Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirik


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

Shirik
Final (102/2/5); Closed by Rlevse at 00:54, 03 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– Shirik has made the requisite x000 edits and has been around for the requisite y months, and I'm sure you've all seen his helpful presence around if you frequent the administrative areas. But more importantly then the editcountitis trivialities, Shirik is a technically competent, well intentioned, and level-headed editor who could both be helped by, and be benficial with the sysop functions. He has been extremely helpful maintaining the abusefilter (and is one of the few non-admins with the right to edit them), in addition to his anti-vandalism and general cleanup work - be that reviewing GACs or just copyediting. And what is adminship but a more effective mop for the helpful people who clean up the site? Prodego talk  00:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I humbly accept this nomination. Thanks, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Many of the issues I've dealt with on the edit filter involve users which need to be blocked. Unfortunately, while I'm constantly reviewing the filter logs, currently I am unable to address the issues myself when problems arise (typically prolific sockmasters or page attacks). I intend to use the tools to address these issues as they arise, avoiding the necessity to find an administrator (which, sometimes, can be difficult to do late at night) and protect pages or block problematic users. When all's quiet on the western front, I would probably patrol WP:AIV to help out where appropriate.


 * In addition to my work with the filter, I also sit in a bot channel which announces potential problems, typically attack pages, and you will likely find that my deleted contributions contains a lot of G10 taggings. I intend to use the tools to delete these types of blatantly inappropriate pages more expediently.


 * I am also an SPI clerk trainee, and I would use the tools there to block socks as appropriate, though I will note that, as I am still a trainee, my work there would likely start out slow as I am still settling in there.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Strangely, my best contributions and the contributions I'm most proud of are different. Anyone can see my recognized content in my userspace (1 GA, 4 DYKs, and a quality image I took and uploaded for Balsamorhiza sagittata), in addition to the articles I've copy edited and reviewed (including 2 which are now featured), but actually what I'm most proud of is the article I started back in December, North American blizzard of 2009, for ITN while I was snowed in. This is the article that really got me involved in Wikipedia, as it was the first real heavily collaborative editing I'd done since I got on the site. Unfortunately I have not been able to get this article to GA despite my best efforts because a lot of the sources I failed to save permanently and are now lost, but I'm still hoping to get it to GA some day.


 * In addition to article contributions, I've done a lot of anti-vandalism work, and eventually requested the edit filter manager right in early January. Since then I've made over 500 edit filter modifications which have addressed everything from personal attacks to oversight issues to petty vandalism. One of those cases was back in February when I made a change to address a botnet attack that was replacing every page with a large black screen. I'd rather not list all those types of cases under WP:DENY, but suffice to say I sit in an IRC channel with a lot of bots that announce patterns of interest which allows me to make filter modifications before they cause severe disruption.


 * 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: Naturally everyone that edits on Wikipedia is going to come across a situation in which they disagree with another editor in some way or another, and I'm no exception. One particularly notable instance (I would prefer not to link it so as to protect the other party) was about 4 months ago when I nominated an article for deletion under WP:N. The author and I disagreed over whether or not this article should be deleted. After some time, the author declared my views "deletionist" which I disagreed with. Rather than allowing the situation to escalate out of control, though, I decided to ask a third party to step into the disagreement. After this, we were able to settle our differences. Interestingly, today I would agree that the article should be kept. Regardless, I feel this is the appropriate response to such a disagreement: If an issue I am involved in is escalating out of control, I would try to get a third party (or more) involved to help get a second opinion on the matter.


 * Additional optional questions from Unionhawk
 * 4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: A "block" is a technical restriction imposed by administrators. These are done to prevent harm to the wiki, and enforces that the user is unable to edit pages. A "ban", on the other hand, is a community-based sanction (whether by the community directly or via ARBCOM) which states that the editor is placed under restrictions. Unlike blocks, bans might only apply to a specific article or topic and, except for human review, there is nothing actually stopping the editor from violating the ban. In certain cases, bans may be enforced by blocks, especially where the editor has edited in violation of their ban.
 * 5. What do you interpret IAR to mean? When will you invoke IAR?
 * A: IAR is not, as some would like to believe, a free ticket to "do whatever you want". Its goal is to note that "the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law". IAR and consensus go hand-in-hand. Making a decision "under IAR" cannot be done unless there is obvious, unquestionable community support that it should be done. Unfortunately, the very nature of IAR makes it extremely difficult to impossible to predict a particular instance where IAR might come up and I would be tempted to use it as a justification for an action, but suffice it to say that if such a situation were to arise, I would only apply IAR if it is unquestionable that the community consensus is in favor of this decision, whether through discussion of the matter or through common sense.


