Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

MER-C[edit]

Final (100/57/10); Ended Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:45:35 (UTC)

MER-C (talk · contribs) - MER-C has been a very, very diligent vandal-fighter, and has shown very good judgment in doing so. His first request for adminship two and a half months nearly passed (and might have passed but for MER-C's own withdrawal of the request), and the opposition at the time generally was in the tenure of "he/she doesn't have enough proven record." Well, it's been more than two months, and I believe that since then he/she (I must say I don't know MER-C's gender -- not that it matters) has shown that he/she can be trusted with the responsibilities and the authorities of being an administrator. The opposition comments from the last RfA, I believe, have also helped him/her grow. Nlu (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. MER-C 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
I plan on helping out at speedy deletions, proposed deletions, articles for deletion, miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I also plan to continue my role as an anti-vandal and anti-spam editor, the tools will increase my effectiveness in this area. I also plan to move things along at the conflict of interest noticeboard and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. These are areas which I already have experience in and the tools are a logical extension to my capabilities and would help get rid of backlogs rather than causing them.
Note that I edit during the part of the day when America is sleeping, i.e. when the speedy and vandalism backlogs tend to rear their ugly heads.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
Part of building a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is weeding out the things that don't belong. That's right, I am a deletionist. This is a job which is just as important as adding new content. Since my last rfa, I have prodded over 1500 pages, nominated many more for deletion and thousands more for speedy deletion. I am an AFD regular with six months experience in the field. These range from typical band vanity to Gundam fancruft to myspace userpages to copyvios.
I play a significant role in vandal fighting, as one can easily tell from my contribs. The retaliatory vandalism has gotten so worse that I have had my userpage fully protected soon after the last rfa. As mentioned in the last rfa, I am among Willy on Wheels' worst enemies.
I also play an anti-spam role. Not in the field of dealing with external links spamming, but rather corporate vanity and spambots (which I have a zero tolerance towards). I maintain a series of spamtraps at Template:Spamsearch designed to catch spammy userpages, spambot generated vandalism and myspace pages. Literally at least 1000 spam pages would still be in existence if I wasn't here.
Despite my wikignomish nature and preference to maintainance/deletionism, I have written three articles which have appeared on DYK: Planum Australe, Planum Boreum and Eberswalde (crater). I have also penned a number of non-stub things since my last rfa, mainly lists of geological features of Mars.
I am also seen over at the list of dead ends, one of my sources of deletable material, and featured picture candidates.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
I've been a relatively uncontroversial editor, generally avoiding conflict and stress. Probably the most controversial thing I've done recently was beginning the systematic purge of Gundam fancruft (which is still ongoing), however the folks at WP:GUNDAM have accepted their fate somewhat.
When users cause me stress, I tend to walk away for an hour or two and then come back. Of course, unblocked vandals cause me a lot of annoyance... MER-C 12:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A:
It really depends on how notable the person is. For borderline or lower notable people, WP:AFD is the way to go. In other instances, I'd go to the COI noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard (depending on the nature of the edits involved) to encourage discussion on the issue.
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A:
When it is not subject to persistent vandalism from multiple IP addresses and/or sockpuppets of banned users. Also when an article is linked to but not transcluded from the main page unless when vandalism is overwhelming.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:
An article is unquestionably spam when it is obvious corporate vanity, written in the first or second person and/or it is found in the userspace. For other articles, I'd check to see if it were evaluated by someone else - if so, delete; if not, tag it.

Bonus question:

7. Should every externally linked site in an article be evaluated for possible copyright infringement?
A:
No, it's not necessary. In fact, that's somewhat of a slow and silly way of determining copyright status, all you need to do is google a random sentence. It also is a symptom of copyright paranoia.

Optional questions from Kevin Murray (talk • contribs):

8. In your last RfA, you withdrew your acceptance of the nomination part way through the voting citing: "I've just had a spurt of busyness in real life which won't go away for the next month or so." Will this "busyness" business be likely to reoccur and interfere with future consistency in your obligations as an admin?
A:
It was a once off due to someone's bad time management dumping a lot of things for me to do in a short period of time. In fact, during that time, my edit count dipped from 250/day to 200/day. However, the stuff I was inundated with seemed overwhelming and so I withdrew the RFA to remove one thing off my plate.
There's no guarantee it won't happen again, though I don't see it happening in the immediate future (i.e. for the next four months or so).
9. Since you describe yourself as a "deletionist" how can you be a neutral evaluator of outcomes at XfD? And, how do you explain the volume of articles, where you have voted "delete" when the consensus was "keep"?
A:
Despite my bias towards deletion, I feel that I am able to evaluate consensus - which is what counts - correctly. There is no such thing as being truely neutral but there are close approximations to it. Experience in seeing hundreds of outcomes reached on AFD and observing (but not taking part in) the controversy that results gives a good guide to how one should act in the future. It isn't philosophy but experience and hindsight that counts here.
As for the !voting, I take into account what people have said before me and what the article claims. In my research, I take a representative sample of the stuff out there and estimate the probability of the subject meeting a notability guideline based on extrapolation. Yes, this can be wrong, but it works most of the time. MER-C 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Doug Bell (talk • contribs):

10. Since you acknowledge that your tendency to delete an article is greater than say the median Wikipedian tendency, how would you apply the speedy deletion criteria? In particular, would you tend more towards speedy deletion or towards listing the page on XfD if the application of the speedy deletion criteria to the page was subjective?
