Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Anarchyte
Final (81/53/18); ended 09:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate —&thinsp; Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
– Fellow Wikipedians, allow me to present Anarchyte as a candidate for adminship. Anarchyte made his first edit on Wikipedia last April, and wasted no time making himself helpful. He has now amassed over 13,000 edits and proven himself as a valuable member of our community.

Anarchyte is more of a wikignome than a heavy content contributor. Nevertheless, he has done some respectable content work, which you can see linked from his user page. In particular, he has put a lot of work into Rust (video game), and has ambitions to get it to Good Article status.

In his administrative work, Anarchyte has done a little bit of everything. He has a very respectable CSD log with over 800 entries, and has also done a lot of work at AfD (188 discussions if his AfD stats are correct). His AfD comments can be slightly terse, but they have a knack of getting right to the heart of the issue. He is also a regular at RfD, helps with deletion sorting, helps out at AfC and at TAFI, and helps with requested moves. I would also be remiss not to mention his recent changes patrolling, which has seen him make 126 edits to AIV, 49 edits to UAA, and 48 edits to RFPP.

Anarchyte is always friendly and helpful to users asking him questions about his actions, something that will help him a lot should he be given the mop. And having the admin toolkit would make all of his current administrative work a lot more productive. I hope you will all join with me in supporting his candidacy. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination, Mr. Stradivarius. I accept.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this RfA. This was a different experience, sometimes fun but always stressful, I've learnt a lot about my issues and where I need to improve. I'll try to create/expand more articles and lower the amount of incorrect AfD/CSDs I make. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, I'd like specific advice from people if possible. Cya!  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Because I consider myself to be more of a maintenance-type and anti-vandalism editor than an article writer, I'd work on the edits that involve those areas. Places like WP:AIV, WP:AFD and WP:CSD. Having the ability to delete pages would also help when accepting requested moves. I have experience in all of those areas too. As I get more comfortable with the administration tools, I'll probably branch out into more areas, such as other parts of the deletion process, along with places like permission requests and WP:RFPP.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'd say my anti-vandalism work. I'm lacking any GA/FA articles behind my name but if I were to name the articles where I've had the most fun editing, Rust (video game) would be up there. I edited that while I was playing the game so I knew what I was writing about. Maybe it was because I was editing with other people, mainly. S/he helped me with writing things into the article which I never considered. We got it from Start-Class to a fairly in-depth C-Class and I think if I or we were to continue to work on it with new sources, it could become a B-Class. I'm trying to get it to GA-Class but because it's in-development, GA reviews will be quickfailed.  explained my types of edits excellently in their RfA; the edits I make do not contribute much to the front page, but they, in the long run, help out in the process.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I don't recall any real conflicts but disagreements are guaranteed to arise; it's comes as a package in the title "Wikipedia editor". The disagreements I've had are mainly in AfD discussions where people disagree with my opinions, which is fine because they're discussions for a reason. I've never gotten to the point where it's been a "serious" disagreement. I have never been edit warred or been caught or brought into an edit war. If I were to experience a real conflict, I'd take a 2 or 3 day break ("take the dog for a walk") and cool off before resuming. If I have a disagreement with another editor I take it either to the article talk page or their user talk page.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
 * 4. Have you edited Wikipedia before registering for this account in 2015 ?
 * A: Yes, I dabbled in editing for a while using IP addresses. My edits on those were minor gnome-like edits such as fixing typos, adding wikilinks and fixing punctuation.


 * Optional question from Iaritmioawp
 * 5. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
 * A: If the debate is that close-knit by the end of the first 7-day period, I'd relist the debate, hoping that more editors have their say in the matter. There are not only two results to a debate, yes, there are the two most common ones of "agree with nom"/"disagree with nom" (keep/delete, move/don't move, etc) but there is also the option of closing as no consensus. As to not come off as supervoting, I'd leave my comment on the issue and move on or relist it, without closing it. Admins aren't required to close anything and don't have set roles in debates.


 * Additional question from Prhartcom
 * 6. Imagine that you are providing administrator responses at WP:ANI one afternoon when you come across two editors who are upset at the behavior of a particular administrator. Apparently these editors and others had been participating in a discussion on a controversial article's talk page, where one of the editors was a member of a faction that had strongly proposed one outcome while the other editor was a member of a faction that had strongly proposed another. Then, apparently the administrator dropped by the article talk page discussion, announcing that they were there to help bring order and wisdom to the chaos. The administrator then explains that what is needed is a third approach, one completely different than the two outcomes being discussed, and begins directing everyone to implement this new approach. The article talk page discussion then failed to focus on a resolution. The two editors were there at ANI to report the administrator, both stating that the admin had abused their position of power. What statement do you make to this ANI discussion that closes the matter? Imagine that your statement is immediately agreed with and marked as resolved by other administrators.
 * A: Admins don't receive any special privileges when it comes to editing an article, they have no more right to say what's in an article than the rest of the site. This essay put it rather well: "An admin is just a normal user with a mop and a bucket. It certainly does not give you any Sergeant-like authority". If an administrator has been abusing their powers in order to get their way, I'd leave a comment with my stance on the matter. I'd look through their edit history and logs and see if this is an isolated event or a common thing. If the admin has been in this sort of strife multiple times, they might not be fit for adminship and my comment would reflect on what I thought would be best for that article and the Encyclopedia in general. Admins don't have the power to de-admin, in the long run it's up to a bureaucrat to close the discussion.


 * Additional question from Hchc2009
 * 7. Our administrators often have to deal with conflicts and disagreements within the community. Could you give an example of where you have had to deal with a situation in which editors have had strong differences of views? (e.g. over the content in an article, or an interpretation of policy) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A: Around 2 months into having this account, I edited the GamerGate controversy page with a question if Kotaku would be able to be used as a reference, given the affiliation it had with it. In hindsight, it wasn't a smart idea to partake in such a controversial subject when I had only been here a couple months. I hadn't fully read the policies surrounding such a libelous question. Since then, I haven't edited the article and I have no plans to interfere with what's going on there. The discussion can be located here. This discussion didn't cause me to be stressed, that's why I didn't include this in the answer to the 3rd question; I was fine with walking away from that article.


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech
 * 8. Are you familiar with Why I Hate Speedy Deleters? Do you agree?
 * A: I had heard of the essay but I never read it until today. It raises some good points about the criteria which I agree with. CSD isn't the only option when it comes to deleting an article. If it doesn't fit into one of the immediate criteria, it can be taken to AfD to find consensus, or if it's uncontroversial the article can simply be PRODed. I'm on the fence about their statement of it not giving the editor enough time to fix. In my experience, I've found that the only ones that get deleted within the next 10 or so minutes are the vandalistic articles (G3, G10 and G1). A7's seem to stick around for at least 30 minutes before they're deleted. This is just in my experience and this may be a coinsidence, but I think admins take more care in CSD than that essay portrays.


 * Additional questions from BU Rob13
 * 9. How did you become involved in Wikipedia? Did you have any experience with the site prior to registering this account? Specifically, please disclose if you edited as an IP address (without disclosing the actual address, of course), came here via another site, etc.
 * A: As mentioned in the 4th question, I dabbled in editing as an IP before making an account. I got involved in editing Wikipedia because, honestly, I was bored and decided to try something new. This is Wikipedia after all, the 5th most visited website so I found the site long before I started editing.
 * 10. In August 2015, you edited Ketchapp and added a quote to the article that I cannot find at your source among other information alleging that the company stole ideas from other developers. The addition of this information, in part, led to the cofounder of Ketchapp threatening to take legal action (see Talk:Ketchapp). Could you explain this edit? Would you do anything differently now if you were in that position again?
 * A: I added that information because there were multiple articles written on the subject (quick google brings up these  (disagrees)  ). If I were to write that paragraph now, I'd reference it better, along with not using as stern words as "stole". The current version of Ketchapp mentions the subject very well and that's probably what I'd try to write if it happened in a week, a month, and so on. I have tried to explain the lack of the a source for the quote during an AN/I discussion, and I realise that I should've found a more reliable source than a blog post.


 * Additional (and completely option) question from Steven Crossin


 * 11: Taking a slightly different approach to the first question, which describes the work you intend to do as an admin, and the second, which describes your contributions - could you tell us why you want to be an administrator, and why, in your own words, would you both support and oppose yourself (if possible) for adminship (I'm basically hoping for you to self assess and explain how you feel qualified/suitable to be an admin, but also the areas of opportunity you can see).
 * A: I want to become an administrator because I like to make edits and involve myself in admin-related areas (such as the places listed in #1).
 * For support, I'd go with something along the lines of: Anarchyte has made some mistakes in the past but seems to know where he went wrong. We all make mistakes and I believe he has learnt from his and will try to avoid controversial topics. Not every admin has to have the majority of edits in mainspace and it seems this user likes to involve themselves in other areas, mainly in maintenance-related places.
 * For oppose, I'd go with something along the lines of: It might be too soon for this candidate to pass an RfA and get given the tools because of lack of mainspace edits.


 * Additional question from Yellow Dingo
 * 12. Consider this scenario (you are an admin). You come across a new page while NPP that obviously meets a CSD criteria. Do you A) Delete it; B) Tag it and let an uninvolved admin delete it; C) Leave it for another user to tag as CSD and then delete it or D) do nothing. Explain your answer.
 * A:I would do option B. I would tag it and let an uninvolved admin delete it. I'd do this because if it's not tagged, the user isn't notified of the possibility of deletion. Administrators shouldn't go around deleting articles and pages carelessly.


 * Additional question from Wbm1058
 * 13. Please explain the rationale behind your choice of user name.
 * A: Similar to how the YouTuber Vsauce found his. I used an online fake name generator and it generated this username. I thought it was good, so I used it.


 * Additional questions from Carrite:
 * 14. Following up on Q4 above: have you ever edited under another named account at Wikipedia? If so, what was your prior user name?
 * A: No, I have never edited under a different account name.


 * 15. I notice the very first iteration of your user page includes a user box indicating that you are "not an administrator and do not wish to be one." When did you change your mind about this and why?
 * A: I removed that template in January of this year . I don't remember having a reason for removing it except for it taking up space. I changed my mind about being an admin after I really got into the maintenance side of editing, so a few months ago (around Feb).


 * Additional questions from Esquivalience
 * 16. Have you read Advice for RfA candidates or any other RfA advice pages before nomination?
 * A: Yes, along with revising on policy guidelines. The RfA essays and criteria section on that page was also useful.
 * 17. In your own words, explain consensus and outline the differences between consensus-based decision making versus voting-based decision making.
 * A: Voting-based desicision making can be compared to a strawpoll. Strawpolls are primarily a vote. They can be useful when you want to find whether it's worth discussing it in further detail, or just finding people's favourite food. Consensus-based descision making is not a vote and instead it allows the participants to voice their (hopefully policy based) opinions. Let's say there's an AfD made for the deletion of Example. The nominator supplies good reasoning for the deletion and people start adding their rationales for deletion and keeping. A few people come along and mention the idea of draftifying it, which satifies the deletion-voters because it removes the article and it satifies the keep voters because it'll mean it can still be accessed. The closer comes around and closes it as "draftify" and that makes the majority of the voters happy, meaning consensus has been found.


