to echo others here, I've every confidence that he will easily adapt to new situations and aspects of the job. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
77. I'm going to have to support this candidate; I am unconvinced by the opposers. They say that Aervanath should not be an admin because he lacks article work. Call me crazy, but the volume of content contributions doesn't matter to me so much. If someone's been around enough and active enough that that's the most common oppose rationale, and even those opposers say that the candidate is a good trustworthy contributor, well, that person should probably be an admin. Net positive, I think. WODUP 07:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - I was going to sit this one out; the truth is I don't always have something to say about every candidate. However, it would be inappropriate to avoid supporting this candidate, whom nearly all acknowledge is a net positive to the project. I'd like the 'crats and others who have yet to express an opinion to pay careful attention to the editors supporting this candidate; I'm going to name some names here: Pedro, Bibliomaniac15, Tanthalas39, Dank55, Keeper76, J.delanoy, barneca, Coren. I'm not saying "per xxx" but rather pointing out in one place, concisely, the caliber of editors who have cogently supported Aervanath. These are people who are all well-respected and well-known members of the community. Regarding content editing, anyone who wishes to review Aervanath's grasp of the editing process (including BLP concerns) can examine these edits to Ted Stevens, spread over a number of days, to clearly see that Aervanath knows what's going on around here.  Frank  |  talk  13:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    What, does this mean that you have to hide the silverware when the Oppose bunch come over to visit? C'mon, the people on the other side of the aisle are also "well-respected and well-known members of the community." Let's keep the focus on the candidate, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    The focus is on the candidate, I'm merely sharpening that focus, summarizing, and adding to the support. My comments are about positive recognition; I'm not maligning anyone. This is a good candidate who is already helping the project and deserves the mop as a means of improving it more.  Frank  |  talk  15:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the egoboo :) Ecoleetage, I don't think Frank meant it that way, or at least I read "who have cogently supported" to mean that he's saying: look at what these fine people are saying. Sometimes when the vote is near 70%, it might mean people aren't understanding each other, but in Aervanath's case, I think what's going on is that 30% are making some reasonable assumptions based on the lack of article experience; other people (like me) are pointing out that our experience with the candidate satisfies these concerns in our heads, even though his editing experience is atypical. I think this is one of those 70-30 RFA's where the process is working just fine. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

79. Support. While article writing is nice to have, I don't see it as a requirement for adminship, and everything else checks out. Wizardman 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
80. You don't have to be an article writer to be an admin. Dlohcierekim 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. I am useless at writing articles from scratch, or adding new content. However, I donate my time to perform many maintenance tasks that need to be done here, which don't require those skills. I don't feel that this user is being given a fair chance, because as far as I can tell, article writing is not required. I feel people should be appreciative of the time that people donate, rather than criticising. After all, you wouldn't get criticised for offering to donate time in a charity shop, as opposed to donating clothes or something similar, so why should this be different? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
82. Support most articles Have been written all ready It's just ridiculous to oppose because of this +Wp:WTHN Alexnia (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
83. Support, as I see no reason to be concerned that Aervanath might abuse the tools. I would, however, ask Aervanath to seriously consider getting more involved in content creation (preferably get at least one article to GA status), before engaging in deletion activities. That said, I don't see any reason to delay adminship just because of that one concern. --Elonka 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
84. Support. I trust Aervanath to not abuse the tools, and to be a net gain for the project. That's really the criteria for the bit, in my opinion. Arakunem^Talk 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
85. Support. From what I have seen, a capable advisor and mediator, particularly in difficult policy areas and touchy content disputes; good at encapsulating issues, calming troubled waters, and developing consensus. Just the kind of admin we need more of. Jheald (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Support you dont need the tools for writing articles, but e.g. for vandalfighting. abf /talk to me/ 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Indented duplicate !vote. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

