Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fenix down


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

Fenix down
'''Final: (91/4/5) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination
– It is my pleasure to present Fenix down as a candidate for adminship. Fenix down has been editing since 2009 and his activities during this time show a good mix of contributing quality content, performing maintenance, and participating in maintenance-related activities such as AfDs and vandalism watch; all the while exercising good judgement and demonstrating willingness to cooperate and a civil, courteous attitude. He has been steadily improving the areas of Wikipedia few other editors are willing to touch (topics related to the Russian North come to mind) and he has a knack for finding good-quality sources to improve even the most obscure of subjects. Since Fenix down's and my areas of interest intersect somewhat, I'm periodically running into him and am always impressed with the breadth and depth of his knowledge and the level of commitment to the project. His maintenance activities, revolving mostly around association football articles, are outside my area of editing, but from what I've seen, they picked up quite a bit in the past couple of years and are characterized by good judgement, attention to detail, and thoroughness. In all, Fenix down is a great asset to Wikipedia and since continuing to perform maintenance tasks is something he is interested in doing, a set of admin tools will come in most handy. He is certainly able to use them properly and efficiently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2015 ; 16:13 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination with pleasure. Fenix down (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (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: I have been contributing to AfD discussions, almost exclusively in the field of association football for some time now. My involvement in those discussions has given me a good idea in general, not just in relation to football, of the sort of arguments that are likely to carry significant weight, those that don't, what constitutes a reliable source and what doesn't as well as what would be considered routine coverage as opposed to more significant. I would like to think that the knowledge gained from my involvement in one particular topic would readily be able to be applied across other topics and that I would bring an impartial view to the closing of discussions. I would apply these comments equally to PROD and TfD.


 * The other major area where I would use admin tools on a regular basis would be in combating vandalism, both in general on WP, but more specifically within the sphere overseen by WP:FOOTY. This is a particularly large project that currently encompasses nearly 200,000 articles and templates. As with any subject where there are millions of real life fans, this subject attracts a lot of people who want to make genuine constructive edits, but also a lot who wish to vandalise rival team / player articles and also (and I guess this is a common thread across WP) like to perform random acts of repeated vandalism across a large number of articles such as this individual. There are a few admins already active on the project who do a great job, but my area of interest is on more minor teams and players which get less attention from the wider community, so I definitely see a gap even within the project that I ma most involved with where I could be of assistance. I would use the admin tools available to more quickly respond to such activity in the form of page protection and, if necessary, blocking.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have primarily been a content creator since I joined WP, in fact the reason I joined was because I was looking for information on a subject and there wasn't any, so once I had looked elsewhere I came back and corrected that. If I had to name the things that gave me most pleasure to do, they would be:
 * 1) Creating articles for every settlement in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug and expanding them to include all English Language sources that I could find.
 * 2) Creating uniform stubs for (nearly) all settlements in Yakutia. Hopefully this will encourage other editors to expand them over time (I've always wondered how many new editors are put off contributing because they don't know how to create a proper stub to start with).
 * 3) Substantially expanding or creating all major articles on Football in Bhutan.
 * 4) From a personal point of view, the most satisfying response I have had from any of my contributions was regarding Snezhnoye, where the author of a number of the papers I cited in the article contacted me to say how surprised she was that anyone had actually read her work!
 * I suppose I am pleased that my performance in AfD / PROD has contributed to the removal of a substantial amount of non-notable material as that improves the overall quality of the remaining whole, but I would not want to include anything like that in my "best work". Being an admin is not a big deal, its just a set of tools, and whilst I know there are people here whose work is predominantly administrative, I am a firm believer that the majority of admins should be people who are content creators / improvers in the main and use the admin tools merely as an aid to that, to improve the overall quality of a set of articles by separating the wheat from the chaff, protecting those pages that attract vandals and generally tidying up. That's how I would use the tools, as an aid and an addition to my current activity rather than as a replacement to it.


 * 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: In general, there have been quite a number of disagreements in AfD, but I would like to think that I have dealt with them in a mature and polite manner, always avoiding ad hominem arguments and citing guidelines and consensus and trying to explain my viewpoint and debate in a rational manner. I wouldn't say that there have been any instances that have given me particular stress, but there are probably two recent examples which could be described as conflict worth pre-empting here:
 * 1) This discussion where I had an edit war template placed on my talk page with no indication why or indication to which article it was referring. Long story short, I had completely forgotten that I had moved an article, which I thought was non-confrontational, and later (in fact much later when I was up at 3.45am), with another editor having moved it back, I moved it again, oblivious to the fact that I had already done this. This was interpreted as an edit war, I was confused and because I had performed numerous edits in between the two moves the first move had disappeared off the first page of my contributions. I got the wrong end of the stick then, thinking the other editor had somehow misread the move of the corresponding talk page as some sort of second move (I know.. d'uh!). However, when my error (and idiocy) was pointed out, I quickly admitted my fault and apologised. The lesson learned there was to always double check everything first, but my view is that everyone makes mistakes from time to time and the important thing, particularly if an editor is an admin, is that when they are correctly pointed out that they are acknowledged with good grace and apologies made where necessary.
 * 2) There is also currently this minor ongoing issue with an editor who took offense at my prodding of a number of articles he had created. I felt that I have dealt with (and am dealing with) this correctly, PRODs / AfDs processed properly with clear guidelines cited as reasons, declarations of war not risen to, warlike actions simply reverted with the appropriate warnings given with clear, objective responses to comments both on the user's talk page and at the AN/I given. Again, no personal attacks, no strong language, simply putting my case clearly and supporting where necessary with links to consensus. This is the sort of behaviour I think is required of admins. An admin is nobody special within the community, but at the same time they must ensure that they do not get involved in any ad hominem discussions nor rise to any bait.