 * Addition question from TJH2018:


 * 18. What does Wikipedia mean to you?
 * A: Wikipedia is the 5th most visited website on the entire internet and probably one of the top visited websites on my computer, too. Wikipedia has always been my first stop when I'm searching for information and because of the benefit it's given me over the many years of using it (not editing), I wanted to start to give back, even if my edits are mainly gnome-like edits. There are so many topics and so many pages on here that even if someone was to read 10 articles a day, it'd take them 1,417 years (if I did the maths right ). Wikipedia is also a community and that's what differentiates it from other encyclopedias and online research sites; people from all over the world come together to try to expand the sum of human knowledge.


 * Additional questions from Montanabw
 * 19. There are concerns about a systemic bias problem on wikipedia in terms of article coverage, and how would this influence your decisions in assessing consensus and handling closures at AfD in light of the significant number of articles about women (and also people from the Third World) that are tagged for deletion?   Montanabw (talk)  21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A: I think bias towards articles ONLY because they're about women or people from the Third World is wrong, obviously. If the reason they're ("they're" being an article about a notable person which is properly sourced) being taken to AfD is only because of their race, sex, views, etc it'd probably get closed pretty fast as it'd hold no ground. If the subject in the article isn't notable, along with other deletion criteria then it should be taken to AfD/CSD (if it meets the criteria). This goes for all articles, not just articles about the aforementioned people. The systemic bias on Wikipedia is an issue but we can't force editors to edit in areas and edit articles they don't wish to involve themselves in. It relates to the fact that the content on this site is written, mainly, by volunteers. When closing AfDs as delete, the closer should have a last look over the references and take a quick check to see if there's any that people missed. There's a WikiProject which trys to lower the bias in articles but due to the demographic of editors, it's a big task.


 * 20. Related to your brief involvement in GamerGate, though you may wish to avoid it completely, I would like to know how you might process through this or a similar controversy, particularly where WP:BLP or a WP:3RR violations occurs. You now should know that there was a major Arbcom case and the decision received significant press and a fair bit of criticism, as seen here and here. Upon review of this situation, should you encounter a Gamergate-related dispute subject to the ArbCom decision, and it appears to be, as The Guardian stated, “...a game of provocation chicken, both sides try to work as close to the ill-defined edge of acceptable behaviour to provoke the other into crossing it...," what process would you use to sort out the players so that well-intentioned editors are not inappropriately sanctioned and driven off wikipedia by other editors intent on gaming the system?  Montanabw (talk)  21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A: I don't wish to get involved with such a controversial topic. I'd much rather let ArbCom take care of those terrible situations as that's what it was set up to do. Uninvolved admins can also take action but I don't think I'd include myself in the list of those people. If I was required to make a call there, I'd read over the problem multiple times before making a descission. If it's obvious that someone is editing in a way that breaks policy, warns and blocks would be necessary but again, I'd rather ArbCom take care of those controversial topics. As for the hypothetical situation you described, there are pages designated for things like this, one being Dispute Resolution.