A:
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support, obviously, as nominator, for reasons stated above. --Nlu (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - MER-C is exactly what we should be looking for in an administrator. He/she is knowledgeable about policy and does a boatload of work on backlogs that go much faster with admin tools. I was especially impressed with the technical knowledge here, as the situation was over the heads of many current admins (including myself), and by his calm response to a new sysop's ignorance of policy. Not only will MER-C make a fine admin, we would benefit greatly by giving this user the tools.--Kchase T 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support I 100% agree with Majorly on the XFD and other things. However I think that you are a great vandal fighter who could be of good use with the tools, I trust you. ~ Arjun 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - someone I've seen around a lot, almost always doing the right thing. Moreschi Deletion! 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support of someone who is experienced and obviously has a use for the tools. But please be careful with the word "cruft" - it can be offensive to someone when you apply it to a topic that is important to them. Just because something doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines doesn't mean that some people don't consider it important and we don't need to be insulting or perform a victory dance when we delete it. As with StuffOfInterest below, I'm concerned when you talk about someone accepting their fate. This is not an us vs them - we are all here to try and improve the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, you obviously have a use for the tools, so I support, even though I have strong misgivings about your answer to question #3. --BigDT 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support-per good vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, we do not have enough administrators who help with the deletion backlogs. MER-C will be an asset for Wikipedia. Concerns from the last RfA seem to have been adressed. Kusma (討論) 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per all above, but you need to take into consideration Stuff0fInterest's complaint. Ganfon 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I have no doubt at all that this user will use the tools to the benefit of the project --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support — Lost(talk) 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support I believe you are a little too zealous when it comes to deleting, but I'd still trust in you with the tools. -- Anas Talk? 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Seems trustworthy & has good knowledge of policies. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support while I would prefer isn't as much of a deletionist, he does decent work at AFD.-- danntm T C 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per (may I say this aloud?) AfD history. Regards, Kncyu38 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, a great vandal hunter and I think while a little on the deletionist side of life, nothing irreversible. Good luck! The Rambling Man 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. I have had nothing but positive experience with MER-C. VegaDark 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak support (see Oppose/Neutral). --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support ST47Talk 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I co-nominated this user's first RfA, and was considering nominating again, just recently. This user is a valued contributor to Wikipedia, and definitely demonstrates the need for admin tools, an understanding of policy, and strong dedication to the project. Nishkid64 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - A user that would definitely utilize the mop in a positive manner.Bakaman 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support just like last time. Outstanding user, knows policies very well and will definitely make good use of the tools.--Húsönd 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support an excellant vandal fighter who would benefit from the tools for that reason alone. ViridaeTalk 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Very Strong Support- user needs tools, I have attempted to nominate him before. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)00:52, Sunday, 4 February '07
  28. Strong support congratulations, you found my grandfather clause and didn't even really need it :) Keeping the signal-to-noise ratio in article space at a manageable level is one of things we need more admins to do, and MER-C has an established record of being willing and able to do it. While the plural of anecdote is not data, I've seen enough of his speedy-taggings that I have complete confidence in his deletion judgment. Opabinia regalis 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support Would help Wikipedia with the tools.--Wikipedier 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier[reply]
  30. Strong Support per above and because you a strong defender of wikipedia against vandals. Wikipedia needs more admins in the fight against vandalism. For strong support, would like to see your answers to Malber and his optional questions. Changed to Strong Support. LordHarris 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support This user is the epitome of "showing a need for the tools". I see tireless contributions and I think it would benefit the encyclopedia greatly to give this user the tools. Heck if we were paying him/her s/he should put in a name change request to MER-CENARY. James086Talk 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, trusted and very experienced. Nobody opposing presents a convincing reason for doing so. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support good vandal fighter, the administrative abilities would only increase this user's usefulness on Wikipedia. I also remind the oppose voters that persistence in the pursuit of unencyclopedic material on Wikipedia is no vice.--Jersey Devil 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Amazing at his strong points, maybe not the best at XfD, but at least he participates. I can't oppose him.--Wizardman 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support- Strong contributor, knows the policies well, there is no reason to believe he wll misuse the tools, his having them will be a positive for the project. NoSeptember 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Strong Support Fantastic asset to WP. Not all of us are article writers, but MER-C is civil, knows policy and can be trusted with the tools. Glen 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support - one of the best vandalfighters on this project needs tools Alex Bakharev 08:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support. He's ready now. Khoikhoi 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support RfA cliche #1. More to the point, while Trebor has a point that simple pile-on votes are not useful, I would agrue that "per nom"s after a re-list don't fall into that category. If something has already been relisted, showing that the previous arguments hav wider support can be an important part of moving the process forward. Eluchil404 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Ther primary function of every editor is, or should be, the improvement of the encyclopedia. And the additional function of an admin is to maintain the encyclopedia, which I am sur MER-C will do brilliantly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs).