86. People contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways, and each way is equally helpful and valuable to Wikipedia. There is no evidence that Aervaneth will abuse the tools. Acalamari 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
87. Support - Lack of article building is a tiny bit of a putoff, but it is outwighed by other great contributions. Xclamation point 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
88. Support – Editors contribute in various ways, and this editor's contributions provide evidence of a civil, thoughtful, communicative user who is unlikely to misuse the tools if given adminship. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
89. Support - (1) No trust issues regarding your prospective use of the tools, therefore, per my primary criterion, I would be a hypocrite not to support you. (2) The answer to Q12 is of minor concern. Not every IP vandal you block needs to be brought to WP:ANI just because the IP happened to vandalize your user page as their last act of vandalism after a final warning and right before you blocked them. Yes, there could be a concern about a conflict of interests in that block. It's a block I would refrain from making, but I won't oppose you because you would make it. It's also not a block I would grant an {{unblock}} request over if I were an admin. That said, it is not a block worth cluttering up WP:ANI over. Transparency is good. That kind of transparency is ridiculous. The IP has the power to contest the block. If you're concerned about transparency, make sure the IP knows they can call attention to the conflict of interests and request an unblock on the IP's talk page. The IP can bring another admin in to make the call. Don't clutter up Incidents with crap like that. Please. (3) Lack of content work does not concern me. I feel that an admin should have WP:CLUE and that's a big part of what my primary trust criterion is about. How that clue is demonstrated is up to the potential admin. As the tools have little to do with article writing, and they serve article writing (directly) very little, and they are aided by article writing very little, article writing is unnecessary in a good admin. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and none of us would be here without the articles. Yes, in the end, everything we do ultimately does and must serve the articles. That said, this world works on a concept of specialization. People do what they are good at. Not everyone is a content contributor. As such, content contribution should only be a criterion for adminship if it is relevant directly to one's ability to be a good admin. Per my primary criteria above, trust, it is not. Therefore, the opposes based on lack of content contribution do not sway me. Lastly, apologies for the longest support !vote I've ever cast into a suspiciously ballot-box-shaped !vote receptacle. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 07:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
90. SupportThere are many points in the oppose section that make me think. The work on AFD and comments on UAA. Lack of article work is still a big reason that is used. The tools and buttons that adminship bring have little to do with article writing. The main thing you need is good judgment and understanding, both of these I feel Aervanath has. Many of my other feelings and messages are included in AubreyEllenShomo's support above. such as "Don't clutter up Incidents with crap like that." referring to the question on vandalism on your page. I trust this user, he has also been good to me, he has come up with good suggestion nd helped me out when I have needed it in the past. Good Luck. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
91. Support Just passing by, but in my humble opinion, article creation is the last benchmark I'd hold an admin to. The mop is meant for cleaning... Digital^NinjaWTF 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
92. Weak support I am concerned by the UAA report by iridescent, as that could be fully coincidential, but you seem to have a good (and quite niche) reason to be an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
93. Support I considered carefully the points made by the opposing discussion -- and I am in agreement with them. When it comes to the duties of an administrator, understanding how to build quality content is paramount. Not so much for the added content, but for understanding the process. Every policy or guideline which an administrator is called upon to enforce here was developed in support of the article-building process. And an admistrator needs to understand this. I think the opposition is correct in stressing this point to Aervanath. However, not every good administrator will have the skills to add quality content, just as not every quality writer has the skills to administrate. The question for me was: Does Aervanath have this understanding? After reviewing his contributions to discussions and talk pages, I think he shows the ability to understand the process and the willingness to work with the content editors. He certainly will have gotten the point during this Rfa. My gut instinct is that over the next few months he will add content, he will proceed slowly with the tools (if received), and he will continue with the moderation and thoughtfulness he has displayed in the past. I support giving him the tools now. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
94. Support I'm sympathetic to content-building concerns, as I think that article experience is very valuable in helping to deal with article creators, but I don't believe it is necessarily the only route. Basically, good sense, an understanding of policies/guidelines and empathy can get you to the same place. I see all three. I also see need for tools (and we can always use more admins on copyright work.) I believe that this contributor is generally clued in, good intentioned and motivated...pretty much exactly the qualities we need for the job. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lack of article work. Sorry, I don't demand a FA, GA or even a DYK, but I do think admins need to have some idea about the frustrations of content creation. If you can't point to a few articles that you've made some significant contributions to, then I can't support. Respectfully suggest that you get a little (I don't ask for much) content experience and then return. Doing layout on some wikiproject just isn't comparable. Being mainly a process admin is fine, being exclusively one is not so. Do9n't be discouraged, please try content editing and then come back. You might even like it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Reluctantly, you have good contributions in your area but I also like to see a decent amount of article writing from admins. Usually Balloonman does as well so I took an extra hard look at your contributions when he nominated you but I still can't really see any of the amount of work that I like to see with admins in articles. I'm sure in a few months I'd support (if this one doesn't make it), good luck. --Banime (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose per surprisingly too poor content building of the candidate. You only created "6 short stubs" for two years (on and off though) that seriously require your attention first before inviting people to your party here. An admin willing to dedicate to niche areas for keeping Wikipedia clean and healthy? Well, you're determined to "clean" articles to which many editors may devote their time and energy for some amount of time. The user page of the candidate introduces his/her "earlier contributions" (June 2008 -.-;;) to creation of two articles; Modesto Varischetti, David Woolf Marks. If I were the candidate, I would not even mention the stubs on his/her page with just two lines and "huge warning template(s)" hung at the top of the pages. At at least s/he should've expanded them yesterday if s/he thought of the RfA seriously. Why does content building so matter to admin wannabees? Because as we look trough your created/expanded/edited articles, we can see whether you understand core content policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR along with WP:NOTABLILITY, WP:CITE, WP:DUE, and others. I could not be convinced that you do so per your articles. I'm not also satisfied with your AFD activities, especially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur M. Dula You said you just nominated for deletion on behalf of an IP user instead of letting it be PRODed. Before bring it up to AfD space, you should've checked that the IP user's idea of "lack of notability" was correct. I'm also not sure why you thought of Unspeakable Vault (of Doom) failing to notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)). I can't support you at this time because I don't know what is your strength to have the admin tools. Vandal fighting and de-orphanage? Well huggle is a good tool made for the purpose and for the latter, you don't need the admin tools.--Caspian blue 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry. A lack of both article-writing and admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Hey there Epbr, I was able to over look the article building explicitly because I did see admin related experience. He has a fair amount of experience dealing with policy discussions and debates. He is also sought out for his advice and intercession. To me, this is the most important factor a potential admin can possess. Do people trust him to help out? Do they seek him out? If they do, then they are IMHO an admin and act in an adminly manner.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose — Sorry, I think an administrator needs to have editing work under his/her belt before applying for adminship. If you gain just a little experience (I'm not asking for GAs, FAs or DYKs, just experience) then I'll be willing to support this otherwise exceptional candidate in future. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose - Lack of article work. AdjustShift (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Switched to neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