 * Additional question from Iaritmioawp
 * 4. 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: Those arguing in favour of outcome A sound very much like they are applying WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. As much as individual editors may feel strongly about certain subjects, personal opinions are irrelevant. The editor arguing for outcome B appears from your example to not only have provided links to relevant consensus based guidelines, but also to have provided some outline reasoning as to why those guidelines are relevant in this instance. On the face of things, I would lean towards outcome B in this instance. If it is blindingly obvious that certain guidelines are either met or not, then there is little need for numerous other editors to merely echo this opinion. However, I would add a couple of caveats to this response.
 * 1) Firstly, I would want to consider the impact of the outcome and the reasons why only one editor has been involved in the discussion who has put forward comments focussed on guidelines. Perhaps it is because his arguments are so convincing that no other input is deemed necessary. However, I would look to contact the relevant project to ensure they were aware of the discussion, particularly if this is a subject rated as important by the project, and would give time for a response both to my query and in the AfD which might mean holding off on closing for a while, especially if there has been a procedural error in setting up the discussion.
 * 2) Secondly, I would want to make sure that GNG, not just project specific guidelines were being satisfied. The actions of the editor may well have cited numerous guidelines, but I would want to assure myself that the arguments satisfied not just project specific guidelines but also GNG. For example, in this AfD there are a number of keep arguments which note a perfectly valid project specific guideline and would fulfil the actions of the editor arguing for outcome B above but do not present arguments which satisfy GNG.


 * Additional question from Technical 13
 * 5. What is the extent of your technical abilities to contribute to things like PER requests on templates, modules, interface messages, and the like? If none, would you be willing to hand in your admin tools for any questionable use in those areas if you received them here?
 * A: I would say very limited to none. To be honest, this is not an area that I see myself being particularly involved with, certainly at the start. If I were to become more involved in this area then I would look for guidance from a more experienced admin and follow their edits in relation to PER to gain a greater understanding before diving in. As such, currently I would expect my admin tools to be removed if I were caught acting in that area on pure competence grounds.


 * Optional questions from jc37
 * In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.


 * 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between: following current consensus (such as existing policy or guidelines), being bold, and seeking consensus.
 * A: IAR is something to be applied exceedingly sparingly in my view. It is not intended to give individual editors carte blanche to do whatever they like. Guidelines exist because a body of editors agree that to proceed in a certain way is beneficial. IAR is not to be used by individual editors to go against guidelines because they believe those guidelines to be wrong.
 * In an instance where an editor believes that the guidelines are wrong then the correct course of action is to begin a discussion and seek to change the guidelines. For example, an editor "knows" something to be true but cannot provide verification. The correct response in this instance is not to IAR and just add it anyway because, of course, it's true, but to start a discussion to change WP:V to include a statement to the effect that "where an editor cannot provide independent verification of a statement but knows the statement to be true, it may be added as other editors must assume good faith that the statement is correct" (yeah... good luck with that one!).
 * However, there can be instances where IAR is appropriate as an editors actions in doing so would improve WP and where guidelines, when applied on a wider basis are not wrong, but in a given instance common sense and being bold should overrule them. To give an example from my own editing (and to explain why I used a facetious example above), I have recently created a large number of articles on small settlements in Yakutia. Using Kyyy as an example, you will note that the article contains a population figure for the 2010 census. In actual fact, the source cited does not explicitly state that the population of Kyyy in 2010 was 818. What it does say is that the population of Tyarasinsky Rural Okrug was 818, so WP:V is not technically satisfied. In this instance I IAR'd on common sense grounds. As note 4 in the article clearly notes: According to Law #173-Z 353-III [also cited in the article], Kyyy is the only inhabited locality on the territory of this municipal formation. Therefore common sense dictates that if you live in Tyarasinsky Rural Okrug you also, from a census perspective live in Kyyy. To my mind, no reasonable person could fail to agree that the population was essentially verified even if technically that is not what the source said.
 * Finally, regarding consensus, I am struggling to think of an instance where it would be necessary to IAR on a unilateral basis. The example I provided above was made after discussion with Ezhiki concerning its appropriateness and the wording of the note. In this instance, whilst wider consensus was not necessarily achieved, an agreement amongst experienced editors was reached that a course of action was appropriate. To my mind there is too great a risk of accusations of being pointy to IAR on any significant basis without at least some level of informal discussion.


 * . How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation, such as when deciding whether you should close a discussion, or whether you should be the one to block (or unblock) an editor and/or protect (or unprotect) a page.
 * A: I would deem myself involved in terms of closing an AfD if it related to a topic / project with which I had a history of involvement in AfD. For example, I am involved in many football related AfDs. As an admin, I would never seek to close any football AfD as I would not wish this to be interpreted as using the available tools to push my point of view, especially as I intend to remain involved in the discussion of such articles. I would extend this to any other AfD where there were editors involved in the discussion with whom I had had any significant interaction with in the past (in terms of AfD or even simply significant personal / project talk page interaction). I would prefer to avoid any possibility that there might be any form of pre-existing relationship with any editor that might be construed as affecting my judgement.
 * With regards to un/blocking, whilst there is no one that I would say I have a particularly bad relationship with on WP, there are certainly a number of editors with whom I regularly disagree in AfD. The fact that this disagreement exists and occurs on more than a passing basis, even though it is to my mind always civil would be sufficient for me to consider myself involved. I would rather be safe than sorry and would not get involved in any un/blocking of such editors. However, if I did see activity that I felt warranted blocking from an editor I felt was too close to me, I would not simply let it slide but would inform another, unrelated admin of the situation (as well as the editor in question) and ask for an impartial assessment. Unlike AfD, I would not feel obliged to avoid projects with which I am also involved with since there are many editors with whom I am not in any form of contact.
 * Regarding protecting pages, I would avoid this on any page which I had created or where I had added significant content as I would not wish to give grounds for any thought that I might be trying to preserve my point of view. I would caveat this by saying I would not apply this point of view in the case of clear vandalism. For example, in this article although I have been involved in regularly removing vandalism from the page, given that my actions have been purely related to this, I would not consider myself involved were there a need to protect the page in future.