  41. Support per nom, Kusma, Opabinia regalis, Glen... Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Opposes based on "per nom" type AfD comments are especially unconvincing. -- Steel 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to say why? Trebor 15:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My XfD participation before I became an admin was almost non-existant (and it still is), and the comments I made were "per above" type things. I don't seem to have caused any major problems. -- Steel 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but for someone who is specifically saying they want to help at AfD, and also classifies themselves as a deletionist, I'd like to see more evidence of thoughtful comments and research. Trebor 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, without reservation. Terence Ong 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Suport This user will make a good admin. —mikedk9109SIGN 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Careful support (switching from neutral) on second thought, my concerns don't outweigh his qualities. Pascal.Tesson 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support excellent vandal-fighter. Hut 8.5 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I see MER-C frequently on the AfD pages. I value his nominations and contributions. Some are trivial; others are not. I think there is a critical distinction between one's personal opinion as an editor, and one's application of policy as an administrator. Like MER-C, I am a deletionist, and I nominate articles from the orphaned list if I think they cannot or should not be salvaged. That doesn't mean I would delete those articles without discussion if I had the power to do so. Submitting an article for Afd means that you acknowledge the need for consensus. If it isn't there, you don't delete. Otherwise, MER-C's tireless, varied contributions on fighting spam, cruft, and vandalism convince me that he will make a fine admin. YechielMan 21:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I really do believe MER-C would know when to pull the trigger and when not to if handed the tools. I credit him with some common sense and the ability to confer in instances when he was unsure (including instances of cruft, which let's face it, means all things to all people and little to none). He is an invaluable vandal fighter and also has been very pro-active in the rampant spam area (originator of a spam detector template which I have seen on many user pages since). As for Delete per nom? If there is nothing else to add to the nominator's argument for deletion, what else is there to say? Are we expecting people to make up stuff or waffle? Anyway, on a personal note, I have turned to this user for advice on many an occasion in the past. Also, I would have been further up the list of support if it wasn't for an "inconvenient" wikibreak! Bubba hotep 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support MER-C spends lots of time voting on AfDs, is a great vandal fighter and from what I have seen is a civil user. BJTalk 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support a good candidate to make WP a tidier place --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Moreschi (#4) said it quite well. - Gilliam 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support cant believe I'm supporting an amitted deletionist yet when ever MER-C has crossed my path I havent seen any issues of civility or lack of policy knowledge that would warrant a neutral or oppose vote. Also we need more gnomes Gnangarra 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Though he/she hasn't created many articles, vandal fighting is 75% of what the admin tools are for. Vandal fighters tend to have a strong grasp of policy, so I can fully trust this user with the mop. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Support Although I agree with Majorly about your AfD habits. Perhaps you should tone your deletionism down a bit? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support have never faulted his judgement regarding policy. Hit-and-run AfD voting? Sometimes there really isn't much more to say than 'per nom'. No reason to suspect he would abuse the tools. riana_dzasta 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strongest Possible Support, of course. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. We need more admins willing to tackle the deletion backlog. It is a shame that this willingness is going to count against MER-C; doing the correct thing upsets people who don't agree. The people who avoid any such issues doing nothing and staying out of trouble get adminned, and the editors capable of making ballsy calls - the ones we need as admins - do not). Proto::► 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I see few reasons to oppose that do not boil down to editcountitis. >Radiant< 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I see few reasons to oppose that do. Trebor 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "X % of his AFD votes are to foo" is too close to editcountitis to my taste. >Radiant< 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand. The issue is that next to none of his XfD votes are not foo, and foo is the reason I want to see XfD participation. -Amark moo! 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --BozMo talk 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC). On the side of the angels, clearly.[reply]
  62. Support - Excellent vandal fighter. Hope MER-C will fight some of the other backlogs too. Wickethewok 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Good vandal fighter. PikminloverMeep!|| 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Easily one of the most productive, precise and civil editors around. Criticism seems to be focused on his laconic comments on AfD: If the reason is already explained in a 5 page long policy, why repeat it? yandman 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. More deletionist than I am, but that's not a reason to oppose a good editor and vandal-fighter for adminship. There is room for differences of opinion within the policies. Coemgenus 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Crazy Support Consistantly beats me to the draw while RC patrolling. → p00rleno (lvl 82) ←ROCKSCRS 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  67. Weak to moderate support. I'm glad to see that MER-C writes articles as well as just voting for their deletion. I do think that at times he could more fully explain his reasons for choosing to delete an article, hence the qualifier "weak to moderate". I don't however think he/she would abuse the tools. --Kyoko 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Although I have not always agreed with him he has always done good work and would be a real asset to AIV --St.daniel 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Full Support I have seen this user's work many times (often beats me at recent changes) and I approve of his AfD work. ffm yes? 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, we always need more vandal fighters.