6. A few clearly erroneous AFDs could be outweighed by enough positive contribution of content, but in this case they aren't. — CharlotteWebb 22:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose, switched from Neutral Reasons provided below in Neutral section, strengthened by the cogent arguments made by the Oppose camp. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Follow up I am also seriously bothered by the UAA-related diff that Iridescent cited (see a few slots below this) -- I was going to add that here. That diff confirms my belief that the candidate's RfA is extremely premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose. The recommendation offered by the nominator (and the candidate's cheerful acceptance of it as "glowing") troubles me. A proven track record of discussing policy and procedures, without actually writing the encyclopedia, means clue? No, no, and no. Not in my book. Please get down and dirty in the encyclopedia first, Aervanath, and then I will take another look at your candidacy. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
9. Oppose. This is an encyclopedia where we above all are supposed to be writing articles. If you show a dedication to adding content and get the important experience in WP policy that it entails, I may vote for you in the future.--Berig (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Sorry, absolutely nothing personal, but I believe fundamental questions of credibility are being touched here. Admins should have a record of article creation as a matter of principle. I don't want editors to suffer possibly unpleasant consequences of admin actions by someone who has not enough experience as an author. As the nominator mentioned, the candidate already is an admin in a way and does a commendable job. While the extra buttons might assist in that kind of work, I do not see a real need for them. Adminship is not a decoration. Kosebamse (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per lack of article work. --Folantin (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. Scott MacDonald and Bishonen sum my view up perfectly. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. – iridescent 16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Switching to strong oppose per this. If you had admin powers, this user would now be blocked for "being called Fullyang which is also the name of a website". (Number of edits to anything remotely related to said site – or anything else for that matter – zero.) – iridescent 17:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose Wikipedia in an encyclopedia. We're all here to build it. If you can't, (even to some small degree, ie creating a non-stub or non-maintenance-tag-page or even expanding a stub to a respectable start class article) well you don't belong. Moral support You seem like a decent enough candidate. As I see that you have potential in article work, I'll be looking out for it. While I don't think it is time yet, I think you will be sucessfull on RFA #2 (if you do indeed start working on articles, which I don't doubt you will do.) Not yet though. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Per confirmation on his talk page, Editorofthewiki is still opposing, but is offering moral support. Despite the "support" it remains an oppose---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    "Don't belong"? Tell me you misspoke here. Tan | 39 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Echoing Tan here. You can oppose him for whatever you like, but saying he "doesn't belong" because he doesn't fit your criteria is pretty douchey.--Koji† 20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Did he say this user doesn't belong, he did he say that if a user can't build the encyclopedia then they don't belong. The second is a valid opinion, surely?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    I think every user belongs no matter what small thing they do. Belonging as an admin is another story, which is probably what he meant (or else he does have a pretty negative opinion of most users). --Banime (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Let me clarify: I didn't say that Aervanath shouldn't belong as an admin'. I know it has nothing to do with content contributions, but still, I think that you should help improve the 'pedia. If anything, you should help fix one of your only content contribs so it doesn't have a fat, ugly tag at the top. I'm not asking for much--just improve your content work and I guarantee I'll be supporting next time. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    "Don't belong" (to the encyclopaedia)? Please prove me wrong here, that's how the original phrase is read to me (and perhaps, others). - Mailer Diablo 23:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