 * . How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.
 * A: In general consensus in discussions comes from a number of editors observing pre existing guidelines and then explaining how these guidelines support their case. Consensus is not obtained on a voting basis, so a few editors who provide clear arguments along a pre-existing guideline basis as opposed to "I don't / like It", "Other Stuff Exists".
 * In RMs (and my experience here is limited) this consensus could be achieved by editors indicating reliable sources to support WP:COMMONNAME if there is a title dispute or in the instance of disambiguation discussions, sources that would support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In these instances consideration to the weight applied to sources provided would be needed, assessing the reliability of each one. For example, an RM to move an individual to a new name because that is what they are always called on a particularl forum / blog, would carry a lot less weight than the name used in the national press or the individual's own website.
 * In XfD I would refer you to my answer in question four which covers my views on the types of arguments used, their repsective weights and consequently the degree to which they can be used to generate consensus.
 * Regarding DRV - The main difference I would highlight for DRV, compared to AfD relates to a lack of consensus. Whereas in AfD this would mean an auto keep, in DRV this does not necessarily mean the article remains deleted, an admin can use discretion if they feel a restoration and relist would be more appropriate.
 * In RfCs the role of the admin in determining consensus is less important than in the other types of discussions. Whilst an admin may usefully make suggestions or guide conversations, there is greater scope for the participants to determine whether consensus has been reached themselves. If there is a dispute between editors and an RfC takes place and during which those directly involved feel they have reached a satisfactory conclusion (bearing in mind my earlier comments re voting) then consensus can be said to have been reached without the need for an admin (or even any other editor) to formerly close the discussion.


 * . User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
 * A: My answer assumes JohnQ's message was left in good faith and was not an attempt to embroil either JohnD or JaneR in any trouble. I would consider the following factors / actions (in no particular order):
 * 1) I would remind both users of the BRD cycle and encourage them to discuss their differences on the article talk page. If this elicits little response, I would encourage them to go to the relevant project page
 * 2) How many reverts have actually taken place. Is there an issue with WP:3RR?
 * 3)I would look at the type of reverting that is going on. Who are these editors, what do they normally do? Is one editor's view essentially vandalising the page? If more than 3 reverts have occurred, is there a justifiable reason per WP:3RRNO?
 * 4) If there is no satisfactory reason for one editor reverting the other, I would look at the warning / block history of each user. Any warnings / blocks would be given based on that. Additional warnings / blocks would escalate were this to be ignored.


 * . Why do you wish to be an administrator?
 * A: I don't see any particular kudos behind being an admin and certainly have no intention of stopping my current level of article involvement. With reference to my comments in question 2: I am a firm believer that the majority of admins should be people who are content creators / improvers in the main and use the admin tools merely as an aid to that, to improve the overall quality of a set of articles by separating the wheat from the chaff, protecting those pages that attract vandals and generally tidying up. That's how I would use the tools, as an aid and an addition to my current activity rather than as a replacement to it.


 * Additional question from Espresso Addict
 * 11. Would you care to elucidate your actions regarding Max Leopold Wagner?
 * A: That was a very rash decision on my part. On reflection I should not have CSD'd that article. In my, admittedly weak, defence the article as it was when I added the CSD tag was such that there was no real indication of notability, the article could have been about any undergraduate let alone an academic. However I think now, I would have spent some time doing even a simple google search which would have solved any issue regarding notability. As an unreferenced BLP at the time, if any tag were appropriate it would have been a BLPPROD.
 * Note, the subject died in 1962, which was clearly stated in the article at the time it was speedied. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Off the wall observation/follow-up: How did that CSD tag stay there for 6 months? Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted . I restored the version with the speedy tag so that non-admin editors would be able to see the context of my question. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I see now. Confused the shit out of me, but that's not hard. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the fact he was dead just underlines the attention I paid the article! NPP has some good points, but one of the reasons I don't involve myself in it too much is that it tends to make me make snap judgements like this which aren't really very useful. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Question from Bbb23


 * 12. Follow-up to question #6. First, a disclaimer: I am not a fan of WP:IAR and am pleased to hear that you would invoke it "exceedingly sparingly". Second, my question: why do you think IAR is needed to go against guidelines? Hint: guidelines are not policies.
 * A: I think you have kind of answered the question yourself! Guidelines are not policies, they are meant to guide editors and are a series of statements that are constantly in flux and can be changed through discussion rather than more rigid policies. On a project as broad in scope as WP, it is impossible for guidelines to cover every eventuality either directly or implicitly. IAR is needed in some circumstances when common sense would indicate that a certain action was the right thing to do in terms of delivering an improvement to the project but that the guideline itself is not intrinsically wrong and any material change to it would adversely affect WP elsewhere. IAR, and being bold in general, is one way (without going so far as to be pointy) of going about changing consensus.