-gadfium 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - editor is always a pleasure to work with, needs tools, won't abuse them (and some of the oppose votes are ludicrous) 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Great editor who'll help clear the backlogs and make good use of tools. utcursch | talk 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I trust MER-C. --MECU≈talk 14:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support I was going to nominate him myself. I didn't realize that someone had already nominated him. Diez2 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Genuinely believed he was already an admin, awesome vandal fighter, not interacted, but seen about a lot and trust him. (My apologies if my gender assumption is incorrect) --Mnemeson 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would abuse the tools. Frise 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, while I can see a slightly triggerhappy tendancy with deletions, the result is based on consensus and not personal opinion. I trust MER-C to uphold the consensus and keep what should the community deem to be appropriate. His vandal fighting is where he shines and I think he will use the admin tools to good effect. Mallanox 02:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Stongest Possible Support -- Removing material is a janitorial thing and admins are often janitors. Also MERC does lots of good work against vandals, even keeping his own vandal records, like User:MER-C/Blu Aardvark. SakotGrimshine 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong Support One of Wikipedia's finer contributors--I've always been impressed by his work. I must say, I find it a rather strange argument to claim that removing more content than he adds makes him a poor contributor--Wikipedia's problem has never been quantity of content, but rather quality; to find quality, you often have to remove a great deal of crap. An administrative role has nothing to do with adding content, but rather with removing content (through rollback and deletion), limiting who can add content (through blocks and protection), and performing tedious, boring housekeeping tasks. I do wish people would get it through their heads that adminship is in no way a reward for fine article writing, but rather that it is a tool to allow trustworthy people to perform tedious tasks that most would never even consider doing without pay, and most of all that it is "not a big deal." I also find it rather strange to criticize MER-C for his "drive-by" AfD votes--is it really a bad trait for an admin to be less opiniated, less stubborn, less wordy (unlike myself...), and less full of himself? If you ask me, this is what we should look for in an admin. Anyway, long story short, it's a pity that this RfA may not pass, as MER-C could truly be one of our better admins if we'd give him the chance. AmiDaniel (talk)
  82. Support. MER-C's work at XfD is impressive, and I have no doubt that he'll exercise good judgment in closing deletion discussions. His willingness to help at WP:SSP is a plus with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Good vandal fighter, have no misconceptions. I know they will become a good admin -- Casmith_789 (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, MER-C would be an outstanding sysop, and should be given the mop without question. Somitho 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I appreciate MER-C's work on the WP:COI/N noticeboard. If he was an administrator he could probably do even more useful things there. EdJohnston 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support MER-C refuses to compromise on core policies of Wikipedia such as verifiability and original research. For this reason (s)he deserves our full support. - Chardish 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per nom :-P the wub "?!" 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support definate asset to WP --Hu12 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support does the dirty work necessary for the encyclopedia. Disagreements about what belongs in Wikipedia is not a reason to oppose someone who is clearly working (very hard) in good faith to improve WP. No reason to think he would abuse the tools and no reason to think that denying the tools would somehow shange his current activity. --Tbeatty 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support We need more admin vandal fighters. alphachimp 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Excellent vandal fighter. Agathoclea 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Weak Support - seen this user a lot on reverting vandalism and deletion discussions. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Good editor. --Folantin 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I think he would be an active admin (which we need), but I do not think he would abuse the tools. Mr Stephen 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Dedicated editor, good admin skills. --Soman 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, whether it will matter or not. MER-C is a good editor and would be a great addition to our current administrative team. Catch-22, it seems. Participate in AfD, get opposed, fail to participate in AfD, get opposed! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, excellent vandal fighter. Hemmingsen 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Supportˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. There is no way I can support someone who's only role is to remove material. Claims in nomination statement that what stopped his first attempt at nomination was tenure is incomplete. A big complaint raised was his tendency towards "ready, fire, aim" when it comes to WP:PROD and WP:AfD nominations. I see nothing in his statements above which show he has taken this to heart and plans to spend more time researching than tagging. His attitude seems to be that the burden is on the community to defend against his nominations rather than him to support them. Finally, with statements like he made in question three above, "however the folks at WP:GUNDAM have accepted their fate somewhat", I fear he will be a bully of an administrator. I've seen too many of those and don't need another one. --StuffOfInterest 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I agree with StuffOfInterest. An administrator should be experienced in creating articles and adding new material, not just reverts. Also, mabye not enough experience in conficts. ~ JFBurton 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look above, you'll see that MER-C has written several articles that were good enough for Wikipedia's Main Page. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Sorry, but we don't need more pile-on !voters at AfD.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Others I checked were brief "not notable"s or "fails WP:XXX"s. An admin needs to show a good understanding of the policies and guidelines to close AfDs, and I don't trust this user not simply to bean-count. If I could be shown a few AfDs where the candidate has followed-up and argued his position in the face of opposition, or done some research to back up his opinions, I might be convinced otherwise. Trebor 19:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few I found:[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Nishkid64 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw them, but I still don't think they show more than cursory research or a deeper understanding of policies and guidelines. What also worries me is the number of "delete per noms" so recently (indeed, I'm only commenting because I noticed yesterday that a lot of AfDs had his comments on); it's vote. Trebor 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who regularly relists AfDs that don't attract any attention I have to say I'm grateful that MER-C gives the also-rans some attention when almost nobody else does. Fbow, in most of the cases above I don't see much more that needs to be said. If I see a case where a number of editors try to get to the core of the problem and someone just throws in a drive-by "per nom" or "NN" making clear they didn't pay attention to the argument, that would be a reason to oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well maybe I'm alone on this, but I prefer at least a basic rephrase of the arguments to ensure you've read through the discussion and in some cases done some research. I sometimes wonder if anyone would notice if I simply added "Delete per nom" to every discussion. At one point he made three !votes in a minute, which can't possibly be enough time to view the article, the discussion, do any research and write your response. If he carries that on to closing discussions, then I think we'll have problems; an admin is meant to weigh the arguments, not count them. Doing a search through the last 2000 odd contributions, I can only find a couple of times he !voted to keep, and one of them was him changing after first adding a brief comment. Even if you think "drive-by"s are useful, I don't think these are good qualities for a closer to have. Trebor 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I didn't look at the time stamps. ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to make this thread any longer, but since 'three votes in a minute' also came up below - especially with popups and/or tabs, it's perfectly possible to read and evaluate three AfDs, and then subsequently post comments on all three in rapid succession. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the "Lady of Stavoren" diff that NishKid cites in support of MER-C, it illustrates precisely the problem with his trigger-happy nature. He thought it should be speedied as WP:NFT, when subsequent editors, who took the time to research the subject, found that it was a genuine Dutch folk tale. It may not close as a keep, but MER-C jumped to conclusions. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. It looks to me like your XfD participation is almost completely just rapid fire "Delete per X". I want XfD to show that you understand policy, not to show that you can type out "Delete per nom". As above, if you can show examples where you did more, I might reconsider. -Amark moo! 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know much about the nominee's AFD contribs but his CSD contributions are valuable and in huge numbers. They are not visible because they are almost always deleted. Whenever I dive into CSD to clear backlogs, I find his nominations quite convincing — Lost(talk) 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice... but it's not what I want. I mean, I'm happy that he's conservative enough with speedy tagging that you find them so convincing, but I expect caution with speedy tagging from everyone, admin or not. And speedy tagging is not policy discussion, since they are written in a way such that there is next to no interpretation to be done. -Amark moo! 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I agree with the comments stated above. --ⅮⅭⅬⅩⅤⅠ 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per StuffOfInterest. I have seen MER-C on XFD very often, and although we are grateful for his work with deleting articles, it seems that he A)Racks up !votes though agreeing with others and B) Spends a disproportionate amount of time there. Sorry, dude. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose : The "weeding out the things that don't belong" comment is beyond the pale. Though that's what I'm doing now. No offence. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Trebor. Everybody has to say "per nom" or "per [user]" but it just appears that you use that line too often. Also, the fact that you had 3 !votes in one minute says it all. It is impossible to review the nomination properly in that span of time. Sorry. Wikipediarules2221 02:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because of 3 votes in a minute, are you serious? I don't see that its fair to oppose because other people have supported. This is about MER-C not those that support him, if you have a problem with their supports take it up with them.ViridaeTalk 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's referring to AfD votes, not this RfA. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be more realistic. Thanks. ViridaeTalk 02:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per all my comments below, and per Trebor. Too trigger-happy. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I had formed much the same impressions as above, but I wanted to put hard facts behind them. I decided to F3 for "mer-c" in the past few days of AFDs, and I found him to be even more ultra-deletionist than I had believed. On February 1, he cast 41 delete !votes, speedy tagging five of them, with NO keeps. The next day, he had 50 delete !votes, with five more speedy-tags. For February 3, he racked up 54 deletes, one merge then delete, one merge, and finally, one keep. I don't see how anyone can properly research and assess that many subjects (a third or more of all articles on AFD), on top of the dozens of others he tags for speedy or PROD. I worry about someone so lopsidedly unbalanced towards deletion closing disputed AFDs unfairly, quick-closing AFDs as WP:SNOW deletes after a few "per nom" dittoes before a defender gets to it, or using "AFD is not a vote" to delete even in the face of a keep consensus. Worse, in reviewing other people's speedies and PRODs, where he would not be checked by anyone else's opinion, I suspect he would not have the judgment to not immediately delete. Any greater effectiveness in vandalfighting and spamfighting he would derive from admin tools would be eaten up in the deletion reviews and undeletion requests he would cause. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I have also noticed the tendency at AfD to say very little (e.g., “Delete per nom”, “Delete per above”, but participate with delete votes frequently to the extent of almost being a rubber-stamp for the nominations. Perhaps this is a result of being criticized for lack of experience in the prior RfA. He/she has also a bit dismissive of attempts to discuss reasoning behind alternate views, and seems to rush the process a bit with attempts at speedy deletes. In many case I see him/her voting to delete in the first few votes, but the consensus of other editors being to keep the article in the end. Does this show an understanding of notability? The answers to questions above make me think that Mer-c is a bit of a zealot for deletion. --Kevin Murray 03:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. weak oppose. I am disappointed to see the arguments here so explicitly focussed on the specific issue of unarticulated voting comments on AfD's. I think the bigger problem is the stated lack of contribution to article space content. That coupled with proven undiplomatic tendencies, and yes, cursory review of AfD's before voting leads me to believe that this editor, while hugely beneficial to wikipedia, requires more experience in the article namespace contribution competencies before he is given the mop. Jerry lavoie 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per this very recent !vote [20], citing a criterion for speedy deletion that plainly doesn't exist. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose per above and this diff, you closed a RfA without deleting the "voice your opinion" template, and didn't even bother to add the final result, which is a bad action. I suggest that you refrain from doing the bureaucrat's job if you don't know how to do it properly. No need for admins who may take action before having the required knowledge. Arfan (Talk) 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I just say that our bureaucrats who don't often close RfAs do that as well? It's not such a big deal for a strong oppose. He was just trying to help out and made an error, an error which is really not a problem. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're in no position to judge whether my vote should be strong or not, so don't question it. Arfan (Talk) 14:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL violation here?--Wizardman 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope not. I just said the truth. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing someone for a meaningless technical mistake reflects very badly on your judgment. Please consider that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and paperwork skill is not something we ought to value highly in a candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't purely for a technical mistake; he also said "per above". Trebor 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaningless? I beg your pardon. I merely judge the candidate based on his action. Surely if he wasn't familiar with RfA closing, he could take a look at another properly closed RfA in advance to learn, clearly it seems he did not. What will you do if it's the first time you close a RfA? Get the hang of it first or just do it and make the mistake? "Trying to help out" is a rather poor excuse. Arfan (Talk) 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arfan, I hope you're aware that Redux and Taxman, two of the three active RFA closing bureaucrats, have indicated it's acceptable for non-'crats to close withdrawn requests (here and here, specifically). Incidentally, Warofdreams, a long-time 'crat, recently closed a nom and "screwed up the paperwork" a bit. I really don't think it's that big of a deal. I've made probably a dozen such closures, many before I was a sysop.