 * Additional optional questions from Suomi Finland 2009
 * 6. Are you related to User:Shrekclear or User:Shrek2007 or User:Shrek? It seems that all users choosing the name of Shrek have been unproductive users.  Would you consider changing your name?
 * I am not related to any of those accounts. The only non-bot alternate account I have ever made is the clearly identifiable and noted-on-user-page User:Shisock. Furthermore, my username is not actually related to the movie character Shrek; that is merely a coincidence. Because this is a pseudonym I have used for years (long before I used Wikipedia), right now I have no intention of changing my name.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted on talk page. Airplaneman   ✈  01:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Ucucha 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) As nominator. Prodego  talk  01:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Good candidate. Good CSD work; especially with G10s. If the answer to Q3 is the biggest dispute he's ever been involved in, candidate needs to get involved in more disputes :) --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: Has not met the requisite z000 edits in q months Support Great editor, funny nomination statement, look promising. Buggie111 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Umm... duh. I've been persuading him for months. It pleases me to see it finally on the main page. ( X! ·  talk )  · @087  · 01:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't even have to think about this !vote; he's done good work all over. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) You didn't let me nominate? Lame. Happy to support regardless. NW ( Talk ) 01:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) You'll do great work as an admin.  — Soap  —  01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Absolutely no qualms whatsoever when I came here, great answers, great nomination, if ever there were a case for a WP:RIGHTNOW close, this would be it. When I first bumped inot you (yes, I know, cliche, but it's true) I genuinely thought you were an admin and was shocked to see you weren't! Let's put that right! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Absolutely Calmer   Waters  01:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) I was waiting for this, honestly. Good luck! Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support great user. Airplaneman   ✈  01:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Oppose Too perfect. Can't find any edits to make fun of. Obviously not admin material. Hi878 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Strongest Possible Support User is competent as he frequently demonstrates. No concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  01:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Content work, technical knowledge, mature demeanor and trustworthiness combine to form a highly qualified candidate for adminship. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Refreshingly competent and clueful. Experience doesn't matter as long as the candidate shows they're ready for the tools.  ceran  thor 02:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Strongest possible support Would make an excellent admin. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  02:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Why not? -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, of course. Blurpeace  02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) A much better SPI clerk than I am. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Absolutely. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Shirik is a trustworthy candidate and is ready for adminship now. Rje (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Support I've just started working with him on IRC and he seems competent. His sense of humor is also a plus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - No worries here. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong Support. Shirik has done excellent work so far, will make an excellent admin, and made his first edit 17 December 2008 03:53 UTC.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) As of right now I have never !voted at an RFA. I try to avoid them because I never feel strongly about if the user looks like he/she would make a good admin. However, with Shirik; I knew before he did that he would do an awesome job being an admin, and I am comfortable saying that I Fully, 200% support. I only wish that this RFA had come sooner, so that wikipedia would not have lacked such an admin for so long.  Tim  1357  talk  03:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Keegan (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Most definitely. SS  ✞(Kay) 04:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Shirik's work in the area of edit filters is nothing short of brilliant; I have observed him to be very clueful and ready to assist when people have questions or requests to do with edit filters, and I am certain that Shirik will be able to put the admin tools into good use in dealing with users or page creations picked up by edit filters. I've also been impressed by Shirik's recent work in SPI. As he has fairly recently become a trainee clerk there, I'm pleased to see that he's shown the prudence to say that he'll take things fairly easily to start with in regard to dealing with SPI cases as an admin, although I have every confidence that should he pass this RfA any work he does do as an admin in SPI will be of the highest standard, and having more admins there is always something which will be appreciated. Finally, he is a polite and relaxed editor, and I'll be delighted should this RfA pass and he becomes an admin. SpitfireTally-ho! 04:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Fully qualified candidate, ready to help out in an area that can always use more staffing, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongest possible oppose User did not let me co-nom. Strongest possible support. Extremely helpful and friendly. Excellent work on the filters and good work at SPI. Tim Song (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Shirik does good work and would benefit from having the admin tools to deal with sockpuppets and edit filter-related things.--Chaser (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Risker (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) --Closedmouth (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Good work with the edit filters. Aditya Ex Machina  06:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I can't find any reason to Oppose. -Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Looks good to me. Impressive CSD work.   7  08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I know some edit-filter work of the candidate, which is good and rather useful, especially given a number of maniacs crawling around WP recently, which can't be stopped by blocks .. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Bejinhan  Talk   10:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I've gone through the candidates's deleted contributions for April and saw some very accurate speedy deletion tagging of attack pages and vandalism. I might suggest that more meaningful edit summaries than (CSD) would be preferable, but that isn't a sufficiently serious quibble for me to downgrade to a weak oppose.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Absolutely, very cooperative. Sole Soul (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Valuable editor. Has my trust. Polargeo (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support seen 'm around. 3 months/3,000 edits is usually enough to assess and this user seems ready. Obviously intelligent, knowledgeable, even tempered, articulate user. Nominator is someone I trust. Besides, I'm jealous of that camera. Thanks to WereSpielChequers and others above for doing the homework, so support per them as well. Dloh  cierekim  13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Looks good, has enough experience.  Aiken   &#9835;   14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per WereSpielChequers. I first knew this user as a rollbacker. An active edit filter manager too. Minima  c  ( talk ) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Abso-friggin-lutely.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - all right, I'm convinced now...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Based on thoroughly competent work at SPI. TN X Man  18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) He is a very good copyeditor, he even helped get Flag of Japan to featured status due to his copyediting. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Support No problems that I have found. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Support: a net gain for this editor to have the tools.--~TPW 19:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong support I can't believe he isn't one already! Good luck. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) I seriously thought Shirik was already an administrator and was surprised to see his name here.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Support The candidate's copyedit skills and specialty work in edit-filter management are very impressive.--Hokeman (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Strong support. Shirik has been exceptionally helpful with checkuser-related duties, and I would trust him to not abuse the administrator rights, so therefore I support. --Deskana (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - I've seen Shirik around, doing good things. Nothing to concern me, and I really like the answer to Q5. --  At am a  頭 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Clearly a great editor doing lots of 'near admin' type things - would make a great addition to the ranks -- Boing!   said Zebedee  21:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 31) Support per Q5 answer, except for the phrase "common sense". If we had a sense that we all shared in common, there'd be no conflict. It's a cliche I really can't stand. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Seems like a decent candidate. AniMate  22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Support I can find no reason to oppose only reasons to support in my review of their contributions.  GB fan  talk 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Decent candidate. Already helpful and has experience to where he wants to work in.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Why not?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Good involvement in Edit filter/False positives/Reports, WP:AIV, WP:EF/R, WP:ANI & WP:FALSEPOS. Vipinhari  ||  talk  03:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) Support - nothing to strike me as warranting an oppose; abuse seems unlikely to me.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 38) Support - A great user who is unlikely to abuse the tools given to him. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 11:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. Very helpful editor. Can be trusted. -- &oelig; &trade; 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 40) Support: I see solid vandal-fighting, tireless sock-whacking, smart participation in audited content creation, and articulate answers to questions above. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 41) Weak support, mainly because while content creation is low, the articles created are of good quality, and there is nothing to suggest that the tools will be misused. Big  Dom  13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - Technical knowledge, very good answers to questions above, friendly interaction with other users, good article work, obviously trusted by the community (trusted, not popular). Of course! PrincessofLlyr  royal court 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 43) Support - Edit filter rights are a big plus to me, as is some real experience vandal fighting. A little low on some other areas, but after letting the discussion develop more, I don't see red flags. Shadowjams (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 44) Support - No reason to believe he will be a bad administrator. J.delanoy gabs adds  19:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 46) User useful in GA review, as well as general edit filter issues. Has clue. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 47) Support I trust Shirik to act in the best interests of the project, and to try hard not to mess things up; demonstrates a great deal of common-sense, and in my experience they have been courteous, polite and helpful.  Chzz  ►  13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 48) Good answers to the questions, and you've obviously made a good impression. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 49) Confident that they'll do a good job. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 50) Interactions with user have been positive. They have done a great job so far, no red flags. Pmlineditor   ∞  16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 51) Strong Support-Very level headed and friendly editor with technical expertise. His common-sense approach and courteousness suggest that he will make for an excellent admin.Smallman12q (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 52) Yes_check.svg  Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Shirik. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 53) Support - A clear reason to have the tools, sufficient experience to use them with a minimum of mistakes, no suggestion he'll deliberately misuse them, and every sign he's open to having mistakes drawn to his attention and learning from them. - 05:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustFormsWords (talk • contribs)