    Prove? He's subsequently clarified what he meant to say. No need to go on.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

14. Weak oppose, echoing others' concerns above regarding a lack of article work. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Sorry. Scott up at oppose #1 says all that I can. Garden. 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Insufficient interest in content writing. east718 // talk // email // 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Echo the above about lack of quality article writing. I'm quite surprised to see that you can't get an article to DYK, GA, nor FA in 1 year (I already taken the fact that you took 1 year wikibreak between March 2007 and February 2008 into consideration). And oh yeah, being a wikignome isn't a "get out of jail free" card because you'll be surprised how many wikignomes out there have at least a DYK, GA, or FA (if not more) under their belts. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    oppose Insufficient experience in substantive matters 68.148.40.121 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose. Adminship is more then wikilawyering and wikignoming. You don't need the mop to fight vandals. Spend more time writing articles then reapply. Minkythecat (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    You oppose makes me question how closely you looked at the candidate, a cursory review would show he's not a vandal fighter. If he were, then I would be insisting on more article building as well. He's a niche contributor, who participates in an area that most people do not. I recognize his mainspace edits as contributing to the project because they are manual edits intended on building the project, not automated ones to 'protect' it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Aside from the fact that you obviously did not review the candidate's contributions, you are out of your mind with your oppose. "You don't need the mop to fight vandals" What the heck?! Have you ever fought vandals before? You may not absolutely need them, but you sure as hell need them more in that area than you do while writing articles. I ought to know... Geez, why do people oppose without actually reviewing the candidate's contribs at all. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose, I recognize the name since you volunteered and summed up Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Even though I disagreed with a few of your interpretations, I think you did an OK job there, but I still don't think you're ready to be an admin at this time. I think you acted well in your conflict with Tony1, but I worry about a possible rush to judgement with the username thing iridescent brought up, the AFD you started because an IP added a prod tag, the fact that there are only 3 articles you've made at least 10 edits to, your claim that A7 and A9 have to do with notability... Maybe later, but not right now. Speaking of article work, I know that right now Wikipedia desperately needs an article on the subject of notability, since so few seem to understand the concept... --Pixelface (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose due to this very questionable UAA report. Worried the candidate would just block users for no reason. [16] - filelakeshoe 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    You are able to come to that conclusion ("block users for no reason") based on a single diff? wowsers, Keeper ǀ 76 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    In fairness to Filelakeshoe, I make the exact same point – see O13 above. Bear in mind this report was made during the RFA so it's not being dredged up from the dim-and-distant – it was one of the first things I saw when I started reviewing A's contribs. – iridescent 18:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    I wasn't intending to be "unfair" to filelakeshoe, as that would be hypocritical to the point I was making that "one diff" does not a bad candidate make, when it is in fact a rather borderline diff. O13 contained more reasoning beyond the one diff. Cheers, (and I replied to your comment in the support section as well, Irid, concerning your other reasonings, take them for what they cost you, for that is what they are worth :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    As someone that could just as readily be hit by a "omg add .com to their username!" report like that, I think it's a perfectly valid concern to voice... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship, and limited mainspace content contribution. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Per little experience as a content-editor and other concerns raised. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose - seems like a good user who will not abuse the tools and will work in his own niche. However, the niche editing is exactly the problem here; I'd find it extremely difficult to support a candidate for whom there's an indication of not being familiar with all-across Wikipedia policies. I think Aervanath should try to write a dozen articles or so and be involved in numerous areas before re-applying. If that is done, I will gladly support (GA, FA and DYK per se aren't important). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose; seems like a smart guy, and trustworthy, but I would expect some experience of actually writing an article in an administrator - how else can you understand what people's concerns are when you try to resolve disputes? My bar is exceptionally low and it's not often an editor who's been around for more than a few weeks doesn't meet it, but this is one of those cases. fish&karate 16:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose - Cannot offer any examples of content creation. Admins need to have some experience in what we're all doing here. WilyD 18:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    What about his work at CAT:ESP where he is navigating protected articles making requested edits.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