 * Additional questions from DGG
 * 13. Follow up to Is it stated anywhere that not passing the GNG is always a rationale for considering something notable? Are the any special notability guidelines that specifically do not require the GNG to be met?
 * A: WP:NACADEMICS lists a series of criteria by which a subject is considered notable if one of them is fulfilled. There is no specific requirement to satisfy GNG, nor any indication that these criteria do not usurp WP:N, but it is difficult to see how GNG would not be satisfied in many of those instances. In fact this guideline specifically states that even if these criteria are not satisfied that the subject may still be notable per GNG.
 * WP:BK and WP:ATH lean towards separate sets of guidelines, the criteria given again make it difficult to see how in the majority of cases GNG would not be satisfied, but WP:BKCRIT and WP:SPORTCRIT are careful to note these are only rules of thumb, so GNG would still be applicable in these instances.
 * WP:NASTRO, WP:EVENT, WP:NF, WP:NMG, WP:ORG, WP:BIO and WP:WEB are really an expansions on GNG rather than separate sets of guidelines.
 * WP:NGEO contains elements such as WP:GEOLAND, which whilst they do not inherently usurp GNG, provide clarity which could be interpreted as a quasi-distinct guideline as part of WP's role as a gazetteer.
 * Overall, specific guidelines provide guidance to editors at a level of detail which, were it included in the wider GNG rationale, would make it cumbersome and inherently difficult to use, especially for new editors. There are some instances where specific achievements make someone / thing notable which are separate to GNG, but in a way these are merely instances where we come full circle where consensus has agreed that such an achievement makes someone generally notable in a given field.
 * WP:PROF was adopted because most notable academics do not have the usual sort of GNG coverage. Early Olympic athletes are covered even if nothing more than the name and event is known--this is done because there are a considerable number where this is the case. Both were is dispute when I came here 8 years ago, but have been settled for >5 years now.But in most fields you are correctthatthe interpretation can be difficult.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 14 pt 1. Follow up to #6. Is WP:V a guideline or a policy? What's the difference? In making an exception to a guideline, is it always necessary to invoke IAR, or do guidelines by their very nature  admit the need to make exceptions?
 * A: WP:V is a policy. Policies are standards applicable across WP that all editors should follow, such as no OR. These are basically set in stone, no amount of discussion is realistically going to lead to any material change to these. Guidelines on the other hand are more outlines of best practice, they can in instances be overridden by common sense, but are ultimately underpinned by consensus. It's not always necessary to invoke IAR, indeed as I stated earlier, I do not necessarily equate IAR with the freedom to make unilateral decisions, even if they do appear sensible to an individual, but IAR exists as a function of the nature of guidelines, that they are not set in stone, they can change and that one way of doing so, and indeed changing wider consensus is to be bold and to do things from time to time that go against guidelines if they genuinely result in an improvement to the project.


 * 14 pt 2 Follow up to #6 and #4 Is WP:N a guideline or a policy? Is WP:GNG an independent  guideline or  policy?  or part of a guideline?  Is it stated anywhere that not passing the GNG is always a rationale for considering something notable? Is it stated anywhere that a subject can be notable without passing the GNG? (if so,  please cite the statement) Do the   special notability guidelines that   not require the GNG to be met also? (if so, please cite the statement
 * A: WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, with GNG a subsection of WP:N. Not sure I understand the next question, if something does not pass GNG then it is highly unlikely to be considered notable, GNG trumps any specific project guidelines. I believe the remaing elements have been answered in Q13


 * 15 Follow up to Q11. Is a claim of notability necessary to pass speedy? (please cite the relevant rule) In the version of the article you speeded, did you notice the list of corresponding articles in other languages? Do you think this has any relation to making a claim of importance?
 * A: By speedy, I presume you mean WP:CSD. Notability is not relevant to every section of CSD as this deals with a lot more than just mainspace articles. With specific regards to articles, many of the CSD criteria deal with issues wholly separate from notability, but A7 and A9 require specific assertions of notability for certain topics. I cannot recall whether I noticed links to other language wiki articles. I would not consider the mere existence of these of inherent importance, other wikis may have different notability guidelines to enWiki, but I acknowledge that a review of these for reliable sources that could be used in the enWiki article to assert GNG would have been a useful step to have taken.
 * Have you read A7? I quote. "...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, .... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." This is not a rhetorical question, because what you have said is directly opposed to deletion policy, and it is an issue that frequently arises.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Ritchie333
 * 16. A brand new user creates an article. Its content, in its entirety, is "dagmar schultz is a writer and speaker". What do you do?
 * A: On the face of things, a very short unreferenced biography that does nothing to assert notability. The knee-jerk reaction would be to CSD A7, or at least BLPPROD (assuming the person is still alive). In reality, and as an admin, a little more work should be done. Under the assumption that the stub is not an extremely inaccurate attempt to provide an enWiki article for this Dagmar Schulz, a google search reveals, without going into specific links, an individual who is potentially notable (the first three links could help satisfy GNG). However, the article states that this person is a writer and speaker, whereas google indicates she is an "activist, author, filmmaker". I would feel uncomfortable about adding anything to this article myself, as I could not be 100% certain that the creator is talking about the same person. However, as this is potentially a notable person, and the editor is new, I would not speedy or BLPPROD. Instead, I would contact the editor and ask them, making suggestions as to how to improve the article to a basic stub level including sufficient information to assert notability and references per BLP requirements. I would monitor the article, if no changes are made within a reasonable time then a BLPPROD would probably be the most prudent move. I would also point the editor in the direction of the relevant project and also the Tea house for more general advice.


 * Additional question from Andrew D
 * 17. I was wondering what the candidate's user name meant and it seems to be the name of a resurrection spell in a popular computer game. This suggests that this might be an alternate or fresh start account.  Is it?  The candidate does not seem to edit in the field of videogames but instead seems to stick quite narrowly to the fields of football and Siberian geography.  Does he expect to branch out to other topic areas in future? Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A:You're quite right that is where my user name comes from. It's just the name I have used in forums and the like for years since I first started posting on a now defunct Square Enix forum. I have never edited WP under any other account name. Not sure what I plan to do in the future.


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech
 * 18. Can you please explain soft deletes?


 * A: Soft deletes are where an admin has discretion to delete an article which has been Relisted several times af AfD without a significant level of participation. Although the article may be deleted, in this instance it can be restored at any time by request and for any reason. Though this does not preclude it from returning to AfD again after restoration.