Discussion

 * Links for Anarchyte:
 * Edit summary usage for Anarchyte can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Support: Anarchyte has been a constructive and long-standing member of Wikipedia, with a wide range of experience. They show a need for the tools and the maturity expected of our admins -- samtar talk or stalk 13:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ticks the boxes, looks like a net positive addition to the administrative team. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 13:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: I don't put arbitrary limits on edits or time spent. I think the rising numerical "standards" for adminship is one of the main reasons that the rate of promotion has dropped off. Even if a candidate doesn't have experience in all the areas an admin can do work in, doesn't mean they'll go in and start wrecking everything: their behaviour should be predicted from their past conduct. Net positive, so support. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 20:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Knowledgeable editor, has experience in a wide variety of areas, and is quite trustworthy, apart from being very amenable to change. On the positive side, has quite a friendly tone to even his detractors (yes, I was once), and that is what I feel is quite important for administrators. Should be a huge net plus for us. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Easily WP:NETPOSITIVE. Wide range of experience, good contributor, definitely could improve the wiki with the tools. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. For the record, the nominee is actually more of a regular at WP:RM than they are at WP:RFD. Either way, giving the nominee the admin tools seems like a good idea. Steel1943  (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (Moving to "neutral" to give myself some more time to think about this. Steel1943  (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC))
 * 1) Support net positive. KGirlTrucker87talk what I'm been doing 15:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Great main space contributions, great contributor overall, net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 16:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - a definite net positive to the project; no issues whatsoever. Best of luck. -- PatientZero talk  17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weakish support: I have concerns over the extendedconfirmed topicon on the candidate's user page (as it could include over-eagerness) and the lack of significant content expansion (at most 45 mostly-minor edits to an article). And creating a user page, requesting protection, and joining a WikiProject within the first 24 hours is uncommon (although I can trust the candidate's word that they edited as an IP before). However, the candidate's maintenance contributions are good and they generally keep calm, and can be trusted, so nonetheless support. — Esquivalience (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC) (moving to oppose)
 * The extendedconfirmed topicon was created for that reason, and thats it's only use. Why exactly does having a topicon have anything to do with the inability to perform as an admin? &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I noted some of that early behavior myself, and it's what prompted question 9. Having said that, I recall that my introduction to Wikipedia was taking part in a TfD discussion after noticing a TfD notice in Amy Poehler's infobox. People are introduced to Wikipedia in weird ways. I was accused of socking multiple times in my first few months on the site because I showed competence. Coming from that perspective, I can understand how an editor could make an edit on a talk page for the first time, click on another editor's userpage at the talk page, and then make his own page 20 minutes later after spending that time fumbling through how to add a couple userboxes. Since he's shown no indication that he plans to delete the main page (more than we can say for some existing admins!), this is an excellent application of WP:AGF. ~ RobTalk 00:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No reason not to. A year is enough time to accurately gauge an editor's contributions, and Anarchyte seems like he will be an excellent admin, we need more admins. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I believe Anarchyte is a net positive. I first interacted with them when I gave a second opinion on their GA review of Amal Women's Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant. The fact that two second opinons were asked for (even asking for a second opinion is rare in GA reviews) shows a great deal of collegiality and a knowledge of their own limits. Knowing when to admit you don't know is something is, I think, an amazing attribute for an admin, and is probably the primary reason I am supporting. To respond to some of the opposes: I don't believe the time Anarchyte has been here is a problem, especially since they have been so productive. Adminship should be based upon effectiveness and trust, not arbitrary time limits, and if we can determine a track record and level of trust, it shouldn't matter how long they've been here. Now, if the opposes think that they are not able to establish a track record that's a different story, but I don't think opposing for an ever-increasing, arbitrary time frame is reasonable. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak support pending response to BU Rob's second question. I still think Anarchyte is a net positive, but the diff Rob presented is concerning and I would like to see some explanation. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While digging through his WP:ANI contributions (very few diffs there - good!), I noticed that he already explained where the quote came from at the time. It wasn't properly verified and shouldn't have been added, but I can definitely see where he was coming from at the time as an inexperienced editor. I was the editor who cleaned up that article a year ago and fielded some of the legal threats. Ten months later, I'm not worried he'll do it again, for what that's worth. ~ RobTalk 00:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, I hadn't seen the answer yet. Between your post and their answer I'm satisfied it was a mistake and won't be repeated which was my main concern. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so brief note: I still very much support the candidate despite the newer, well reasoned opposition below. SilkTork's opposition is particularly thought provoking as they raise very valid points, but I believe Anarchyte's ability to learn from their mistakes instills more trust in me than the mistakes instill fear. The mistakes the opposers raise are valid, but I see them as minor and even if they were repeated, which I doubt they will be, they are easily fixed. I believe Anarchyte would take them as learning opportunities if they were to occur and I'd much rather have a human admin who learns from mistakes than one who is infallible because at least I know how Anarchyte will respond when mistakes are made. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Account age is not something I factor in when deciding on what i'm !voting for. Anarchyte appears to be a competent editor who has worked in many maintenance areas of Wikipedia, and could greatly help perform admin-only maintenance tasks with access to administrative tools. There is no evidence that Anarchyte would misuse these tools, so there is no reason to oppose. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Account age is not a problem for me, nor is the lack of content work. For the same reason's I put out at ORCP, Anarchyte would clearly be a net positive for the project. His AFD and RM work is excellent and his CSD log is massive, and shows excellent understanding of the deletion and notability policies.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 21:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - seeing nothing wrong with the candidate. I'm not sure why people are concerned with strictly "time in". Some people can do a lot more in two years than others do in ten. Surely, if the candidate was too inexperienced, you'd be able to find actual examples of why this is the case, rather than just saying that they haven't been here for some arbitrary length of time? Just a thought, and thanks to the candidate for applying. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Net positive.  Also not impressed by the editcountis in the oppose section.  -  F ASTILY   23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Anarchyte has come a long way since their early edits. It wouldn't be fair to mark the candidate down by their early edits, even if account age is "only" a year and a bit. A year is a long time. Deryck C. 00:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (moved to oppose, regrettably). I have multiple issues with this candidate's edits, but all the edits I take issue with are quite old. By all accounts, he's a productive editor in maintenance areas where the tools are needed. A lack of drama-seeking at ANI is also a plus. I encourage to work on some content creation before wading into deletion processes as an admin; if you don't know what you want to write, drop me a message on my talk page and I'll send you materials to write up a few high-quality Canadian football biographies. I'd also be happy to collaborate if you prefer. I'm very disappointed in the rationales of several editors who have opposed on the basis of account age alone. I've been mulling over whether I should throw my name in the ring for a couple months given my work at TfD (and now CfD), but it's RfAs like this one that keep me from doing so. Simply put, the English Wikipedia is in crisis. We have a severe shortage of admins. If we continue to follow the current trajectory, we won't be able to keep up with even the most basic maintenance tasks of counter-vandalism, let alone quality control (XfDs and more obscure administrative tasks). We've already seen some of these effects with long backlogs at WP:RFPP and other basic areas that need quick administrator attention. This isn't a hypothetical "five years from now" problem; it's a "right now" problem. It's only a matter of time before the existing admins can't keep up any more. ~ RobTalk 00:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm back after briefly moving to oppose. I took another read through this whole RfA, and the number of editors opposing who have shown no evidence of looking beyond the join date deserves balancing out. I'm not thrilled with the CSD stuff, but I'm not going to contribute to a pile-on here. In the context of a CSD log 800 pages long, it would be a small wonder if nothing objectionable was there. Besides, adminship is not a big deal, and I trust that Anarchyte will slow down and handle the tools cautiously after this experience. He's aware of his areas of deficiency now and I trust him to take the advice in the spirit given and improve accordingly. The fact that he was so quick to admit his mistakes suggests that, even if he were to make mistakes in the future, he would be open to criticism and self-reverting his actions. Every admin will make mistakes. We need more admins who will be willing to unmake them. And as a note, I count a good 10 opposes that make no reference to specific issues beyond his length of time on the site. ~ RobTalk 01:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Any user nominated by  has my support (unless, of course, I found serious concerns, which I don't)., RFA is a tough slog. No matter what the outcome, don't get too disheartened if it doesn't go through. I've been through this twice, and it's not fun, so no matter what the outcome, chin up. I'm sure you'll continue to do great work.  Steven   Crossin  01:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I also have faith in the judgement of and see no reason to not support this candidate. Atsme 📞📧 01:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Adminship is not a big deal. I miss the good old days when 6 months of good editing made you a shoe in.  Seems like a fine editor who will make a good admin.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, with some reservations, but WP:NOBIGDEAL must prevail if the project is to survive. This is clearly someone invested in the project's best interests, especially given the thoughtful answers to questions thus far. I do hope that they seriously consider the valid issues raised in the 'oppose' section, and maybe take it slow at first, particularly for issues regarding content creation and deletion. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I went through a half dozen or so AFDs where the outcome went against Anarchyte's !vote and in all but one they either withdrew the nom when mistakes were pointed out or gave reasonable enough rational. The voting pattern is a good mix of keep, delete and other options with a high volume and accuracy - so no major concerns about that area. I also skimmed the edits from November last year and February this year and they are very gnomish. It was difficult to find many that were content related or non-standard template notifications to talk pages. There were a few page creations relating to video games where the content looked reasonable and all the interactions between this user and others seemed congenial. Also went through the talk page archives and no evidence of major disputes (apart from the gamergate one mentioned below). They listen and responds to advice so all in all I am not seeing a lot of reasons to oppose. Some more experience would be nice, but if you keep listening to advice and don't get in too deep too fast you should be right. AIR corn (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I've read thru all of the objections and oppose votes, and it's clear that this person has screwed up. That's not what matters. What matters is that they have acknowledged their errors and worked to correct them. The second opinion requested on that good article review linked by HCHC is, as I see it, a good sign, as Anarchyte recognized that they maybe didn't handle it correctly and brought in a second opinion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support If I knew Anarchyte was planning to run for RfA I would have nominated him. I have numerous positive interactions with Anarchyte, who learns quickly and is always willing to listen to advice. There is no reason to assume he or she would misuse the tools. SST  flyer  05:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Editor appears competent, edit count seems reasonable. Appears as though they would be a decent admin. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Clear net positive, which is the test that really matters, not whether they have x mainspace edits or y years of service. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Cautious support as I think on the balance of things the editor will be a net positive as an admin. Opposes make some points, yet if that is all there is after two years then I think Anarchyte worth a trial with mop. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I don't see Anarchyte as a high risk of causing problems; he's quite cautious and there isn't anything that sticks out as problematic. I'm unconvinced by the opposition.  James086 Talk  08:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Baby miss  fortune 09:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Clearly passes my long-standing criteria for adminship... we really need to stop raising the bar so high for people to help. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support No reasons for opposing. Questions are fine. I don't agree with the "too soon" arguments as the candidate has plenty of experience. Other objections seem to be mainly quibbles. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 11:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Net positive Although I was concerned about the early Gamergate involvement and a relative lack of experience (particularly with content, and I'm no stickler for content creation), what I've seen of the candidate—I like the answer to Q12—gives me the feeling that they won't misuse the tools.  Mini  apolis  13:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Thank you for stepping forward to take a more active role in Wikipedia.  I especially liked your answer to Question 12, since I tend to work with new editors who don't always realize that something new they are working on has been tagged for deletion or deleted already.  TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Supporting to counteract the "too soon" votes. People don't need 24+ months of "experience"; they just need to have a sensible head on their shoulders. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. While normally I would say one year is not enough time to learn Wikipedia, the candidate's stats are good for that short amount of time. Not too much content creation as the candidate admits, but their administrator-type work is plentiful and shows much promise. I'm happy with their AfD work, especially the withdraws; they show an honor for consensus. The candidate gave what I feel is the correct answer to Q6: In that question, the administrator had indeed not actually abused their power, as nothing indicated that they had used their admin tools at all. However, the candidate correctly assessed that the administrator's "sergeant-like authority" indeed requires a correction: Anyone claiming they are here to help should not drag the discussion towards a pet idea that no one else is advocating, causing the discussion to lose its focus—especially an administrator. Administrators=tools, yes, but administrator behavior is also important. The candidate correctly assessed that we don't expect to see administrators bringing "strife" instead of resolution to a discussion "to get their way", even to the extent that the two opposing editors united against the administrator's behavior. The candidate's ANI comment to the hypothetical administrator stating that what is needed is "what is best for that article" is the right approach. It sounds like the candidate can be trusted to head in the right direction. —Prhartcom ♥ 23:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support as nominator. Also, I'd like to echo the comments above about the "too soon" arguments - two years is way too long a time to require admin candidates to have been editing for. Six months should be more than enough. We should not forget the purpose of requiring that admin candidates have been on Wikipedia for some length of time - it's so that we can see enough of their edits to get a reliable picture of what kind of editor they are. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that 14 months and 13,000 edits is too little to judge what kind of editor Anarchyte is. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support (was neutral !vote 3) Anarchyte is eager and enthusiastic, meets !voters' RfA criteria, and in a previous comment, I personally stated that I haven't found any critical reason to deny the mop. For a user so involved in CSD/XfD/etc in the period of time that is his WP tenure, a 100% clean record/log is very difficult, for anyone. Whether he's been here for a year, or many years before the account, Anarchyte, like everyone, has more to learn about this place. Good luck to Anarchyte. (I caution against a progressively rising time/experience criteria on mop-holding, and overly-intense scrutiny and nit-pickiness at RfAs.) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - I think some of the oppose rationales are reasonable, but overall not sufficient to make me not support this. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Switched from neutral. Editor did realize that they made mistakes, and fixed them. We need more of that - not less. SQL Query me!  00:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, has plenty of experience and I don't see any major issues in their previous conduct. Nakon  01:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - I am not swayed by the experience-related opposes. Then again, I come from a time when a few months and a few thousand edits are all it took to be given the flag, so perhaps I'm a bit behind the times? Either way, this user seems both experienced and knowledgeable. My only advice to Anarchyte is to be mindful of when to tag articles for CSD, but he's far from the worst I've seen and CSD is not rocket science. Kurtis (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Candidate appears to have made a mistake at least once, failed to invent a time machine so he could register before Jimbo Wales, and did not bring a shrubbery to RfA even though this requirement is clearly stated on my RfA criteria subpage under item 2.IV section b subpart iii. No, wait, I mean support because he is by all appearances a reasonable person who responds well to feedback. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) supportBrxBrx (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per Opabinia regalis. That's possibly the best summary of this editor that I can think of.  Risker (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Two years is not needed to qualify;  not even one year is necessary. I had only 8 months when I became an admin, with only about 9800 edits.   Perfection in AfD is not necessary--or there would be no need for AfD discussions. Perfection in CSD is not necessary--almost never does an admin delete an article without it being previously nominated. The only way to avoid error in either is to do only the obvious.  Understanding the policies and their underlying rationales is what is necessary, and judgment in applying them. The judgment develops if the basis is there.   DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support After having reviewed the edit history, I see no compelling reason to oppose: overall net positive. UiLego (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) We need more admins, nitpicking of candidates based on arbitrary standards is doing us no favours. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) Support WP needs more administrators, candidate clearly has the aptitude. Poltair (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Don't know him, but I trust Mr. Stradivarius.  His CSD log does look good.  The opposers make a case that he hasn't proven his trustworthiness, but I see no allegation that his trustworthiness is in question.  I am confident that he will make very few repeated mistakes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 33) Support I wish Anarchyte had listened to the more pessimistic users who gave advice at Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and waited a little while longer to start this RfA. Nevertheless, I think his addition to the admin corps would be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 34) Support has clue, is competent, and I do not care if he has not 12 years experience in editing Wikipedia. Honestly, if seems easier to become a federal judge by now than a Wikipedia-administrator. Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. I had assumed, when I saw the number of opposes, that there would be serious concerns with this user's temperament, judgement, etc. However, there are no such concerns, in my view, and most opposes boil down to, "He didn't sign up at the project a long enough time ago." That makes no sense to me at all. This user has WP:CLUE which, in my opinion, is the primary requirement for being an administrator. These artificial time requirements seem just ludicrous. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 36) Support per many of the above, including Opabinia regalis, DGG, and Risker. An expectation of two years or more of editing experience before seeking adminship, as suggested by some of the opposers, is an unreasonably long time period. Fortunately, this is not consistent with the community's actual expectations either in the past or today. Several of the other opposes do have more substance than that, and I trust the candidate to carefully consider the feedback going forward, but on balance the candidate's positives clearly outweigh the negatives in my mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per Opabinia regalis (can't say it better), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. I've recently come across their RM closes at CSD, and found their closes to be sound and they were responsive to any queries I had. They've got plenty of experience - probably about as much as I did when I became an admin, though I'd been registered longer - and not every admin needs to be a virtuoso article writer. Shows every sign of being good material for the gnoming side of adminning. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Not because he's perfect, not because he has experience in all conceivable admin areas, but because he has shown himself to be HERE, to have a fundamental sense of CLUE, and to be teachable where CLUE is missing.  "No Big Deal" aside, y'all need to let admins be human, and make mistakes, and expecting perfection before they even start is rather daunting.  I find it telling that earlier in Wikipedia's history admins were created as such with significantly less experience, yet I think it was more difficult, and perhaps more "important" to be an admin then than now, when policies and guidelines and general consensus were all being either formed or finalized, and things were much more open to interpretation.  Sure, there are hairy issues now, but if mistakes are made, they can be undone, and very few former admins who truly needed to be removed have had that happen, and the project lives.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 22:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing my support !vote yet, but I'll admit the answer regarding consensus (#17) is concerning. Perhaps the candidate would like to revisit?    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could probably answer that question better, but I'm unsure if I'm allowed to redo answers.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 22:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Most of the opposition is based on his so-called "inexperience." I am completely unconvinced by those oppose votes, and I believe they should be discounted due to their woeful lack of substance. If he were so incompetent because of his inexperience, why can't they show broad evidence of such? The few opposes that actually mention some kind of substance mostly just pick on minor mistakes, as is typical at RfA. But in my opinion, this candidate is absolutely qualified for the position. He has overwhelmingly sufficient experience at CSD and AfD, with very good overall accuracy rates. He has a clean block log. One year of editing is more than people realize, not to mention his 13,000 edits. A few years ago, one year was more than sufficient, and there is no evidence that those admins are generally more incompetent than those who passed more recently. Last November, I somehow managed to pass RfA with only a year of experience, and in my several hundred admin actions I've received few serious complaints concerning those actions. I don't think anyone could reasonably say that I was an incompetent disaster, even though editors who demand many years of experience always predict catastrophe. The fact is that their position is a myth that can be easily discredited; if you press them, they can present no solid evidence to support it. Biblio (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The opposes do establish inexperience, but I don't believe they establish likely administrative incompetence. I think that the points made by Opabinia regalis and  DGG justify support. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support (moved from neutral) Okay, some of the oppose !votes are just becoming ridiculous. As I can see it, the user is clearly a WP:NETPOSITIVE, and I'm not going to nitpick on mistakes; we're all human and if we make mistakes, we can learn from them. If we expect perfection from our admins, everyone should be desysopped right now. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I was originally thinking I'd add myself to the neutral side, because while what evidence we do have is generally quite good, there's not a lot to go by when it comes to certain types of user interaction/conflict/policy. I also have reservations about the assertion that he/she has not edited prior to this account, when nearly all of his/her first edits are of the sort that require some prior knowledge of Wikipedia. Thinking about it further, though, I don't know that there's actually a problem behind that unease. Even if there was a previous account, the amount of time/edits put into this one without incident and without a pattern of bad judgment suggests he/she is either someone who did a bunch of research into Wikipedia editing before trying it or perhaps a successful cleanstart/legitsock. In any event, it would be a great assumption of bad faith to presume this editor is playing a long con, and we need admins, so why not? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I have read though the oppose section and looked at the candidate and I believe that granting them a mop would be a net positive for the project. Perfection is not required and asking for that is ridiculous. Nothing that has been said has convinced me that Anarchyte would abuse the tools and in fact. To put a cap on it, per 78.26 and Biblioworm. --Majora (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. There should be little serious opposition to this editor's bid for the mop.  Also note who nominated this editor.  There is no doubt in my mind that Anarchyte would do a good job as an admin!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")!  Paine   02:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with reservations per Opabinia regalis, Miniapolis, DGG, BU Rob13, and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Anarchyte's limited (not short) record is a concern: I'd like to see how they get in and out of substantive disagreements, and they haven't shown themself to be a Solomon of judicious arbitration or an expert Wikipolicy wonk. But we don't (only) need Solomons and wonks; we need decent people who can respect WP:5P, acknowledge a mistake, and clear the backlogs. Anarchyte seems to be one. FourViolas (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, qualified candidate, can learn the rest on the job. We need more administrators, and they do not need to be perfect. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Competent, responsible, has done good work. Maproom (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Candidate seems reasonably competent, unlikely to abuse the tools, and wants it for the right reasons. I consider the inexperience issue to be spurious. Only 5000 edits to mainspace? I was elected with only 5000 edits total in all namespaces, with half of those being Huggle. And 14 months is more than enough time to grok the finer points of policy. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Echo what User:The Wordsmith said. I had less than 2 years of editing experience, 7000 total edits (with only 1600 mainspace edits) and not a single soul told me "not yet" when I was promoted. Though of course, that was the good old days of Wikipedia and admin "requirements" were much more attainable than it is now. No wonder we are having an admin drought. OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Maybe we should have an explicit minimum time on the project pre-admin that is greater than one year, but we don't. I'm more concerned about discouraging an enthusiastic editor than I am about the small possibility of future mop-abuse.--agr (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Could use more contributions on the article side. And that does worry me a bit when it comes to content deletion issues (should know what it feels like to get your work deleted).  But I'm not seeing much else in the oppose section that worries me.  Answers seem solid. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Why not? If the user could better the project as an administrator... --Tamtam90 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Yes they've made a few mistakes (and I think some of the answers to questions are a tad brief) but they seem to generally know what they're doing, learn from mistakes, and have sufficient tenure to (mostly) understand Wikipedia policy - I think they're very much a net positive administrator candidate. Mike1901 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Got the impression of a hard-working conscientious wikipedian each time I've seen Anarchyte around. for (talk)  16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Most of the reasons for my vote are already stated above and some of my mentors for wikipedia agree that this is a good candidate. Chase (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. None of the oppose rationales convince me that he would be anything but a competent and diligent administrator. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support While many of the oppose rationales make valid points, I don't think it rises to the level of me withholding my support. I am confident that they will do well if given the mop. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> Need help?  20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Another gnome with adminship is no bad thing. The amount of edits and time on wikipedia is frankly of no importance here, they've been active for an arbitrary period and 99.9% of their edits seem productive. Kieran  Tribe  21:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per Chillum. Most of the opposes are junk — we have no business demanding that someone be here much longer than a year and a half; you make adminship way too big of a deal — and while some people make good points about things such as CSD tagging, I doubt that there will be significant problems should Anarchyte become an admin.  Seems quite level-headed to be and willing to work at learning, and his response to the question regarding AFD, Admins aren't required to close anything and don't have set roles in debates, is good: we need people who recognise situations in which they're not ready to intervene.  Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support No reason to think that this user will abuse the mop. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Almost all of the opposes are vague comments about a lack of experience. This user seems both competent and very unlikely to abuse the tools. KSF  T C 22:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I've rarely done anything outside of my IP address in many years. That being said, this is a prolific editor with obvious intelligence and good intentions for both content and (as I call them) back-office issues. I feel the need to step in and throw my support here, as it is my opinion this editor would have been a 85-15 approval when this site was in it's exponential growth. The issues being raised against Anarchyte are not significant enough to outweigh the positives. PeteShanosky 02:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support – Come on, tenure is clearly sufficient. Will be a net positive. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. I read (most of) the "oppose" votes, and I didn't see anything meaningful except of "NOTYET" and even "NOTQUITEYET". Those are not legitimate reasons without proper explanation.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Concerns over user's involvement with the Gamergate Controversy topic area and lack of sound policy based editing in it. See, one of their earlier edits. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For those of us, like myself, who are almost completely unfamiliar with the Gamergate Controversy, could you please elaborate a bit more on what you consider problematic in the diff you provided? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What appears to be arguing in that diff is that a reliable website (Kotaku) should not be used as a source because it was alleged that one of their contributors had been in an intimate relationship with Zoe Quinn. These allegations and others were part of the stream of online against a number of women such as Zoe Quinn, and are what the Gamergate Controversy centers around. To quote his diff, "I know there’s no Wikipedia rules surrounding this but it’s just a thought"- it seems like he's acknowledging his idea is not policy based. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge I was in the wrong here and I receieved a very stern word from other editors. Since that discussion, I haven't edited in that and similar areas.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? What is wrong with asking whether a source is WP:PRIMARY on an article talk page? This issue, like everything involving Gamergate, is overblown. SST  flyer  12:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you will find the definition of 'Kotaku' as a 'reliable website' less than certain. Either way, Anarchyte raised their perception of a *potential* issue of a conflict with a source in an evenhanded and non-confrontational manner. Exactly what you are supposed to do when you have concerns about this sort of thing. I think everyone here has seen similar situations where it was raised in the wrong way... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Let's just call this a NOTYET situation... Less than 2 full years at the wheel and the contributions pie chart indicates a majority of the 14K edits are to (User + UserTalk + Talk) pages, with only about 3400 edits (28.3%) to mainspace. Heart may be in the right place and all that, but I'd like to see at least another year's tenure with about half of all activity to mainspace. Then we can start examining editing behavior with a sufficient history to work from. Sorry and do keep up the good anti-vandalism work, but I'm not comfortable extending a lifetime set of blocking and deletion tools at this point. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) *User:Carrite, Less than two years is a not yet? Are you out of your ever loving mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiyarbepsy (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) ** @ - No, I'm not out of my mind, thanks for asking... A minor fraction of less than two years of editing to mainspace is an auto-killshot as far as I'm concerned — insufficient tenure for a lifetime appointment as a Wikipedia administrator. It takes time and experience to learn the culture and the editing ropes and to see how an individual reacts to conflict. That's not enough time or experience, plain and simple. Add another year and maybe 10K more edits, half or more to mainspace, and then we can investigate and talk. Even that would be on the short end of what I'm personally looking for... Carrite (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) *** Wow, talk about RfA requirement creep. I was promoted with less than 2 years of editing, 7k edits and only 1600 mainspace edits. I wouldn't have survived if people are using the current "standards" (or Anarchyte may have been late to the RfA scene by 9 years). <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I browsed the candidate's contributions for April and, making some spot checks, soon found some examples that give me cause for concern:
 * a) List of banks in Romania – here the candidate is reverting an IP edit. He says that it's a good faith edit so why is he reverting it?  It appears that the bank changed its name at this time and other editors subsequently made other changes for this.  Is this a knee-jerk revert of an edit because it has been made from an IP?
 * b) History of aviation in New Zealand – here the candidate is declining an AFC submission. This is done in a mechanical, button-pushing way and no assistance is offered in addressing the supposed problem.  My view is that the draft article isn't that bad and that it should have been accepted to get it into mainspace where the aviation project and other editors could find it and assist.
 * c) Sleep (OS X) – here the candidate proposes deletion saying "Unnecessary page, I've C&P moved this to Sleep (computing) and requested a histmerge." Cut and paste moves are not good practise and, while the candidate shows some appreciation of the issue in requesting a history merge, he seems to be making unnecessary work for others and the prod is declined.
 * My impression is that the candidate is taking hasty, bitey, drive-by actions for topics that he doesn't really understand and his judgement doesn't seem good. More experience is required. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: While this potential admin looks promising, WP:NOTQUITEYET comes in to play considering their first edit is not even two years old. Samboy (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Hesitant. Anarchyte has done an enormous amount of work and has many good attributes, but the candidate is a wobbler for me. Q1 is good in many respects. It mentions AIV, and there are plenty of AIV reports; that's comfortable. Anarchyte has AfD, CSD, and Draft space experience. Stats look OK, but I'm queasy here. I'm reluctant about editors with little content of their own working in deletion. There's a difference to reverting a vandal's spree edit and a well-meaning editor's hour of work. There's perspective to being on the receiving end of a revert or CSD tag. There are some withdrawn noms (e.g., RattanIndia Power, "References do not show notability of the subject. A quick Google Search for "Rattanindia" comes up with almost nothing reliable."). Moving a mainspace article to draft space, WP:CSD R2ing the redir, and then immediately declining the submission may have the right ultimate result, but it spins my head (how does the original author find his work?) and steps on the rule of two in the cockpit. There's a recent (10 June 2016) NAC blunder. Although there are 13K en.WP edits, there are only 3.4K mainspace and 1.5K article talk edits. I want to see at least 3K conventional mainspace edits, and I prefer to see Article+Talk to be > 50% for a new editor (41%). In addition, the stats show 4.5K semiauto edits and 3.7K minor edits, so the mainspace figure is probably high; vandalism reverts tick the mainspace count. I want to see more content. My content reservation is backed up by the lack of conflict in Q3; I expect content contributors to experience conflict. Yes, I'm happy that if the candidate "were to experience a real conflict, I'd take a 2 or 3 day break", but I'd prefer some actual conflict data. A one year tenure is OK if there is strength elsewhere, but even the nom acks the candidate is not "a heavy content contributor" and uses "terse" comments. The tenure is also misleading: the user's first edit is not a naive content edit but rather a DAB link; the 7th edit is to RFPP; edit rate starts high. This candidate is not a yearling. I need to see more. Glrx (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Revisiting. Subsequent Qs show the candidate needs a better understanding of policy, more experience, and more perspective/reserve before collecting a mop. I second Silk Tork. The doubt about interpreting Q5 is removed by the contorted Q17 muddle. Consensus is not compromise; it is not trying to please all the commenters or finding some middle ground. If the result is delete, then delete; don't throw an article back in the ring for another fight in a different venue. JamesBWatson raises referencing issues that impinge on judging content. I rely on others to judge CSD performance, and the reviews seem slightly mixed &mdash; mostly OK but with a few significant issues. Too many things are slightly off right now. Kudos to Carrite's subtle Q15. Glrx (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Anarchyte has very little, if any experience, in dealing with conflict on the wiki; I wouldn't want potential admins to be seeking out drama, but there's no real evidence yet of how they deal with these kinds of situations. I'm also concerned about how Anarchyte dealt with Talk:Amal Women's Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant/GA1 - while I'm glad they were keen to leap in, noting this "doesn't seem too hard", and that felt able to call for a 2nd opinion, they also displayed a lack of knowledge about many of our editing policies and guidelines, which I would have expected an admin to be aware of. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Based on review, I have to agree this is a case of a "NOTYET situation". Kierzek (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , to quote the essay WP:NOTNOTYET, linking an established editor to [WP:NOTYET] insults their intelligence, and implies that they should have known better than to request adminship at their current level of experience. Is it possible that maybe you were looking for WP:NOTQUITEYET? Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say, "Not, Not Yet", nor link my comment/ivote to that, but to be clear, meant, Not Quite Yet. Kierzek (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose for now. Obviously, Anarchyte is a very good user with experience in all topic areas, and if Mr. Stradivarius nominated him, that is a true honor. He has anti-vandalism experience, content creation, and deletion experience. His AFD and CSD are good. So no problems, right? Not really. Normally, this would be a good quality, but compared with his overall record, he doesn't have a lot of article edits or talk edits at all. Also, while his editing is generally level-headed, he has made a lot of hasty edits (like Andrew D. and Glrx describe above), and I'd like to see these be the exception rather than the norm. Finally, I said he had content creation, but his content creation is not enough; usually, I'd like candidates to have at least one or two quality articles (FA or GA), so I'm not sure that his experience is enough. I would support him in a future RFA if these issues addressed above are resolved. Regards, Kylo, Rey, &#38; Finn Consortium (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Per all of the above. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Too soon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Weak oppose - I'm just not comfortable with the distribution of this editor's contributions.  In my opinion, we need admins who understand the problems and concerns of content creators through their own experience, and I'm just not seeing that in the breakdown.  (And, yes, that is a legitimate way to judge an editor's work, since I do not know it personally.)  I'm open to being convinced otherwise, hence the "weak" oppose. BMK (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read the further comments below, I have moved from "weak oppose" to "oppose", despite the "support" votes of a number of editors whom I respect tremendously. BMK (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - there is much to like about Anarchyte - candidate appears enthusiastic, well meaning, and willing to learn. There is little evidence, however, of the sort of knowledge, experience, and judgement I like to see in an admin. Anarchyte's account has been open for just over a year with mainly minor edits which give little on which to assess a judgement. However, there are edits which give indications that the candidate has yet to get to grips with procedure and policy. The answer to Q5 caught my eye as Anarchyte appears to misunderstand that more weight is given to policy based arguments than simple vote stacking. No user is under an obligation to close a discussion they feel is too close to call, nor do they have to relist; there is also the option to leave a comment themselves, and this is often a more helpful route than simply relisting. We don't wish a discussion to continually be punted down the road, especially one where policy indicates a decision can already be made. The answer to Q6 also caught my eye, as I'm not seeing where there was an abuse of power by the admin who tried an alternative outcome in a stalemate. I'm not seeing where the admin used admin powers. Signs are there in those two answers that Anarchyte is not yet ready for admin tools. I looked at the AfD record and found too many inappropriate delete nominations. One or two is acceptable, but, , , , , ,  is too many. I'm also concerned about this edit where Anarchyte removed text even though he says he didn't have the full context. I'd appreciate all editors taking the time to consider their actions, and getting the full context - this is essential for an admin. So, from what I have seen so far it appears to me that Anarchyte needs to take a little more time to consider what he is doing, and needs time to build up more knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies. It would help to get out of a mainly semi-automated role and more into some full on article building, as that gives a greater insight into Wikipedia. It's not essential, but it is helpful.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your summation. In Q5, relisting an AfD seems a reasonable alternative in these sort of circumstances. In Q6 the question does not make explicit whether any admin abuse had occurred; it could of occurred, e.g. the admin may have made reference to themselves as having greater authority because of their status. And those AFD withdrawals: well I'd rather see AFDs withdrawn, and mistakes admitted, than ploughing on on a mistaken path. And their AfD stats are pretty good (130 out of 152 correct or no consensus, 85%). --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 14:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See my vote in the Support section for my thoughts on Q6. —Prhartcom ♥ 23:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Per SilkTork. The nomination came too early, lets give Anarchyte a year or two to learn from his mistakes.--Catlemur (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose this ridiculously premature nomination. Eric   Corbett  13:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose (Moved from Neutral) - Oppose per above - At the time of writing the neutral !vote I did personally think it was TOOSOON and 18+ hours later I don't think any different, The answers are overall fine but as I said the account age is a big big concern for me - Sure knowledge and experience is important but they'd have more knowledge and experience in the next year than what they does now, I can't believe I'm saying this but they've not much been in any drama either (I'd like to see how they handle heated discussions/debates etc), They're a great editor no doubt about it but unfortunately I think this RFA's still TOOSOON, Anyway I wish them the best of luck here, Thanks,. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: per SilkTork, mainly. This diff: not having the full context shown again for context; is blaming the limitations of the tool  : Sorry about that, since STiki just gave me a small amount of text I was unable to read the full context of the article. Um, okay, what does adminship grant one? More tools...and things like this still at this moment landing on their talk page:. Anarchyte seems a nice editor, but should stay just an editor for now because they need more apprenticeship.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 15:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose (moved from support): I initially supported; however, the lapses in judgement, numerous rushed edits, and unawareness of consensus and policy related to areas the candidate wishes to work in (including closing an AfD as delete while a non-admin); and lack of content creation made me unconfident supporting. — Esquivalience (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose This editor has only been registered since 2015. Definitely WP:NOTQUITEYET on this one. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I don't particularly care about things like how long he's been with the project, but what does raise a red flag is incorrect applications of CSD criteria for an admin who seeks to work in that field, especially ones that happened very recently. Examples include clearly improper applications of the A7 criteria, , and Amit Lohani (even though an admin still deleted it, a credible claim of significance was still made). (G11), Super Weenie Hut Junior (should have been deleted but definitely not A1), etc. I barely had to spend any time to find these examples, and they're all fairly recent, which gives me a big cause for concern. Our CSD criteria is narrow and rigid for a reason, and should be used sparingly- for me to support a CSD-active admin, I need to be convinced that they're familiar with the criteria, know how to apply them, and are prudent in their use of the delete function.--Slon02 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Too early. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose mainly due to misunderstanding of G11, per Slon02. Chickadee46 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - too many valid concerns raised above, sorry. GiantSnowman 20:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose This user has greatly contributed to Wikipedia, although concerns over incorrect CSD tagging lead me to believe the user cannot be trusted with the delete function. I think after maybe another 8-12 months and a greater success rate at CSD tagging, you'll be ready. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both the CSD issues and the non-admin AfD close as delete are too worrisome for me to end up anywhere else but here, unfortunately. Not all admins have to be perfect with the CSD criteria (some of them are downright confusing, honestly), but an admin who wants to work in that area does. The non-admin AfD close represents that the candidate likely didn't read WP:NAC before making closes at AfD. Any good-faith contributor can make a solid admin if they take it slow, know their limits, and read the relevant policies/guidelines/essays before diving in. These few diffs demonstrate the candidate hasn't done any of that. I would like to reiterate my offer to work with the candidate on content creation if they want to take a stab at it, and I do think you'll make a great admin in 6 months. ~ RobTalk 22:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose More experience needed.  