26. Oppose - No need for the tools, not enough content experience, and, in my humble opinion, too much work outside of the core goals of what I want to see admins doing. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    He may not need the tools but then again you could say that to any administrator. He still manages to have created more article than me and I am getting on fine. From my point of view many of the tools or buttons that adminship brings you reflect very little on how much article writing you have done, except maybe afd and a few others. What are the goals? Build a wikipedia, Build a good wikipedia. All of the work I have seen Aervanath so is in some way geared towards that. I hope this might make you reconsider your vote. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

27. Oppose - practically the same reasons as Iridescent's above; it's disheartening when you have to keep rooting out bad reports at UAA, and little content work is, in this case, stretched to the extreme. Caulde 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose I don't care too much about the alphabet soup of article ratings/standards (FA, GA etc)...but it's really important that admins have a good idea of the frustrations and concerns felt by article writers and content creators. And there's only one way to do that and that is to feel them personally. You don't have to make it your life's work or devote all your time to it, but that is the only reason we're here after all. I don't like the idea of "professional" admins here, and get very concerned when I see admins that do no content creation at all start to manage people who actually write content. RxS (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose unfortunately. I believe this user does lots of good things for the project and I really don't care about the lack of article-writing experience. What gets me is the apparent misuse of non-admin duties, specifically non-admin closure (yes, I know it's an essay but it's fairly accepted). For example, look at the following list of recent closures: 1 2 3. While I don't believe these closures to be wrong, they should have been done by admins. I don't mean this as a procedural point, and I see the obvious counter-argument ("if he's already acting like an admin, let's just make him one") but one large part of being an admin is using tools within very narrow constraints. This user's closures and some of the WP:UAA reports above don't give me faith that this user will use the tools according to the commonly accepted practices, so I oppose. Oren0 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose. The candidate has the potential to be a fine admin. However, he needs more experience, both in article-building and in admin-related areas. Iridescent's example is a valid point. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose Sorry, your lack of article work is low. SwirlBoy39 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Unimpressive Afd and article building skills. I'm okay with specialist admins. However, I cannot trust a user with a user with the tools who is unconnected with the core process of the wiki which is basically article writing. Try to write non-stubs first, the research and communication skills that you'll practice via article building will help you in the messy world of adminship.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose Aervanath strikes me as reasonable and committed to improving Wikipedia. However, the lack of content creation concerns me. Article promotion is the most straightforward way to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia's core policies. Without that, I need to see some significant work in other areas. You have done some good work with the orphanage and requested moves. I am a little uncomfortable with your non-admin closes at AfD. Unless I'm missing something, that is the extent of your experience with Wikipedia policy, and it's not enough for me to trust you with project-wide admin tools. Sorry, for what it's worth I think you are on the right track with broadening your experience. I will be happy to support you in a few months. Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose Scott and others have said everything I could possibly wish to say, but taking no interest at all in contributing content is far from ideal. I agree with others, when they say writing isn't essential to being an admin, but dealing with the many different things I've been asked to deal with in the two or so years I've been an admin, I can assure the candidate that being able to write makes things so much easier, the specific abilities you'll soon learn when writing are incredibly useful when closing deletion discussions, deciding on speedy deletion or when you need to re-write an article because of BLP concerns; indeed, I would contend that because of our BLP policy, every administrator should be at least capable of identifying an article that doesn't comply with our BLP policies AND then be capable of re-writing it in such a way that it then complies with our BLP policies. Yes, I know people would contend that if you don't write, you go fetch someone else to re-write the article, but that's far from ideal when it comes to BLP. Nick (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I was sitting on the fence on this one, but Aervanath's recent posts on WP:AN made it clear to me that he's going to intervene in content disputes even though he doesn't much experience in creating content. VG ☎ 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    If you're talking about his brief comment in the Cold fusion mess, I hate to see anyone think badly of anyone because of their position on the editing history at Cold fusion. It's at Arbcom because it's damnably difficult to sort out. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