General comments

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

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

Support

 * 1) Support. I've seen Fenix in a few AfD's now and, after reviewing a few examples of this user's content creations, I have nothing but respect and trust that Fenix will make a great admin. Good luck! Tavix | Talk  20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, good impressions--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support- sure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I don't recall running into Fenix down in the past so I just spent some time looking through their stats and contributions and found nothing which could cause me to oppose. Fenix down has a superb track record at AfD (401 discussions with 91% agreeing), with votes that went against the final consensus still being sensible and based in policy. They are quite obviously here to build an encyclopedia with 73% edits to article space and show good understanding of policies through numerous PROD tags and AfDs. The user has a good idea of what they want to do with the tools and have my full support. Sam Walton (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Seems like a reasonable candidate.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Obviously support as nominator.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2015 ; 21:03 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support - Excellent candidate. --George (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support – seems like an all-around good person and someone worth having around as an administrator. Harej (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I have no concerns about this editor.  Good luck.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Easy !vote based on solid 5-year record, including solid grasp of our notability and deletion guidelines based on excellent AfD record. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Why not?  Jianhui67 T ★ C 00:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Stephen 01:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Eurodyne (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I like the deletion record, no qualms here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Good work on Bhutan-articles. Delibzr (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support candidate is qualified and we could use another admin at AfD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Support From what I've seen of his work in AfD, I have no qualms about this user being an admin. Good attitude also. StewdioMACK Talk page 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) A fairly comfortable support from me. The most valuable and impressive content creators aren't necessarily those with lots of stars and green blobs; on one view, the most valuable are those who diligently work away filling gaps in our coverage. Fenix down's work, in areas such as remote Russian localities, is in this category. The candidate is certainly on Wikipedia for the right reasons. And I think he is competent enough. In my research I've seen the occasional thing that has raised my eyebrows. To pick on one: the use of footnote 11 in Nutepelmen contains some massive leaps of logic that go beyond even a generous interpretation of WP:OR. But overall, the evidence is very positive. Examples: there is a strong and sensible rationale at this AfD; there is excellent research and intuitive reasoning here; and there is an appropriate weighing of the evidence and competing deletion guidelines here. Good luck. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - F ASTILY 08:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per Harej. Graham 87 09:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Support No concerns. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Support I've seen him around previously, liked what I saw. Adequate experience and tenure, no surprises expected.  Should be a fine addition to mop brigade. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 24) NativeForeigner Talk 12:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - I have worked with this user for a long time, mainly at football (soccer!)-related AFDs; he has a firm grasp of our policies and guidelines and a level-head, both of which will make him a formidable addition to the admin team. GiantSnowman 13:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I see nothing to indicate this candidate would not be a fine admin, and plenty to indicate he would. This is reinforced by users who I respect, and who know the candidate better, endorsing his quality. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per answer to Q5 and I see no other obvious red flags. —   14:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 28) Support -He's good to go... - T H - the fury of nature given flesh 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Although I haven't come into contact with the candidate previously, I am very pleased to support. The nomination was a glowing recommendation from a trusted user, and I am extremely content with the answers to all the questions, and after reviewing the subject's participation AfD discussions and content creation, along with their other contribs, I am quite impressed. I would definitely trust them to close AfD discussions. Also, when I saw that Fenix down had created many town articles, I expected that they would be the short stubs that are all too common for foreign towns—however, they were actually well-sourced, informative articles. Finally, I can see no obvious red flags. BenLinus  1214 talk 16:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) – Davey 2010 Talk 16:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. No concerns so far. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Good, reasonable candidate with common sense. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Both because I believe the candidate would be a fine administrator and to balance out the oppose below. T  C  N7 JM  20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 35) Support No concerns. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 36) I share the name of the basis of my support with the title of this festival taking place this summer.  Rcsprinter123    (speak)  @ 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, I see no reason not to. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Seen Fenix around for a good while, good answers to questions, and no reason to expect tool misuse. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 39) Support I don't think I've ever seen the candidate before, which is often a good sign. No apparent issues though, so no reason to oppose. Widr (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 40) Support I'm not familiar with this editor but I'm impressed by his thoughtful and complete answers to the questions above which reflect a seriousness towards the policies and guidelines governing WP. I think with his experience, he will use the tools judiciously. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Since I haven't run into the candidate yet, although they're supported by editors I respect I was waiting for answers to the additional questions and like what I see. Will make a fine admin.  Mini  apolis  22:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Even though I did not ever encounter this user before, they seem to be a suitable candidate based on their answers to the questions. Epic Genius (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 43) Support after looking at logs and some deleted content. However one complaint is that Elkhan Temirbaev was prodded a second time.  One should check the delete log for articles first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. I see no serious issues.   HalfGig   talk  23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 45) Support &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 46) Support – I'm a bit concerned about narrowness of experience. In addition to a good understanding of the basic policies and guidelines I think it's important to have a good sense of history and how they've been applied to particular cases. But the candidate says that he wants to seek the advice of more experienced admins when something comes up, so I'm really not that worried. I think he will learn and do a good job. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 47) Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 48) Support  Jim Car  ter  04:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 49) Support Another former Editor of the Week. Will bring a new energy to the Admin corp. . Buster Seven   Talk  05:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 50) Support Looks like a good editor to me, good luck on your admin-ship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 51) Support: DGG has made a good point, but I am over-all impressed, good understanding of policies. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 52) Support: I was concerned about Fenix's ability to handle situations outside of his topics of expertise, and threw him a curved ball, but the answer to Q16 leaves me comfortable that he knows enough not to accidentally bite newbies. The answer to DGG's question picking up on WP:ACADEMIC is exactly what I wanted to see too. FWIW, I did mean the Dagmar Schultz mentioned in these four articles. I had a follow up question which was the same but with a random source like this, but that wasn't necessary. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  11:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 53) Support Thanks for volunteering. Ben Moore (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 54) Support Best answers to guideline/policy questions in a long, long time, avoiding to copy the textbook, really saying something. Also excellent AfD participation, much above average (although the tool is still wobbling, it shows 10 keep !votes on August 2, 2014, where the candidate actually !voted delete which was also the result). Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 55) Support trusted user, I see no reason not to make admin.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 56) Support Very good answers to questions in this RFA; I was especially impressed with the answers to Q16, but all answers were thoughtful and well-stated. Looking through the candidate's contributions, I see a strong content contributor and someone who keeps a cool head in interactions with others. Ca2james (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 57)  Support:  Candidate is qualified and gave the right answers.  