--Kchase T 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no bias against non-admin closing RfA, as long as the candidate knew what s/he was doing and did it properly. For your information, it's the other way round. As I see it, user Warofdreams (as a 'crat) still took the time to review his action and corrected his error right away, while user MER-C just let his/her mistake stay there until another editor came fixing it. Your comparison doesn't make sense. I voted oppose and stand my ground. Please stop questioning me. Arfan (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe people wouldn't be questioning you if it wasn't such a stupid reason to oppose an RfA. -- Steel 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very annoying. Arfan (Talk) 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop bashing Arfan for his oppose, even if it may seem a bit "stupid". People are entitled to their opinions, and we shouldn't resort to intimidation or taunting tactics just to get the user to switch his vote. Had we been more civil in response to this user's !vote, he may have reconsidered and supported this user. Nishkid64 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is necessary to point out irrelevant reasons for opposition so other users (say, newbies to RfA) do not think that such oppose votes are a good idea. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes beyond just pointing it out, although obviously, an statement on Arfan's part that we aren't allowed to question his vote didn't help. -Amark moo! 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per evidence of trigger-fingerness. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per CanadianCaesar, and candidate misunderstanding of speedy deletion. The CSDs are strict and narrow. Most things that the community would find deletable in an open forum are not, ipso facto, speedy deletable. The CSDs cover only those matters too definitive to bother discussing. Any candidate must learn the CSDs, and abide relatively strictly by them. Xoloz 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose for having too quick a trigger-finger. — CJewell (talk to me) 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sorry but I do not have trust in your judgement, I also worry that you would be to "trigger happy" as well. Also your AfD activity while numerous is mediocre, at best. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per concerns brought up above and below. Sorry, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Per reasons stated above--SUIT-n-tie 20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I've always been impressed with your vandal fighting, but you may want to ease up on the deletions. I really don't see a problem with the Gundam stuff, although that's probably just me. Your vehemence in wanting to delete stuff like that makes me hesitate to support giving you the delete button. – Lantoka (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Items cited by Nishkid above don't really help his case. When policies are cited it seems to be in vague 3-for-the-price-of-one style. Johnbod 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I'm not sure I'd trust him with the delete button. StuffOfInterest makes a lot of good points so I won't repeat them except to say that I always find the use of the word cruft a little disrespectful when used in regards to good faith editors. If he's purging material from a WikiProject I'd expect him to be active on the projects talk page. But he hasn't made a single edit on WP:GUNDAM's talk page. The focus on deletion seems a little single minded for me to trust with the delete button. RxS 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so he/she believes that certain things should be deleted -- and this becomes a reason to believe that he/she'll abuse the privilege? There's absolutely no evidence of that. All that's been said about him can be said about me, and while people may agree or disagree with me about my administration style, I don't think anyone can accuse me of wantonly and abusively deleting things. --Nlu (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am quite deletionist but you don't see me going around deleting things willy nilly. There is a difference between actually deleting things because you think they dont belong and just expressing that opinion. To leave this user without tools is a great loss to the project, he does some amazing hard work. Just because he expresses an opinion on a matter doesn't mean he is going to ignore process or consensus and abuse the tools. What happened to assume good faith? I have never seen any evidence at all that he will be anything but a sterling editor. ViridaeTalk 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we all believe that certain things should be deleted and no, that doesn't mean we would abuse the tools. My reasons went beyond that...I do think that there's evidence that s/he'd paint outside the lines deletion-wise. Xoloz, CanadianCaesar and StuffOfInterest all point in that direction. The WP:GUNDAM thing I talked about points to a need for more discussion and collaboration in some instances. (and went beyond expressing an opinion). I would expect an admin (and sterling editors) to have a presence on the talk page of a WikiProject s/he's purging. Great energy, does lot's of good work but I wouldn't trust him with the delete button just yet...needs a little more nuance I think. And by the way, where did I ever say anything about assuming bad faith??? RxS 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I misread. ViridaeTalk 10:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. The points raised by StuffOfInterest are my thoughts exactly. This editor doesn't seem like he would use the tools appropriately. Far too likely to delete without thinking. --- RockMFR 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per StuffOfInterest. Quadzilla99 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. His contributions to AFDs have been plentiful but rarely constructive. — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Regretfully. An excellent contributor to the project, but unfortunately deletionist... and too quick on the trigger to show any genuine consideration. Also I share the concerns of Smerdis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (2nd nomination) --Dweller 09:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose From the evidence presented here, it is clear that the editor still benefits from having his deletion decisions checked by others. I'm not confident that a fair number of articles wouldn't be improperly speedied. --Mus Musculus 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of someone proud to be removing more content than he adds. So many others above me have said it better than I could.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. I don't feel comfortable of giving deletion tools to him right now as per above. AfD is not a vote, and he will probably be too quick to press the delete button which will result in many problems. I also don't think this was a very appropriate thing to do. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. You're opposing because he's a deletionist, but you list a diff where he argues to keep a userpage that was only created five days ago? Not that you have to, but can you expand on your reason why that diff is inappropriate? —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the diff I provided, he argues to delete a userpage in case the user remains inactive for a few months. This is a very bite'ish comment and not something I would generally expect from an admin. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No disrespect but that is ridiculous. The person who nommed the userpage for deletion perhaps was a tad bitey but MER-C voting keep is most definitely not. You'll notice (at this time) all other subsequent voters have agreed with him? Glen 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet he did see it as a factor, and agreed that the page should be deleted in a few months. Excluding Arctic Gnome, all other participants of the discussion have argued that the page should be kept without a further watch. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My own comment there didn't quite say that. MER-C said wait one month, which is a bit short; otherwise I for one think his comment there fine Johnbod 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. I agree with much above and particular that this user is too trigger happy. Before deleting an article, it should be looked at carefully to see if it can be saved. --Bduke 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose MER-C mentions {{prod}}ding 1500 articles, but there is no record that he has ever used {{prodwarning}} to notify the author as suggested. It seems to me that he has trouble differentiating between newbies and vandals (WP:AGF). ~ BigrTex 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Oppose per Trebor and Groggy Dice. I opposed this candidate a couple of months ago, and unfortunately I don't see much or any improvement at all, if anything reapplying so soon shows that the candidate is too eager to become an admin. Dionyseus 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Not ready yet, no --Docg 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per above. 1ne 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose A good editor, but is too trigger happy when it comes to deletion. Darthgriz98 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Those above me have elucidated my position better than I could articulate. — MichaelLinnear 05:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Primary issue is trustworthiness with tools. Drmaik 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Oppose — A good use at what s/he does, but I am also concerned by the deletion issues. This worries me because this user may delete valuable stubs without giving them time to grow, as is evidenced by the AfD voting patterns. Excessive deletion — especially on fiction topics — begins to cloud the judgement and blur the line between what should be kept and what should be deleted, and we are at a point where we need to look at things closely and determine if they have potential. If this user can show that s/he can look at articles with a neutral, understanding perspective (and perhaps write/contribute some as well) without the excessive axe philosophy, then I'd be willing to support. — Deckiller 12:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, as per StuffOfInterest. Shyam (T/C) 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose No positive contributions to speak of. Beit Or 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Though Mer-C is a tireless individual, admin capabilities will do more harm than good in this case. I feel as though he/she will act too quickly and against potentially viable arguments in deciding consensus in favor of deletion, and could cause problems with speedy deletes as well. A history (the evidence of which I see above and in my own experience) of rapid-fire decision making is not conducive to administrative responsibilities. I see too much potential for feathers ruffled by hasty deletions and deletion review backlogs. --Tractorkingsfan 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. While I trust the nominator, I feel that it is too soon, especially in afd, i feel that MER-C would ignore key wikipedia policies and just go on a vote to vote basis. Oppose Jaranda wat's sup 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose, disturbingly deletionist, apparently to the point of concentrating on getting stuff deleted above all else. No way such a person should get a delete button. Everyking 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose - per lame user subpage intentionally provoking a long-term vandal with obvious privacy violations when there are hundreds of other accounts to use. Some are clearly fraudulent accounts, I might add, such as the one trolled onto the page by Anomo. If that's how this user thinks vandals should be dealt with, with violations of privacy and general provocation, he should not be an admin. Milto LOL pia 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - there seems to be a lot of "delete per nom" in AfDs he participates in, which bothers me. Also, what Everyking stated above-from K37 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - Nothing against MER-C as an editor. His history of contributions consists significantly of AfD votes--that is not, however, my reason for not supporting. There are a number of instances where he votes (usually to "delete" as noted above, though voting to "keep" would be equally problematic) on multiple AfDs within the span of a minute or two. It is impossible to look at 4 articles, consider their merits, read (or at least skim through) the discussion thus far and comment on all within the span of one minute as he did on February 2 at 11:56 (see [21], [22], [23], [24]). Black Falcon 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment - Comments like those made here do not do anything to fill me with confidence regarding MER-C's suitability for adminship. Black Falcon 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose My sentiments are close to Majorly's and Stuff of Interests. Mer-c definately seems to have good intentions, but at times he can be a bit undiplomatic in his approach towards things, especially from what i've seen of him on xfds. If he calms down, I might support in several months. Until then, he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin IMO. Just H 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose It's hard for me to do this, but I have concerns with MER-C's editing pattern which by own account the "edit count dipped from 250/day to 200/day" during a slowdown, which seems to be far too many to devote proper attention to any of them. I am also concerned by the huge percentage of XfD voting as part of the overall contributions. I am also concerned about the pattern of these votes and if MER-C can exercise appropriate discretion given the self-cited deletionist preference. I already have philosophical issues with editors whose edit history consist almost entirely of XfD's; but an admin who has spent such a small amount of time creating content is unlikely to have the needed sensitivity in dealing with users who have spent hours/days/weeks creating their masterpiece, only to see it become the target of a deletion effort, with huge numbers of votes of the "ditto" or "per nom" ilk coming from mass deleters such as MER-C, who seem to spend little time actually reading the articles or making a meaningful effort at discerning notability.Alansohn 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ironic that someone who (apparently) opposes MER-C's nomination on the basis that he/she writes overly short AfD comments would write this kind of an opposition here. --Nlu (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentionally ironic, no doubt Johnbod
  51. Oppose While anti-vandalism work is always appreciated, that alone doesn't qualify someone for administratorship. Every time I see this person vote in AfD, the votes are rarely supported with any kind of substantive argument. I don't see any objectiveness with this editor --Oakshade 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, because everybody, but especially an admin who's main focus will be in AfD, should always give a thorough explanation of why he/she feels an article should be deleted or not. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. I do like the vandal work, so I would support with a pledge to confine admin tools to blocking, only tagging for speedy. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Does not seem sufficiently concerned about complete and fair process before deleting the work of other editors, who are volunteers of a non-profit whose work should be valued.Edivorce 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose This user already fights vandals very effectively, but as an inclusionist I cannot in good conscience support his request for adminship. dreddnott 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose He's a good guy against vandals, but his admission to being part of a "deletionist cabal" on his talk page is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. I was almost neutral, but things like "pre-empting votes" kept me out of that section. I frankly don't want to see more tools in his hands until he has more restraint. — Athænara ✉ 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