    Actually, my only comment on that had nothing to do with content, so I'm a little confused by VG's statement. All I said was that I didn't think the admins involved would defy a consensus decision. I was commenting on admin behavior, not content. The diff is here. As far as I know, I haven't made any content-related comments on WP:AN.--Aervanath's sock lives in the Orphanage, too 11:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Switching to Oppose Ironically, as per comments from the nominator -- the candidate lacks content creation history and is extremely niche focused without having wide experience across Wikipedia -- and from the candidate -- who clearly states that his ongoing work in The Orphange doesn't require admin tools. There is no serious reason to oppose, but no overwhelming reason to support. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (from Support). I'm torn here. I do love niche candidates, but the oppose camp has some pretty good points. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 02:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)_{I'm convinced that (s)he should be an admin}

One thing that keeps coming up in the oppose camp is the lack of article building experience, perhaps I should point out that Aervanath has over 2300 (from what I can tell) manual edits in the mains space. Are they to one article? No. But he does have a solid record of working in the mainspace, his edits there, however, are a little different from the typical candidate. They are working on fixing an issue that many people over look, deorphaning articles. This can be challenging, but more than that, it allows you to see how he thinks. I'd much rather support a person with 2300 constructive edits, than a person who let's Huggle/Twinkle/etc do the thinking for him.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst orphaning categories is useful, it isn't content creation, so it really has nothing to do with the reasons people are opposing.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I might switch back later, I just...don't know. I need some time to think. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I was mainly referring to the AfD's in the oppose camp. Sorry should of made that clearer. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL... shows you what happens when you make an ass out of u and me (EG ASS-U-ME)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

When I passed my 2nd RfA, I only had ~1700 mainspace edits (check the talk page of the RfA for the bot's tally) yet I still manage to get 2 FA, 5 GA, and 1 DYK. So to summarize things, he needs to do a bit more than now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral De-orphaning articles help this encyclopedia to make the most out of its database, but I personally think that admin can tag an article with a speedy, but another admin should do the honors, because everyone makes mistakes once in a while. I also feel like you want the admin tools to edit protected articles, which makes me worry. Yet, your edits are of very good quality. Oppose... Support... so I have to be neutral. Leujohn ^{(talk, How did I do?)}

   Would you mind elaborating on your concerns about Aervanath's desire to edit protected articles? He's mentioned that he plans to work on the {{editprotected}} requests (a logical extension of the {{editsemiprotected}} stuff he already does), but is there something else that causes you to wonder? Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 12:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

   From the questions, I feel like that he want to do most of the edits himself. That makes me worry, because he didn't mention that he will discuss the edits. (One of the reasons a page is protected, the other being heavy vandalism) I also feel like he wants the admin tools too much. Leujohn ^{(talk, How did I do?)} 13:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

   Leujohn, I can assure you that I will follow consensus when editing protected pages. The fully protected templates I named above are protected in order to deter vandalism, not because of controversiality. A review of my contributions will show you that I am not prone to making controversial edits. As an example, you might review the recent history of the Ted Stevens article and review my contributions there. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   I think that edit was way too recent if you want to convince me that I should support you. Leujohn ^(talk) 05:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral needs more article work... YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Count of 2300 in mainspace is good but that didn't include content building. I do see the good work done by the candidate but some good hard work might be better. I stay neutral. --GPPande talk! 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I've decided to switch my !vote to neutral. Aervanath lacks article work, but he will not abuse the tools. He has participated in village pump and is also active in WikiProject Orphanage. One good thing about him is he didn't try to get the "right numbers" before applying for adminship. He has done some good work, so I can't oppose. AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (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.