 * 54) Support. Positive interactions with other users, very good CSD work. Knows how to write articles, too. My only nitpick is regarding uninformative edit summaries for CSD nominations, but has my full support nonetheless.  (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 55) I see nothing that raises any red flags and lots of positives. Good nom and excellent candidate. EyeSerene talk 08:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 56) I see no reason not to support -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indented !vote by blocked sockpuppet -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, great work on the edit filters, diligent and thoughtful. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Is trusted, and from a 10 minute scan a good guy. More hands are needed, so fine - best of luck to you. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support can be trusted with the tools. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I see no issues that would cause me to be neutral, let alone oppose. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support &mdash; Will not abuse the tools. Décembër21st2012Freâk   Talk at 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Dedicated, trustworthy, and able and willing to respond to concerns.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Shirik is already a trusted edit-filter manager; he will surely do just fine as an admin. He may have been around for only seven months of activity, but during those (blemish-free) seven months he's proven himself highly capable in both content work and administrative areas. Based on my personal experience, I agree with those who've described him as "level-headed." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I don't see any reason why not. Rodhull  andemu  21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) "What about æroplanes?" "Lift away and float it on into space." "If i face indecision don't let me face it alone, just take me straight to Virginia, back to the faces of home." "And if you're burning like a candle all alone ... let it snow." "Night sky, city sleep; snow globe halos on the lamps in the street." ~ It is a wonderful article. I thank you. Cheers δεʟɪʀɪ οuς  &amp;  ʟoςτ  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 22:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongest Support For your extremely needed work at abusefilter, 1000%edit summary, etc, ctc, tct --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 03:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Looks good to me! -- User:Marek69 .     03:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support – I'm not worried about the amount time-in-service. The user has demonstrated trust with tools like the edit filter, I'm confident he'll be able to handle the sysop tools. –MuZemike 19:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Good contributions.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I may be bias as I have been working with Shirik for awhile regarding abusive banned editors, and the filters constructed to prevent them, such as Wallflowers98, along with a twinkle mod to combat said banned users.  I don't know much of his work in other areas, but I would trust him to the tools.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, no reason to believe that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC).
 * 17) Support for the sake of WP:100. Recognizance (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. No worries. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Last Minute Support Great with AbuseFilter. He could handle the mop really well. Pilif12p 00:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Not enough experience, has only been active about six months. Would reconsider at a later date.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 02:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous weak rationale to oppose on. Shirik has been a very active and helpful vandal fighter, helping maintain the abuse filters, and definitely has a clue. Why not look at his activity and edits, rather than opposing based on just the time he's been active? Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Echoing Connormah. I've been working with Shirik for quite some time. He is highly experienced, and I've seen some very good abuse filters from him. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  02:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - I count 7 active months. Connormah may disagree, but it's hardly a "ridiculous" reason to oppose. I've heard a lot more ridiculous ones [like automated edit percentages]. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that was an overstatement on my part, and I apologize, but I feel that this is not a really strong reason to oppose. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their own 'y', no need to jump on them for choosing it. Half a year is more than enough for me, but I respect that others may disagree. I'd ask everyone else respect that too. If you can't address the concern of the !voter, there's no need to comment. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  04:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at his entire record, don't assume that I have acted in bad faith. This is not a weak reason to oppose, I honestly don't think you can have a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies in that short of timeframe.  Though, I'm not worried about this user abusing the tools, I don't think RfA should boil down to "wont break stuff".  Saying no to an RfA doesn't mean that I think his contributions are worthless; on the contrary he seems to be very productive.  I simply don't believe he has enough experience.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the weight of the opinions to the bureaucrats, shall we? Not that it'll matter in this case. &mdash;Dark 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be some misunderstanding  between 'active' months, and months when there has been a number of edits worth considering and that  testify  to  consistency. The two are not  the same.--Kudpung (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — "Similarly, IAR can only apply in other cases when there is supported by obvious community consensus." (below). On this we differ. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * On Hold - Seems too good to be true to me... Leaning support, but awaiting questioning.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC) moved to support--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting - Leaning support, but would like maybe a little bit more Q/A. Shadowjams (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows better than you two which questions to ask to allay your concerns.