INeverCry   23:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'd like to see more experience in actual article work and more time on the project overall. Jonathunder (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I echo the concerns outlined by Andrew D. (talk. Additionally, more experience in mainspace work, and more usage and understanding of the use of sources. Springcleaning or adding to an article significantly would have been a major plus. Also more talkpage interaction in improving articles. I am not seeing an interest in developing content really. Develop a broader range of contributions and I would more willingly support at a future RfA. Good luck Irondome (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Candidate has not been editing on Wikipedia anywhere near long enough (only around 14 months or so...with around 4 months of mimimal edits at all) and has only contributed roughly 28% of their edits to mainspace, which is also too low IMHO. This user apparently also needs more experience at AfD in order to properly judge whether an article needs to be deleted or not...I'll give these examples of basically what not to do when at AfD. I'd also like to see more edits with an edit summary than around 92%, but that's probably a minor issue at worst. None of us are perfect editors, but we do need some semblance of reasonably high standards at RfA. Guy1890 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I recently remarked that Anarchyte would have a good chance at RfA if he spent a bit more time working on content, such as creating an article from scratch and taking it through DYK. This in turn would hopefully stop some of the obvious errors at AfD (that Andrew D and Guy1890 have mentioned) from cropping up. As it is, he's just too inexperienced to be trusted with the tools right now, and I want to emphasise this has nothing whatsoever with how long he's had an account here, but simply what he has (or hasn't!) done with it during that time. I would have advised him against running an RfA if he'd have asked me. Opabinia Regalis makes a good (and funny) counter-argument, but those aren't the reasons I'm personally opposing. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Very reluctant oppose, as Anarchyte has most of the qualities needed for a good administrator, but there are a few points where he or she does not seem to show the necessary understanding. I hope that understanding will come with more experience, and if so I look forward to supporting another RfA for Anarchyte in a year or two. The single point which concerns me most is the answer to question 10. Saying "I realise that I should've found a more reliable source than a blog post" suggests that Anarchyte really has not grasped the vitally important point that he or she did not provide any source for the quote, not even a blog post. There are also a few other places where I see a failure to grasp essential points: for example, I have to agree with SilkTork's comment relating to question 6. (Mrjulesd's answer to SilkTork is completely off the point. Saying "it could of [sic] occurred" and "the admin may have ... " indicates speculation about things which may or may not have happened, but the candidate had to assess the situation on the basis of what the question stated had happened, not on the basis of some guess about other things which may or may not have happened.) To be perfectly clear, I actually agree with Anarchyte that "If the admin has been in this sort of strife multiple times, they might not be fit for adminship", but for the particular incident under consideration in the imaginary ANI case, the answer is "no admin abuse because no admin actions have been taken". To have said that, and then gone on to say "but if the admin has been in this sort of strife multiple times... etc etc" would have been a good answer. However, Anarchyte mentioned only a side issue which (a) may or may not have happened: the question doesn't say so, and (b) even if it did happen, it is not the main point in relation to the particular incident under consideration at ANI. That indicates a failure to be able to discern which aspects of the case are central and which are secondary, and the last thing we want at ANI is administrators who lack that ability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I supplied a reference for the quote, but not a direct link to it. Inside the reference I provided, there was a link to the blog post. By that sentence, I meant that I should've either directly linked the blog post (along with the other reference) or find a more reliable source about the topic.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that comment only makes it clear that you have even less understanding than I thought when I wrote my comment above. A reference needs to give a source where the reader of the article can find confirmation of the article content for which it's a reference, not a source from which the reader can, if he or she searches, find his or her way to another source which actually confirms the article content. What you gave was therefore not a reference for the content you provided. I'm afraid it would not be at all appropriate to have an administrator with such a serious failure to understand such a vital concept as what a reference is, especially if he or she still doesn't understand the point after it has been pointed out and discussed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. The candidate admits he's not much of an article writer. That's good because I've seen some people with ~10 stubs claim to be "excellent authors" (which they are not), hence, the candidate is O.K. with judgment and, maybe, neutrality. Still, that shows lack of content work (see e.g. Irondome comment above). I fear the candidate would contribute to making the gap between article writers and avid metapedians even wider, instead of trying to close it. Qweedsa (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Candidate fails my criteria and the interaction with JamesBWatson indicates competency issues. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Reluctant Oppose. I think Anarchyte will make a good admin, but doesn't quite possess sufficient understanding just yet. I see comments on a few of the questions have been contested, so I'd like to offer a few thoughts. I remember my old teachers always used to tell us that an exam question is not just there for you to get the right answer, but for you to show the examiner what you know, and the same applies to these questions.
 * Q5) Is relisting for another 7 days a valid response? Sure. It's impossible to say what the best answer is without seeing the actual case rather than a hypothetical, but that's not the point - the value of the question is that it gave the candidate the opportunity to explain what they know about judging consensus (policy-based arguments vs vote-counting is the obvious one), and that opportunity was fluffed.
 * Q6) The "if the admin has been abusing their power" part was fine, but what about the "If the admin was not using or threatening to use admin tools, they're as entitled as anyone to argue for their preferred content and there's no merit in the ANI report" side? Opportunity missed.
 * Q10) As JamesBWatson says, the point was missed.
 * Q12) I generally agree and usually do that myself, but some things need to be destroyed with fire on sight - eg blatant attack pages, blatant BLP violations, blatant outing, and I think it's a mistake to have missed that. You can still notify the editor by, eg, CSD tagging using Twinkle and then immediately deleting.
 * Q15) I much prefer a candidate who didn't want to be an admin until recently, so that's a plus mark ;-) (I didn't want to be an admin for ages myself until I was talked into it, and quite often still don't!)
 * Anyway, this is all meant to help with a future RFA run, which I hope I'll be able to support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose "Anarchyte made his first edit on Wikipedia last April". I rest my case. I've been here ten years and aren't an admin and get on just fine. He's still a wiki baby, 13k edits or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that you're not an admin after ten years on the 'pedia is that you've never tried to run for adminship, surely. If you did try (and you should!) then you would be a shoo-in. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose while I appreciate the work he has does and hope he continues to contribute, I think he needs more experience with articles. Most of the edits are automated and not creating content. Perhaps with more article work the editor will have enough experience in 6+ months. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I think this is a bit premature. I'd wait until Anarchyte's career becomes more flavoured. JAG  UAR   16:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It's too early for the user to become an admin having had only 15 months experience prior to nomination. Anarchyte may be a profilic content editor, but it would be wise to wait one or two years before he/she reapplies for adminship as i'm concerned over his/her ability to make a good judgement given that he/she admitted to making mistakes in the past. Z105space (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally don't subscribe to the "badger the opposers" mentality, but this one needs a response. Anarchyte has done next to no content work. That's a major reason he's getting opposed here. The fact that you think he's a "profilic (sic) content editor" demonstrates that you haven't looked at his contributions or even read this full RfA page. And would you rather have an admin who doesn't admit to mistakes they've made in the past? ~ RobTalk 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit to skimming over the text article and had not read it in full. I have struck my oppose. Z105space (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being open to admitting a mistake. I'm happy to see greater participation at RfA recently, but at least a full read-through of the RfA page and a cursory glance at recent contributions is necessary to provide an informed opinion. If you wind up back in the oppose section after researching further, I'll disagree, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. ~ RobTalk 21:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but it's too soon. Come back in one or two years. See WP:NOTQUITEYET.  Peter  Sam   Fan  17:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Maybe I was too harsh. Moved to neutral.  Peter   Sam   Fan  23:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One or two years ? Years? Oh wow. Pedro : Chat  19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose A tad too eager to Delete, alas, (under 15% Keep) and using CSD at the 12 minute mark for an article about a cemetery where a Baseball Hall of Fame member (Joe Tinker) is buried,  and not a huge amount of experience in content creation aside from games.  has it about right here. Collect (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Anarchyte voted "correctly" on AfDs over 80% of the time. If he had voted "Keep" more often, he would probably have a lower accuracy rate, and then people would oppose him for that. You can never do anything right at RfA. Biblio (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you don't mind me asking, how does Anarchyte's focus on creating game-related content have a negative impact on your view of whether he should become an admin? Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 01:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did some counting - of 350+ total edits on BLPs - 250 were "minor" and others were not of any editorial substance at all. I would like some actual substance in edits, alas.  For AfDs, I have found that those who !vote Keep under 15% of the time might not appreciate that Keep may be a desired result.  In fact, a person who !votes Delete every time and notes where the AfD is headed can get close to a "95% accuracy rating", and impress me not at all.  I noted a CSD for a cemetery where a baseball star is buried - which was CSDed at the 12 minute mark after creation.   Sorry if that disturbs you, but I have voted on a substantial number of RfAs and had a pretty consistent view (usually supporting candidates, in fact).. Alas, an editor (Anarchyte) who appears never to have participated in any RfA discussions at all in the past might not understand the criteria different people use. By the way, extended discourse on the !vote page may make some people feel that this page is being misused. Collect (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I think it's a bit too early and that Anarchyte needs a bit more experience of content creation before being granted administrator status. Above, Anarchyte states that "I changed my mind about being an admin after I really got into the maintenance side of editing, so a few months ago (around Feb)". A few months of experience isn't enough in my view. Anarchyte created an account in April 2015, which is only 14 months ago, and for four of those months, their edit count is minimal. I would be happy to participate in another RfA for this editor in another year or so. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I see little lack of experience, requesting again after at least 1 year will be a good idea. <b style="background-color:#08CEF9;color:black">IN</b><b style="background-color:black;color:#08CEF9">VISIBLE</b>knock! 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. In my opinion it's really far too early, and the candidate has far too little experience, to be considered for adminship (and full lifetime use of all the tools) in the complex and often confusing and contradictory world that Wikipedia is these days. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose because of recent CSD misdeeds (and other areas, but mostly CSD), as described above. Yes, every admin action can be undone, but it is easier to undo a page protection than a speedy deletion and the latter is much more likely to cause long-term damage as well (via bitten newbies). The candidate certainly is an overall benefit to the project, but I would venture they lack the patience to read the manual when dealing with the finer points of policy; while I do not care that they know every guideline, I do care that they act on areas where they have not reached the plateau of the learning curve yet. If the RfA comes back in a few months or weeks and the problems have disappeared, I would gladly support.
 * Still, let me point out "oppose" reasons with which disagree (I will probably be posting this in every RfA, but still...) . Account age is irrelevant since the editor has obviously IP-edited and/or lurked enough to have an idea of what is going on; and come on, even a year of sustained editing is enough. Lack of article content creation is irrelevant as well - the janitor at Apple's headquarters is probably bad at design, bad at marketing, and bad at engineering, but if he can keep the floors clean and intruders out, he is a good janitor. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Janitor" is a metaphor, not an actual description of the job of an admin. BMK (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My point still stands: being a good article writer weakly correlates with having the wisdom and the competence necessary to use the "block" and "delete" buttons. Obviously some content creation is needed to avoid the "management disconnected from reality" syndrome, but requirements of "at least X GA" are something I strongly oppose. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 07:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose mostly per Carrite, but there are solid reasons in many of the other opposes as well. Intothatdarkness 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant oppose. Decent contributions so far, but I'd like to see more experience before getting the admin tools, and more article work. AfD contributions could be improved (I see recent 'per nom' !votes and a recent AfD with a minimal 'fails WP:NMUSIC' rationale which was easily disproved by a quick Google search). Another 6 months with continued improvement would likely be enough to give confidence that they can be given the admin tools. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose As a disclaimer, this is my first venture into an RfA. I noticed this one was unusually contentious, as many of them are either >90% support or WP:SNOW. The work he does gives off the aura of an administrator to me. In that sense, I believe he will eventually become an administrator, and a second RfA from him would almost certainly pass. Yet, as mentioned above, this is a good example of WP:NOTQUITEYET. I don't like to take edit count or even duration of Wikipedia membership into account, as I feel these are overemphasized, but I feel that more experience with content generation, article improvement, and a successful GAN and/or FAC will also help. Not only will he get more experience on the content side, this will also give a perspective on how to use admin tools more effectively. I feel that the only way to truly understand the "behind the scenes" admin work is to also understand how quality content is written and how a great article is developed. My advice to Anarchyte is to get a successful GAN and/or FAC under your belt, get a little more experience with content, read over this page thoroughly and brush up on what others have critiqued you on from the admin side, and resubmit when the time is right. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - With all due respect to the candidate and to the supporters, I can't agree that this candidate is ready to wield the extra buttons. The supporters fail to make a solid case, in my view. The opposers rightly point to lack of experience in various areas, and I'm going to suggest coming back after taking those suggestions to heart. My thanks to the candidate for the offer of service, and best wishes. Jus  da  fax   22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak oppose - WP:NOTQUITEYET, but will likely make a good admin in the future. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. There are a couple things that concern me in Anarchyte's answers (such as loose use of legal terms in answers 7 and 10, and his quickness to fall in with the flimsy woman-blaming excuses of Gamergate for cutting sources unfavorable to one side of that issue) but the main thing that tips me over the line is the lack of serious content creation. All this bureaucracy and gnomery is an unimportant backdrop to the real work here, and our admins should know that. The good news is that this is an issue that can be fixed with more time and reprioritization. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I've been on Wikipedia longer than this user, and I'm STILL learning new things. WP:NOTQUITEYET definitely applies here.  Keep grinding for a while. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose' I agree with Dr. Blofeld and Collect. Will probably make a fine Admin some day....but, for me, I still see the "Student Driver" sticker in the back window.  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte was submitted after my oppose. Those opposing editors that notice a lack of understanding by this candidate of one of the most important features of Wikipedia editing (consensus and how it is determined) are not being "nitpickey" . They are being good stewards. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose For the lack of experience as mentioned above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the above reasons. --69.203.96.166 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remove your !vote IP - numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account -- samtar talk or stalk 14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * !vote unlisted. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose per SilkTork and JamesBWatson. Come back in a year with a little bit of polish. shoy (reactions) 21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, reluctantly because the candidate is good-natured, clearly here to build the encyclopedia, and a thoughtful and constructive editor. However, as several editors have mentioned above, I believe their understanding of policy is not quite there yet. This is not directly related to tenure: I don't believe that one year is insufficient. However, there are several answers to questions, and other incidents, that are slightly off. JamesBWatson and SilkTork cover many of the issues. Additionally, as I pointed out at ORCP, they have made several AfD nominations that were hasty. I don't mind !votes against consensus when arguments are sound, but in many of these cases they were not. I would also ideally like to see a little more content creation. Again, this has little to do with tenure; I'd be happy to !vote "support" even in 3-4 months if these concerns were addressed. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for a combination of concerns about experience and quality of content contributions. I took a close look at Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) which the candidate wrote, and found redundant mention in two consecutive sentences that the castle is a tourist attraction, and also found that the current ownership of this German castle is cited to a source dated 1936. I do not insist on a large number of Good and Featured articles but I expect that articles written by a candidate for administrator  be halfway decent.  This one isn't. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose partially per Silktork and JamesBWatson, but primarily because WP:NOTQUITEYET. Greater experience in article writing may not be a formal prerequisite for adminship, but in this case, I think the candidacy would benefit substantially from more time in the shoes of a content creator. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I'll be honest. I think Anarchyte is great but has just been here for just about a year. Also, I can say with utmost certainty that this user has had prior experience with Wikipedia before joining and I'm not saying that's bad, but that it is. I'll be posting some questions soon but will probably park here throughout for reasons (some already listed). --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Also waiting for further answers to questions, and will review contributions before deciding. GABgab 18:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Neutral, but moral support. I am deeply uncomfortable calling editors out for issues that I was confronted with at my own RFA. I also disagree with !voting support or oppose merely to balance things out, but I don't want to stoke any more animosity here. There are many good and insightful comments here, and I genuinely cannot make up my mind. Nevertheless, I want to wish Anarchyte the best of luck in their editing career, regardless of the outcome. GABgab 22:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indenting/nullifying neutral !vote, moving to support A bit torn. Editor is knowledgable and looks like a net positive on CSD/RfD/RM and maintenance in general. Encountered this editor through page mover-related discussions. My observation is that this user seems very eager and enthusiastic about this project. He recently created RMpmc and made an update to RM closing instructions. After my own bold "subst only" tags on nac templates, the user boldly suggested that they be bot-substituted, which was undone for lack of discussion. At the template's current TfD, the initial wording was deemed "overstating things". I don't have serious qualms about these actions, and I don't think eagerness is a bad thing. I am very much in favor of more admins, and other than occasional boldness perhaps, I don't see a strong reason to deny the flag. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 18:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral (Moved from "support"). Moving down here for now as the account age concerns resonated above in the "oppose" and "neutral" sections are making me reconsider for now. Steel1943  (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my stance isn't on the age of the account, but rather some of the aspects of Wikipedia of which the nominee may or may not be familiar due to lack of participation (due to the account being new.) Steel1943  (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now - The account age is a big big concern for me (I like to support those who have 2(or more) years here as well as the fact they edit a hell of alot of talkpages but anyway I'd rather wait for the answers before deciding further (if I do). – Davey 2010 Talk 20:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) (Moved to Oppose)
 * Neutral for now. First, I want to say the account's age is not at all a concern for me. An editor either has the experience or they don't. If they show they are experienced enough to get things right, trustworthy enough to not misuse the tools, and involved enough to have a need for the tools, I'd support a candidate who had been here six months. I would just as quickly oppose a candidate who's been here since the day after registration opened if they didn't have sufficient experience. Account age has become a moving target at RfA, which is part of the reason we have a severe shortage of admins and a large administrative backlog. A year ago when I became an editor, experienced editors quoted 1 year as the gold standard for minimum account age of an RfA candidate. If the target keeps moving one-to-one with the progression of time, I think we can all see how that's a problem. Having said that, I have some concerns with the lack of mainspace contributions. The candidate's activity on the Rust article is enough to show he knows how to create content, in my opinion, but I get a bit worried when 75% of all edits are outside the mainspace. That's extremely low. I'm also curious what the 2,000 userspace edits are. I need to look deeper. ~ RobTalk 22:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The detailed edit stats at Xtools provide info answering some of your questions, particularly regarding the nature of the userspace edits. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just haven't dug into them yet. I was writing my comment immediately before walking out the door for something. Looking now. ~ RobTalk 22:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral waiting on questions for now. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Moved to support.
 * Neutral for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Originally I was inclined towards "weak support", essentially similar to Esquivalience's position in the Support column above. The candidate does have many strengths, is level headed, knows how to listen and is in general certainly on the right trajectory. I would also consider requiring two years of active editing excessive. One year of active editing is a long time and under the right circumstances can be more than sufficient for earning adminship. I did have a feeling, from the start, that the candidate needed a more well rounded experience in content creation. After reading some of the opposes above, particularly the comments of Glrx, those concerns have been reinforced, and some additional issues have been raised there. The case does feel a lot more now as a a "NOTQUITEYET situation". Not enough to put me in the oppose column, though. Nsk92 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regretfully Neutral leaning slight oppose Per Andrew's concerns. C&P moves aren't good, and additionally reverting an IP - mostly because it's an IP isn't how we operate. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) - I thought on it - and in most of these occasions, he did the right thing, reversing his actions. Switching to support.  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  00:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - The edit count and account history look fine to me. I don't see enough to convince me of this user's ability to act in good conduct when handling problems and conflict...doing the things an admin needs to do as opposed to an editor. Overall I'm not certain. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and revisit this in a few days.ZettaComposer (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now. The number of edits doesn't really bother me, the asserted newness of the account doesn't really bother me either & the dedication to the Wiki-gnome type of administrative tasks is actually quite heartening.  I do have an issue with the scarcity of content-creation compared to the overall number of edits - I am not saying that candidates should have some arbitrary number of contributions to created-articles, it's just that - for now - the scarcity of content-edits gives me pause.  Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral on the merits. I think we have a good editor here who just needs more time working on good content creation and patience. Some of the problem edits cited above are just hasty, others indicate a lack of experience. But opposing because a set of numbers aren't high enough is garbage. I'll happily recommend an editor for adminship if they have a smaller number of outstanding mainspace edits plus competency elsewhere. To the candidate - take some time to read the more substantive comments here, as there are some areas where you could use some improvement. But not many - you're clearly a good editor overall, and I look forward to supporting you when Requests_for_adminship/Anarchyte 2 becomes a bluelink. Good luck. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral Not concerned about the age of the account, but picking through the mounds of ill-informed oppose !votes I do find some valid points. I don't necessarily look for content creation in an admin candidate but I do look for an understanding of policy, and some opposers have expressed concerns over this. Sitting here for now. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 22:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Moved to support. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral (Moved from oppose) I would expect maybe a few more edits to mainspace, and less to user and user talk page. Like User:Ultraexactzz said, there are a few areas where you could use some improvement. Maybe come back in a few months, during September?  Peter  Sam   Fan  23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Stuck on the fence. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral because of lack of experience. <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 02:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support. I recently encountered this candidate and have seen them a bit around the place since then. I love their enthusiasm for the project and willingness to learn. Occasionally, however, I think that enthusiasm sometimes results in them jumping into situations where they might not be fully ready, as demonstrated by this RfA. I am also a bit apprehensive about having someone admin-close RMs when they have a decision that is currently being reviewed at MRV and likely to be overturned/relisted. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I would hope to see Anarchyte return in six months or so with more experience under their belt and I would be likely to support. Jenks24 (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral moral support. My concerns are those of many other editors: relative inexperience and also lack of content creation. Some things I look at in evaluating the candidate's record): some minimal level of content creation, some piece of the encyclopedia they can point to with pride and would be personally disquieted if it were disrupted, and sufficient clue and grasp of the English language to avoid being a bull in a china shop.  I think the candidate needs more time here, and more content creation.  Although I place this in neutral, I lean heavily towards oppose at this time, but hope someday to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) To expand on this, it has been my position, as a lawyer and MBA, that supervisors should come from the shop floor, not from elsewhere.  To the extent that admins and Wikipedia fit that analogy, that's been my position too.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Wikipedia has always been a and I see highly experienced and well respected  long-time regular RfA participants on both sides of the fence here, among whom (without being particularly selective) are, , , , , , , and . Their rationals are important whichever way they have voted, while among the many other good faith votes are quite a few that appear to be simply pile-ons from the transient visitors, the curious who have seen the advert on their watchlists, and some who seem to have a propensity to only vote one way on all RfA. I do have an opinion on the candidate but I'm not going to voice it here, preferring to abstain until perhaps my vote might change he tally (but not sway the opinion) in a close call. Frankly this is one of those rare RfA where I would prefer to be reading the consensus rather than adding to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, I agree with with many points in both sections above. They seems eager, but sometimes seems to lack the judgement required to make important administrative decisions. Stuck on the fence with the experience issue and stuck on the fence in general for this RfA. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral. I've interacted with Anarchyte and they're a decent sort. I don't have any particular opposition to them getting sysopped, but I do hesitate slightly at some of the answers and the account's short history. It's not that I think that they'd abuse the powers, just that they're just a little green. Both sides have made compelling statements to either case (give or not to give) and both sides have opinions from people whose opinions I greatly respect. This is ultimately going to be a tough decision by the closer since I think that Anarchyte could make a pretty good admin. I just worry that his relative inexperience with the minutiae of guidelines could bite him in the butt if we send him out there too soon. Admins get kicked around pretty regularly and are regular targets of harassment (however light), so he needs to know his stuff a bit more - although a counterargument could easily be that he'd get a trial by fire. Goodness knows it's how most of us admins learned the ins and outs on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral pending answers to my specific questions on systemic bias and how to handle situations such as GamerGate as noted above. This is a very new user and the bulk of substantive edits have been to computing and video game articles.  On one hand, we need technically competent wikignoming editors with the admin mop.  On the other hand, there is a screaming need for admins who are capable of wading into the darkest, deepest, most quicksand-sucking morasses of wikipedia.  The mop doesn't distinguish between those who freak out if they have to exchange the mop for the floor waxing machine versus those who can dig out after a flood has deposited 10,000 cubic tons of mud in the main hallway.  I want to know if this editor can spot when they are in over their head, or if they are using so many gadgets to view snippets that they miss a situation that is rapidly spinning into serious trouble.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  21:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that an answer of "I will run as fast as I could away from areas of disputes" would move you to oppose? Even "chicken" admins can be WP:NETPOSITIVEs. "Tigers" can go to war, if "chickens" take care of the household. Personnally, I would rather give the mop to a self-admitted "chicken" than to an overconfident braggart who might lessen the chances of successful resolution in controversial areas.
 * Just to be clear, this is mostly a theoretical question. I do not accuse anyone of chickenry or braggardry, and I do not wish to imply RfD is a lowly task.  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 09:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral The comments from Tokyogirl79 and JamesBWatson along with the responses to the some of the questions have placed me here. It is without doubt that Anarchyte has the potential to become a fine administrator, but perhaps not at this particular crossroads. Mkdw talk 23:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Candidate has enough experience (it's not a big deal, people) but Gamergate opposes give me pause. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