#Sorry to be not supporting, but I find most of this user's XfD contribs to be fairly basic (per nom, WP:NOT etc) without actually adding much to the discussion. I've also closed many debates started by this user as keep, so I'm wondering how he'll handle the delete button. I'm also wondering how many of the pages this user has prodded actually ended up staying... I'm also not too happy he states he's a deletionist. This is not a paper encyclopedia, its size is unlimited. I'm worried you'll delete an article too quickly without actually checking its notability. Nevertheless, a great vandal-fighter, and I honestly hope you pass this time. I hope you understand my concerns. --Majorly (o rly?) 12:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Changing to oppose. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Neutral My sentiments are close to Majorly's and Stuff of Interests. Mer-c definately seems to have good intentions, but at times he can be a bit undiplomatic in his approach towards things, especially from what i've seen of him on xfds. If he calms down, I might support in several months. Until then, he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin IMO. Just H 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Changed to oppose. Just H 02:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral: I'm rather torn about this one. I have no doubt MER-C would be quite helpful with our deletions backlog, but I do find him rather trigger-happy with speedy tagging: here is one example that leaves me hesitant to trust user with the delete button. Like others, I'm also concerned about his attitude at AfD. This is one example I find really rather a bit disturbing: Leaving a message telling people not to vote WP:ILIKEIT seems overkill in any case, and bolding it in red seems to me cross into incivility. Not enough to make me oppose, especially in light of the good work he does in opposing vandalism, but still concerns me. Heimstern Läufer 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just pre-empting some votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by MER-C (talk • contribs)
    Yes, and I'm saying this isn't helpful. Closing admins will ignore invalid "keep" reasons anyway, and being so forceful as to bold your statement in red looks like disrespect for others, including new users who may have little understanding of our deletion policies. Heimstern Läufer 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. You're a good editor, and I've even seen you at some of the articles I've nominated for deletion, but too many of your replies are simply "per _____" or "notability", which seems to conflict with your opposition of not treating discussions like votes. If you fleshed out your arguments, or even made the initial argument in an xFD, this would relay that you understand policies, and you understand how to do preliminary research to see if a deletion would be valid. --Wafulz 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (switching to support) Great experience and my interactions with MER-C have been quite positive. I am quite sure he could be trusted to not knowingly abuse the tools. I say "knowingly" bacause I am also a tad worried about his attitude in deletion debates. A bit too aggressive and too many summary "delete" judgements. The diff above in the AfD nomination on list of Latin phrases had also caught my eye because it isn't as respectful to the other camp as one might expect. Pascal.Tesson 09:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, per points made my supporting and opposing parties. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral No question MER-C should be an admin. The only concern from last time, lack of article writing, has gone out the window. ~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for switching from support to neutral for a second time, but I cannot find a single instance where MER-C actively engages in a deletion discussion. The drive-by voting issue is a problem for someone who wants to close XfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, like many of the supporters, I have had only good interactions with Mer-c, and honestly some of the people opposing on AfD grounds are people who infuriate me as rapid-fire inclusionists. It is a two way street. But nonetheless, I don't necessarily see a pressing need for mer-c to have admin capabilities, particularly as s/his primary interest at the moment is !voting at AfDs. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning support pending an answer to my question #10 above. —Doug Bell talk 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I'm staying neutral to avoid the pileon opposition. My peers who vote support bring up some good points on behalf of MER-C as a vandal fighter. But when I look at the contribs, I see a lot of participation in AfD with very little participation in article building. And without getting into the merits of the articles themselves, I see a lot of edit summaries for AfD that state delete. This strengthens the arguments of my peers who are voting to oppose. I'm not someone who believes every admin should be the best writer, but I do believe it takes some article editing and writing to truly evaluate whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion. My suggestion is to do some article creation and wiki-gnoming to understand what it feels like to build an article. Get a bit more rounded in the project. Then come back to RfA. AfD is too contentious an area to focus most of your attention on; it creates too much bad blood which you see coming back here in this RfA. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 03:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't mean this contentiously, but I think you should take the oppose votes seriously as people voting their respective consciences as opposed to chalking them up to vengeance over Afd disagreement. I would also suggest that you should vote how you actually feel, and not worry about recent trends in the overall vote. I give serious Wikipedia editors enough credit to believe they make their own decisions; I don't think people oppose or support just because the last four or five editors have. Again, no disrespect intended. --Tractorkingsfan 06:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm not sure how much changed since I last saw MER-C, but I've encountered him on WP:AIV and in some cases he was a bit too quick to call a username offensive or to report a user without enough prior warnings. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I just want to express my appreciation for MER-C's incredible vandal-fighting work. He is the strongest argument possible for giving non-admins the rollback button. Once I courtesy-blanked an old AfD page, Antivandalbot came in, and within seconds MER-C had re-blanked the page with the appropriate template AND followed up by reverting Antivandalbot's warning on my talk page. This is the kind of dedication that makes Wikipedia an amazing place. Kla'quot 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Generally, his performance on AFD is reasonable and responsible, even though there is a lopsided number of "delete"s there. But I am unhappy about the way he tried to get rid of the lists of hospitals. Instead of nominating a representative article from the category, he nominated the weakest and unformatted article in the category and intended to use the result there as a precedent to delete all the lists which were properly formatted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MER-C_2&oldid=1089278336"