--Chaser (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take it slow on the first date. There's no hurry, and "[us] two" have apparently been making eyes at Shirik all night... can we not hop into the support bed within the first 24 hours without being hassled? ;0 Shadowjams (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * *sigh* if it makes you happy, I can work up a couple of questions, I guess...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would like to support for am quite concerned about an attempt by three editors yesterday to rush through a controversial bot without any community discussion. This raises questions of judgement in my mind. I may revisit this position, but would like to see an acknowledgement that this wasn't appropriate and won't happen again. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the BAG member who approved the trial this quickly and the crat who flagged the bot as an admin be responsible for that? I cannot see much rush on Shirik's side here and no comments by him that he wanted the rush to happen. As such, could you elaborate, why you think that Shirik was the one who wanted to rush it? Regards  So Why  10:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot operator has to take responsibility as well. Without further details (as the whole thing was discussed off-wiki) it seems fairest to blame the three of them equally. I don't like to raise objections over this one issue, but I do want to be confident that the candidate will not "ignore all rules" so recklessly in future. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually wondering if this would come up. I do want to stress that it wasn't really discussed entirely off wiki, only parts were discussed off wiki, and that happened purely by chance. I did want to inform the community of such a discussion, but we were eager to at least get a trial going because this was a case where the user in question was being particularly disruptive, and at least during that trial we could begin to address the issue. That being said, granting adminship and bot status is not one of my responsibilities as an administrator, that's a bureaucrat concern. If you are concerned with how I might apply WP:IAR to things like the deletion policy, I think I can put it fairly simply: WP:IAR and consensus go hand-in-hand. The reason I thought this bot was a good idea was because there was already long-standing support for AO/ACB blocks on tor exit nodes, and I was only trying to enact that consensus. Similarly, IAR can only apply in other cases when there is supported by obvious community consensus. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick addendum: I have personally net yet come across a page that I would have deleted under IAR. I am of the opinion that the CSD criteria are fairly solid and cover a good set of cases. I'm sure many of us remember the ANI discussion (followed by two ARBCOM requests) that occurred from the recent sudden BLP deletions, and I have no desire to get mixed up in something like that. IAR is not something I take lightly. If it cannot unquestionably be considered helping the wiki with no harm, it cannot apply. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being one of those editors who may have pushed a bit to hard, I feel obligated to come to Shirik's defense. He was, admittedly, the most levelheaded and realistic of us all. I am pretty confident that without Shirik, we may have gone even faster then we did yesterday. Personally, I think it is a positive example for Shirik's case for admin-ship, because he handled the situation fairly, and was not the one pushing so hard for the bot to go through.. Tim  1357  <sup style="font-family:Times new roman; font-size:small;">talk  14:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was never happy about making a point over this one issue and I'm happy with the responses and satisfied this was just a blip. Moved to support. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree with MSGJ that the bot issue raises some potential judgment issues. In particular: No bug report was filed or developer consulted to determine why the extension wasn't working properly before the bot was written, flagged, and tested. The bot was also run in (likely) violation of Toolserver rules. While no real damage was done, the rush to judgment without consideration of alternatives is disconcerting. Mr.Z-man 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep this response as short as I can because I both respect your opinion and think it's a valid rationale for concern, but I do want to point out that the bot was intended as a stop-gap measure only. I honestly did not expect the fix to be applied so quickly to enwiki and was delighted to see it was (unfortunately it turns out that the applied fix did not resolve the problem). I had intended to open a bug report when I could but I was trying to deal with the issue first (first with an abuse filter, then with the bot in question) so that things would calm down a little. Perhaps this was a lapse of judgement, and I 100% admit I do make mistakes, but I made this decision on the grounds that (1) it was something I could do to address the issue now and (2) I genuinely believed I was helping the wiki. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Only 4 articles created, and has only been actually active on Wikipedia for about 6 months, however, there is evidence of good activity in other areas that would lead me to trust him with the admin tools. Immunize (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral As per User:Immunize. There seems to be a reasonable balance (but  not quantity) between main  page contribs and discussion  about  them, but there is a big difference between the time people have been users, the number of months in  which they  have made an edit, and the number of months that demonstrate a regular, stable commitment  to  the maintenance jobs that  can  already  be done without  admin tools.  --Kudpung (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral He seems an ideal candidate: thoughtful, intelligent, and skilled. I'm sure he will make a superb admin, and I would support in a second if he had some more months actively editing. It may sound harsh, but I have to see at least a year's worth. It shows a level of commitment to the project, even when it gets ugly or real life intervenes. It shows the candidate has witnessed all the issues that have been fought over just in the past year, and despite all that, still wants to be an administrator. Auntie E. (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral only 4 articles in total; considering to opposing. M.K. (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2010 (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.