General comments
I don't see why a year is too short of an amount of time. We have an admin shortage because of unnecessarily high standards. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To me, it seems evident that the user has had experience editing anonymously before. Account age is not a concern for me personally. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good and well — as long as the IP number(s) are identified, that time editing can be taken into consideration and counted towards time accrued. Unfortunately, one can't have it both ways: anonymity and accountability are more or less mutually exclusive. If this were, let's make up a number from the sky, a five year veteran of WP, then we need five years of editing history to be examined. Failing that, Day One starts when the account being examined is registered... Carrite (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I became an admin last November with just a little over a year of experience. Thus far, despite my supposed "inexperience" (back then, one year was more than enough) I haven't received any complaints of being an admin catastrophe, as the extreme experience-based opposition always predicts. There is nothing we can do that cannot be undone—we are not special at all. We are no better than non-admins; I find the notion of "admin superiority" to be despicable. The mystery and aura of authority that surrounds these links and buttons is ridiculous. We treat becoming an admin like passing a constitutional amendment through Congress, and this process is an arduous interrogation in which everyday human imperfection is barely tolerable. Trust me, there is nothing at all impressive or satisfying about being an admin. Really, folks, this toolset truly is WP:NOBIGDEAL. People need to get over it. This is just a website, and adminship is just a few more links and buttons. Biblio (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I became an admin, 6 months was generally considered the minimum time. 7 to 8 was good, and 9 was more than enough. The minimum just keeps rising.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I became an admin we walked on wooden shoes, were kept in cages, and were thrown raw meat for dinner., I disagree that adminship is a BIG DEAL--it is a big deal, and while some candidates get put through the wringer more than others, an RfA is nothing compared to the experiences that many admins will be familiar with. I don't have an opinion, by the way, on how much time one should have edited; I think I'd been editing for a few years. Though one gains much experience while being an admin, a broad basis of experience and knowledge is always a good thing. BTW, I also don't agree we have a shortage of admins--but we do have a shortage of admins willing to do barrel duty. Drmies (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with that, Drmies. Adminship is hardly a big deal; people's making seem like one is perhaps what makes some newbies so hungry for the position. We must stop treating adminship like it's kingship. Wikipedia is a volunteer website, not a nation, and admins simply have access to a few more pixels on a screen, not mindblowing destructive firepower. Anything we do can be undone, and adminship can be instantly revoked in the worst-case scenario of a rogue admin. As I said before, people need to snap into reality. But for those who insist on making adminship a big deal, why don't they propose the removal of WP:NOBIGDEAL from the administrator page? Let's see what others have to say. Biblio (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't have to disagree. Blocking editors is a big deal, deleting articles is a big deal, having the revdelete tool is a big deal: that's not me or others making it a big deal. So having those tools is a big deal, and the community vetting ought to be as good as it can. That it's a big deal doesn't mean it's like kingship, of course. If you're the editor whose article just got deleted, for all intents and purposes it is very much like a mindblowing destructive firepower wielder came by. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Any person who feels that having their article deleted is akin to the devastating effects of real-life warfare really needs to quit Wikipedia. Biblio (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleting an article may not be a big deal, but the rev delete tool is and being able to block users certainly is. Controlling access to a site is a big deal. Intothatdarkness 18:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The most worrying aspect is that it's rising at a one-to-one ratio (or more!) with the passage of time. If Biblio became an admin in November 2015 with one year of experience and our standards are now raising to two years, then the cutoff date by which to register in order to meet the "minimum" today has gone backward. That's unsustainable. ~ RobTalk 22:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I was asked recently told to do persistent and high quality anti-vandal work for six full months before applying for rollback "again" (this was my second request being rejected after six months on the project). While the rollback request rejection was of my own undoing (and I'm ok with the rejection), this increase in Rfa time requirements may eventually permeate down to other tools too (The first advice in Advice for RfA voters does tell editors to see the time spent by the candidate on the project, without giving an idea of what time is appropriate - it is a grey area). Unfortunate to see Anarchyte's Rfa getting the too-soon oppose and neutral ivotes. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The requested six months was very excessive, but the reason you were declined had nothing to do with your time on the project. It had to do with your lack of experience in counter-vandalism. ~ RobTalk 00:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , "While the rollback request rejection was of my own undoing (and I'm ok with the rejection)...." (per above). With respect to lack of experience, the admin concerned did not believe that my 47 error-free reverts (at that time) were enough experience for granting rollback. I don't know whether my 150 plus current reverts would be enough too, given the communicated high standards. The issue I've pointed out is not the rejection (which I accept perfectly well), but the six additional months requirement demanded by an administrator for granting the rollback tool from a user with six months' plus experience on the project. It's just one example of how time requirements for even broken down tools may be increasing, and that too by a few administrators (not all); which was never the intention. While I've taken it in the stride, setting of such high time standards may cut down the enthusiasm shown by trustworthy users to volunteer their time for the project. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed wholeheartedly. RfA needs to be based on conduct and competence not arbitrary statistics. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 20:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As one of the people who reluctantly opposed the nomination, I opposed not because of registration date or edit count—which is still important—but because of problems related to experience in content and in conduct. But registration is not a major issue, because Anarchyte could have been with us for ten years with his first edit being in 2015, and the same problems may have popped up. Kylo, Rey, &#38; Finn Consortium (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. We have a candidate with 13K edits yet is being seen as "too soon". Honestly how many edits are enough? 20K? 50K? 100K? It's all becoming a bit ridiculous. We need the essay WP:RfA inflation. I really think that supports and opposes made on statistical grounds should be given less weight. !votes should be made on the basis of trustworthiness. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 11:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * for awareness. This is not exactly the place, but since it was first brought up here, I should note that I made some see also links and incoming links to the essay, but I feel that it is redundant (check the text in the see also links) and might best be WP:USERFIED as it currently stands. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone experienced with RfA should really write that essay, it'd be good. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that while the candidate may have made more than 13,000 edits, fewer than 6000 of those are manual, and only 1794 are non-automated article-space edits. Rebb  ing  04:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In RfAs where there's been a significant amount of oppose !votes over things unnecessarily small (like "slightly too little content creation" or "97% edit summaries isn't good enough") but still pass the process, how many of them have gone on to cause significant damage? Or to cause questions raised about their conduct as admins? More admins equals more backlogs taken care of, and faster WP:AIV blocks. This has a positive impact and helps build an encyclopedia. Arbitrary criteria show that the !voter is far more interesting in judging someone anonymously online rather than simply trying to improve the wiki. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 14:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:NOTQUITEYET is rather ridiculous when an editor has over a year of experience. Judge on competence and skill, not time. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 17:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that more substantive issues surfaced. I worry that it will be used as evidence that one year is too little time for a candidate. Hopefully, that fear won't be borne out. ~ RobTalk 22:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with every word of NottNott's comment above. Although I have reluctantly added myself to the "oppose" camp, my reasons had nothing whatever to do with statistics such as length of time as an editor, number of edits, number of non-automated edits in article space, etc etc, and if those were the only concerns then I would have been a very strong supporter of Anarchyte for admin. I don't think that there are problems there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I think it's ridiculous to offer somebody who has been here just a year and contributed very little content it appears admin tools. It's rather like offering a janitor who has worked at a prison for a year a position as head warden. I could quite easily create a sock account, play the "perfect" wikipedian and be nice for everybody for a year and then get somebody to nominate me. Experience is a primary concern because a year is really nothing and you can't possibly judge somebody's temperament and personality fully in that length of time. Even looking at articles I did in 2013, seems only a few weeks ago, April 2015 start? No way. I think two years solid experience should be a minimum requirement for RFA, ideally five years, but I know many of you seem desperate for admins.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blofeld, I passed with a little over one year of experience. Have I been a disaster? Biblio (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Biblioworm hasn't been much of anything since becoming an admin. In 2016, he has made 188 edits and only 19 of them have been to article space.  No doubt he has his reasons, but this does not seem to be a good example of early adminship.  I'd rather have Blofeld as an admin; his work rate is prodigious and his experience is immense. Andrew D. (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall, since becoming an admin, I have exceeded the definition of an active admin by more than 3 times. I fail to see how that isn't "much of anything." And by the way, it's not like I've been completely useless on content, either; I have four GAs and almost a dozen DYKs to my name (there's one article I haven't yet added to my userpage yet), not to mention that I've copyedited many articles. Biblio (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Andrew: What a ridiculous comment. Activity has nothing to do with this. If Biblioworm made one single, good admin action after becoming an administrator, and then never edited again, he would still have been a WP:NETPOSITIVE. He's made far more than that though, and whether or not he's been active this year has nothing to do with the question he originally asked.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 01:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . I disagree. An editor who passes an RfA but then performs only a single admin action would be a net negative. An RfA is a substantial time investment by the community; it would be sad if the community made that investment and only got a single admin action. Reading an RfA takes time away from other editing. Recent, successful, RfAs average over 150 !votes. Almost all of those !voters will take the time to read the whole page. If a !voter only spends 5 minutes on the decision, then that is 750 editor minutes (12.5 man hours) of community time -- time that could have gone to core activities such as content. Most !voters will spend substantially more than 5 minutes sifting through the candidate's user page, talk page, contributions, AfD votes, CSD log, and other linked content. Although I often (usually?) disagree with Andrew Davidson, it is clear that Davidson spends a substantial amount of time doing his research. I'll guess my typical RfA evaluation takes 2 hours. Consequently, an RfA could represent 40 to 300 editor hours of community time. If all the community got back were a single admin action, then that is a poor trade. If, however, the RfA took 150 !votes and the admin did 150 admin actions, then the community probably breaks even. If an admin did 2 actions a month for the next six years, then he would have paid the community back for its RfA investment. Biblioworm became an admin on 8 November 2015. In the few months that Biblioworm has been an admin, he has done 6 blocks, 91 page protects, and 280 deletes. Assuming that none of those actions have been outrageous, then the community got an OK deal. Yes, it looks like BW stopped being a very active editor in February 2016, but maybe he will come back or maybe he will hang around and do a couple admin actions per month to sweeten the deal. Glrx (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not gone, although I can't promise to edit every day or even every week. I've only been editing over the past few days because I had a little spare time to do so, like I did briefly in May and April. But my overall circumstances haven't changed any. In any case, it's good that I can leave this place for several months and not go crazy without it. Biblio (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but once an RfA is transcluded and isn't a SNOW fail, it's a sunk cost. ~ RobTalk 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal - if a user can be trusted with the tools to handle the seemingly mundane backlogs of noticeboards that get clogged up they should be handed the mop. The number of admins who 'play nice for a year' and then turn bitterly cruel with evil witch laughter in the background is a tiny minority (provide examples). It's certainly a net loss to the wiki, we should instead assume good faith. - Nott Nott &#124;talk 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully concur with every single word! OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")!  Paine   06:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have already asked Blofeld if he wanted me to nominate him for RfA, and he turned it down. I think his RfA would go the same way as Montanabw's to be frank, he probably just wants to stick to what he's best at, and what really matters around here, which is creating and improving articles. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say that at the time of my RfA, like the candidate, I had only a few thousand non-automated mainspace edits (the other ~20,000 were counter-vandalism), and I had only been editing actively for a year – and I received unanimous support. So I guess Anarchyte just needs to make a bunch of minor automated mainspace edits to get the percentages up. It's all about the pie chart... and we like colours too, so please also focus on portal, book and education program talk page contributions &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:MusikAnimal You may be interested in a new essay: RfA inflation. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . If only. At least 7 opposing participants in my RFA (remember that debacle learning experience?) specifically cited excessive automated edits. In this case, it would look nice on the ol' pie chart, but it would really hurt the manual/automated edit ratio. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Great essay, by the way. GABgab 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: was among the first admins to approved through the RfA process when it was introduced in 2003. She had contributed for almost four months, had 81 edits, and three !votes of support at the time she was promoted. Wow. &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  04:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Back in 2001, becoming an admin was even simpler. Jimbo proposed that the admin password be given out "fairly freely", when someone had been contributing usefully for 1 or 2 weeks. That was back in the day when adminship actually was no big deal...  Omni Flames ( talk ) 09:13, 16 June 2016 (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.