What's not to like?  —This lousy T-shirt—  (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 58) Support, great candidate. Nine Tail Fox \ talk 18:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 59) Support - Clean block log, adequate tenure, over 22K edits, of which over 70% are to mainspace, no indications of assholery. Snezhnoye, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug is a beautiful thing, by the way. Thank you for that. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 60) Support' A fine candidate with good answers to questions and an even more impressive edit history. <span style="font:small-caps 1.0em Alexandria,serif;color=#00008B">Bellerophon <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#9966CC;">talk to me  21:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 61) Support The answers given to some tricky questions are well phrased. Track record appears good. No qualms. Philg88 ♦talk 22:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 62) Support - Solid user. Orphan Wiki  23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 63) Support Largely based on observation of the editor's prior participation at AfD. Nice work on Snezhnoye! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 64) Support Good answers. Definitely one for a new mop. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 23:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 65) Support. Good... --► Cekli 829  13:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 66) Support – Many useful contributions, has been here since 2009, has made sensible posts at ANI. Agree with User:Carrite on the high quality of Fenix down's work at Snezhnoye, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 67) Support - Looks like a good solid candidate to me. Good luck -- Marek . 69    talk
 * 68) Support. Carrite sums up my thoughts nicely - good luck! — sparklism hey! 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 69) Support Competent, trustworthy editor. I've been hoping for more sysops familiar with association football, it being such a popular topic across the wiki. I'm often baffled what to do about the AIV/RPP/CSD reports, unable to tell what are constructive edits and what are not, who is actually notable, etc. Much of it looks like good-faith edits to me but to the footballers it's blatant vandalism. That being said I trust they won't take action when they are too WP:INVOLVED. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 70) Support, I like the different areas of content creation of the candidate. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 71) Support. I agree with MusikAnimal  and others who have noted the candidate's familiarity with and contributions to both a popular topic with extensive coverage and to more obscure specialized areas will be helpful in his administrative work. Good contributions are noted in these more obscure areas. GiantSnowman's endorsement based in part on interactions with Fenix is noteworthy. Sam Walton and Mkativerata (again) provide persuasive analyses. No serious problem has been uncovered and a few questionable edits do not amount to much in the scheme of things. Also, I think the answers to the questions are good. I have carefully read the answers and I think that the few noted possible problems are not clearly problems or wrong answers. I think the candidate was giving reasonably sensible answers in his own words which could be interpreted as in keeping with the policies and guidelines. His track record tends to confirm this for me. Donner60 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 72) Support A solid candidate who is clearly here to build the encyclopedia. I see no problems. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 73) Looks good to me. Fenix has balanced experience across multiple areas, including content work and site maintenance. The candidate comes across as collected and thoughtful in their answers to the questions here as well as their talk page interactions. They will do well as an administrator. Good luck, Fenix. I'm happy to support. Tyrol5   [Talk]  17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 74) Support Always seemed like a sensible editor, so no problems giving them the admin tools. Number   5  7  18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 75) Support This user seems like they would make a good admin. I see no sensible reason to oppose. I have since struck the previous sentence as someone has made a valid concern in the oppose section about the candidates view of IAR. While this is not enough for me to oppose I do hope the Fenix down will err on the side of caution when responding to the use of IAR. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">Chillum</b> 20:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 76) Support Didn't realize Fenix wasn't already an admin. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 77) ///Euro Car  GT  22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 78) Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 79) Support I dont generally !vote on landslide RFA's but I was impressed how well you did writing an article on a hard to reach place. Despite the opposes, I trust you will stay in areas you're comfortable, like admins generally do. — Soap — 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 80) Impressive answers to questions, particularly related to IAR; opposes are not persuasive; happy to support. Townlake (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 81) Support Piling on. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 82) Support Due to a clear grasp on things, clear thought processes, and an ability to present them in an uncomplicated, eloquent manner. A great combination. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 83) Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 84) Support based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 85) Support Great editor, and happy with their answers to the questions. Cheers. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 86) Support I see no problems. —Frosty ☃ 06:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 87) Support No major concerns at this time. Mkdw talk 17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 88) Support - Liked several question answers. As an admin candidate, they seem perhaps to be a bit "green", and further, to be more than a bit shaky on WP:N, and the semi-relate GNG, etc, but adminship is a learning curve, and as has been said to other prospective admins: if they take it slow, especially at first, and seek out 3POs from other experienced editors, they should do fine. - jc37 09:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 89) Kurtis (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 90) Support - seems to have a great understanding of policies and guidelines. No concerns. Good luck! Ivanvector (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 91) Support Answers to the questions are thorough; Q3 in particular shows a good understanding of disputes and an ability to stay calm when dealing with difficult people.  AFD record looks good too.  The mistakes are concerning, but your willingness to acknowledge them and reluctance to participate in new page patrol are enough for me to let them go.  Andrew's objections are more valid than I'd realised, but I still don't think they're a significant enough problem.  OTOH (though I don't think your attitude toward this will negatively affect your performance), adminship is a big deal: it requires an extraordinary set of skills, a large amount of free time, and a near-perfect record (the last of which is open to debate, but still good to have), and it entails involving yourself in difficult and controversial situations that almost always lead to someone throwing food at you.  It was "no big deal" many years ago, but no longer.  (PS -- Saw the IAR complaint after typing this up, and as someone who thinks IAR is a good thing, I actually thought your views on IAR made sense and were in line with policy.  Maybe I'm missing something.)  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Browsing the candidate's content creation is a chilling experience - stuff like 2000 Samoa National League, Yedey, Khangalassky District, Sakha Republic and Benjamin Rairoa. Such content seems to violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.  And then he goes after other editors' cruft on the grounds that it's not notable!?  Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice you haven't taken any of those articles to AfD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the examples you mentioned would easily pass AfD. 2000 Samoa National League passes WP:NSEASON because it is a season article on a top professional league. Yedey, Khangalassky District, Sakha Republic passes WP:NGEO, which basically says that any populated place is notable. Benjamin Rairoa passes WP:NFOOTY because he has appeared in a FIFA sanctioned international match. It's a shame that you have to troll on an otherwise spotless RFA with such baseless rationale. Tavix | Talk  16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that's a shame. Hardly the first time, though. Thankfully, this happens less, lately. It'll fall out of fashion completely, soon. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because there are few RfA to troll these days. This is partly because the process has a such a poor reputation, which is partly due to silly opposes like this one. I might note that this is not Andrew Davidson's first dubious oppose !vote, either. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was kind of implying this wasn't their first gig. Odd mindset that would do that, but I'm sure it's satisfying in some way. Begoon &thinsp; talk  19:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice you haven't taken any of those articles to AfD. — I am not surprised. Andrew opposes every RFA, shows some issues, but never goes forward to solve those. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not being funny here but has Andrew actually supported any RFA recently ?, We all oppose at times but I don't think I've ever seen anyone oppose as much as him to be honest... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well...there are these: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sarahj2107&diff=prev&oldid=635796016][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Samwalton9&diff=prev&oldid=634874827][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000_2&diff=prev&oldid=634841581]. That said, I don't particularly agree with Andrew's rationale since there are much better examples of content creation, like Snezhnoye, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. --Jakob (talk)  21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No comment on Andrew's overall participation at RfA, but that rationale for supporting NA1000's RfA is disgusting. "He's not as bad as the other candidate" indeed! Granted, it was 3 months ago, but using someone's RfA to slight another RfA candidate is uncalled for. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 22:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With such remarks being thrown around, I'm not surprised Thomas.W decided to retire. I had a look at the articles and while they're short, I don't see the "long and sprawling lists of statistics", but neither do I see the connection to notability.  Also, "trolling" is rather harsh, since Andrew just has really high standards and wants everyone to create only perfect articles or something.  Separately, aren't we not supposed to discuss the voters in such detail here?  doesn't it belong someplace else (not that I'd know where)?  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure of the numbers myself so I checked and find that 63% of my RFA votes are opposes. For comparison, the equivalent figure for Davey2010 is 40%; for Dylan620 it's 24% and for Ekips39 it's 0%.  In Ekips39's case, that's because he is quite new to this and so has made few votes. In my case, I am indeed quite fussy and I'm never neutral as that seems to be a wasted vote.  Candidates should therefore please not take it personally if I oppose them; I'm just hard to please. Andrew D. (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Snezhnoye, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug seems to be a labour of love as the candidate has been beavering away at that topic for over five years now. It's a settlement of only about 300 people but lavish attention has been given to it so that the article compares well with articles about places which have a thousand times more people.  The candidate tells us that he first came to Wikipedia because he was wanting information about a particular place in that part of the world.  But what is this interest?  The candidate's user page is entitled "Who I am and why am I here?" but doesn't really answer the question.  The language boxes indicate a classical education but that they are not a Russian native.  So, what's going on here?  Is this a whim like Feynman's curious desire to visit Tannu Tuva or what?  I myself can be quite doggedly curious about an obscure topic once I get my teeth into it but am generally more mercurial.  The candidate seems quite obsessive about this and the other topics he touches. This is a common trait on Wikipedia but I'm not sure it's a good one for an admin as it may then be expressed as rigid intolerance or ownership.  I'm staying here for now until I've figured this out.  One reason that I tend to oppose at RfA is that there are no term-limits for admins and so I require convincing that the candidate won't abuse the position. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So... because he tends to invest a lot of effort in obscure topics, you're afraid he might exert ownership over them? I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic here.  I'd be interested to see direct evidence of such ownership behaviour, but in the absence of such evidence I wouldn't suspect it.  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The risk arises from obsession rather than obscurity. Let's consider [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuerte_San_Francisco&diff=641447180&oldid=641447122 an example].  While browsing the candidate's contributions, I noticed a spate of such edits where he removes lists of famous former players from football teams.  This seems an odd thing to be doing because articles of this sort typically list a huge number of names — players, coaches, "kit man", "knesliogiocal" (sic), &c.  To be removing star players from the team's past seems quite unhelpful and disruptive in this context as they are more important.  There seems to be some technical reason for this but it looks like tiresome wikilawyering to me.  Now I'm not too bothered what happens to such football articles because they are mostly stats book stuff that is only of interest to fans.  What worries me is that, as admin, the candidate might enforce this theory on articles about places or institutions such as universities.  These commonly have lists of famous inhabitants or alumni and this seems quite reasonable.  The issue here is ambiguity tolerance as an indicator of a rigid, authoritarian mindset. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that football fans aren't important? Besides, 'famous' is a very subjective description and I'm not sure such lists have any place in an encyclopedia, regardless of whether on sports or university articles. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump into this very entertaining discussion, but Andrew, you might like to take a closer look at the edit summaries I leave when I perform these actions such as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malacca_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=646650409 this] which clearly points to the relevant section of the WP:FOOTY MoS that these sections contravene. If similar criteria existed at other projects' MoSs and I added essentially random lists of people, I would expect them to be removed. So as you can hopefully now see, Ambiguity tolerance is not really an issue here, aligning articles to an agreed upon format and style is all that is being attempted. Fenix down (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the candidate for joining in as his comments are naturally the most useful. I have looked at that Footy page more closely now.  The first thing I notice is that it's an essay, not a policy or guideline.  Calling it the "Manual of Style" in the edit summaries seems misleading as our manual of style is actually a different set of pages.  Next, looking at the history of this page, we see that the original draft expected that there would be lists of "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs&oldid=19988557 Noted players of the club]".  This was then modified by another editor to suggest that sources should be provided, "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs&diff=138319286&oldid=97215887 Noted players of the club, who have had a major impact on the club's history. The section should use a external sources for the list, not the personal opinions of editors.]"  A further modification by a third editor developed this further, "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs&diff=409127292&oldid=379268263 It may be useful to readers to have a list of players who have been of importance at a club, but any such list should have clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the section header should reflect such criteria.  Any editor considering adding a player to such a list, or excising one, should be able to make such a decision on the basis of verifiable fact, not opinion or whim.  Such criteria will vary according to the level at which the club plays, or has played.   Players considered important to the history of the club, but who do not meet such criteria, can be referred to in the history section.]"  So, we see an escalating list of demands for sources and then criteria.  This ends up being hard work and so it's not surprising that the candidate now just mechanically blows away anything of this sort.  But what of the reader?  The paragraph still allows that "it may be useful to readers to have a list of players who have been of importance at a club" but the work of doing this in a thorough way now seems too much.  Is this not a classic case of creep in which well-meaning rules are piled up until the burden of following them becomes too great?  Is it sensible to follow such counsels of perfection blindly?  Can the candidate please tell us how much effort he expended in each of these cases to determine that the list was or was not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm sorry, and you are a good candidate in many other ways, but as the admin toolset contains many different tools, one must show proficiency in understanding all of them. I can't support giving a candidate deletion power when he says that he has to stay away from NPP because he admits he can't be trusted, and the answers to DGG's questions are weak and show a mangling of policy.  Konveyor   Belt   22:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I cannot support the candidacy of an editor who belittles one of the basic policies of Wikipedia, WP:IAR. It is not an afterthought or a sideshow, it's exactly as important as every other basic policy. (And may I say that I'm disappointed in Bbb23, an admin that think is quite good at the job, for saying he is "not a fan" of IAR.) If an editor came here and said that he or she did not support WP:V or WP:N, they'd be thrown out on their ear.  But, for some reason, a candidate for adminship can slag off IAR without anyone making a fuss.  That's wrong, and I don't want to encourage new admins to be created who carry that view, sinceit will only lead to conflict with editors who take IAR as seriously as it should be taken.  One other word oto the candidate: iAR is not a guideline, it is policy , and if that is an example of your knowledge of Wikipedia rules, I'm not impressed. BMK (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Obviously this is going to pass, so consider this a reminder to to proceed extremely cautiously with the deletion tools given your own admission that you have insufficient CSD experience.  (And I add, little experience outside of football and populated places in general.)  If you do decide to work in NPP at some point in the future, please tag CSD candidates instead of deleting them yourself.  In other words, proceed with caution when working outside your area of experience.  As long as you stick to that, I think you will do a good job as an admin. --ThaddeusB (talk)

Neutral

 * 1) The editor is doing good work in expanding coverage of Russian localities and is clearly an expert in the notability guidelines for association football. However, scanning his/her talk archives, I am worried about a few poor judgement calls in mid-2014 on articles outside these areas (eg Max Leopold Wagner, Jabre Capital Partners S.A, Thumb tribe, Cécile McLorin Salvant) where the editor was quick to call for deletion of an article on a notable topic rather than attempt to improve the article, or assist others to do so. There are also numerous notifications of image deletions, suggesting that the editor does not understand the policy on uploading copyrighted images. As this RfA looks likely to succeed, I'd urge the editor to proceed cautiously in using admin tools outside his/her areas of expertise. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I can comment here, so apologies if I shouldn't but I wanted to observe that the notifications for image deletions are the deletion of orphaned images to my knowledge, rather than copyrighted images I had not uploaded properly, such as this notice for this file where another user uploaded an updated version with a transparent background or general better quality causing mine no longer to be used. I'm not aware of any others deleted for different reasons though am happy to be corrected. You're right about the other nominations. All of these came from NPP, which I don't really use any more to avoid making rash decisions. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral No reasons to oppose except a vague unease. Most people 'lose' some of their nominations at CSD and AfD (I'm happy to lose when a better article results from a provocative AfD nom), but... Equally, I can't honestly support. I've not seen (or at least noticed) them in the areas I frequent. I tend to go more on personal opinion rather than stats, and here I haven't got one. Sorry. I might change as this goes on. Peridon (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) tentatively neutral I am not happy about giving the actual power to delete to a person who says they cannot be trusted not to make rash decisions at NPP. Awaiting a response to my question before saying more.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, while the content creation by the editor appears to be positive, I am not seeing a very good reason to support giving the subject of this RfA the mop. The only reason I can see to support the subject in this endeavor is WP:NOBIGDEAL, which I am not a fan of, as being able to block an editor is a HUGE deal IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral leaning support I don't usually bother to !vote when I'm neutral, but here there are a couple of things to say. The (as of this writing) sole oppose shows that there's a need for improvement in the Footy documentation, both clarifying that very unclear instruction and some rewording to avoid misleading people to believe it's part of the MoS. If hope that FD or some other footy buff will take note of this and work for such improvement, but I don't see it as impinging on FD's ability to perform as an admin. The matter of CDS A7 (see 's response to the answer to Q15) is more tricky, but the candidate has already admitted that this tagging was a misjudgement. The documentation of WP:A7 rather spoils its clarity by using the phrase "claim of notability" (rather than claim of importance or significance), which may be part of the reason why this misunderstanding commonly arises, as DGG declares. I think the candidate may have used words a bit loosely, but the idea of doing WP:BEFORE before tagging with A7 is a good one, since establishing notability would certainly establish that a credible claim of importance or significance could be inserted into the article in this case and the A7 avoided or declined. The other answers give me a warm feeling of thoughtfulness, and I might have supported, but our paths haven't crossed and I don't have time to do a proper check, so I'll sit this out here. Apologies for the TLDR. --Stfg (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2015 (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.