Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StringTheory11


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

StringTheory11
Final: (84/17/7) - closed as successful by Acalamari at 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination statement by User:Casliber
Dear all, it is my pleasure to nominate for adminship. He has written three Featured and five Good Articles, having been an editor here since April 2010. I am confident he'll be a net positive to the 'pedia. He has an interest and experience in discussing aspects of notability with respect to marginally notable articles, and has shown a commitment to cleaning up article-space. I've been seeing backlogs in requests for protection and admin-closing of debates, so I think his services are needed. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and would like to thank Casliber for nominating me for this role. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:58, 27 June 2014 (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: Throughout my work on cleaning up articles, I have found that there are multiple times when I have needed the admin tools to do a simple task, such as an uncontroversial move over a redirect with history or do a histmerge (controversial moves should absolutely still go through RM though). For example, I recently had to make a post at AN asking for a histmerge of Adam Burrows to be done. In passing at the RPP, PROD, and AfD pages, I have seen very long backlogs at these pages, and would be willing to help out on these as well. Another reason the admin tools would help me is for viewing deleted history; for the work I am currently doing on the List of stars in xxx constellation articles, being able to view deleted history of articles such as Gliese 611 would greatly speed up the process. Although some could classify me as more deletionist than most, I genuinely believe that in closing debates, I would be able to ignore my own prejudices and would close them according to consensus and not what I believe. For example, the debate here I certainly would not have closed as delete, even though that is my personal preference.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think so far, my best contributions would be the three featured articles I have written: periodic table, Perseus (constellation), and Caelum. All three were pretty terrible articles when I started working on them, but I definitely would not have been able to finish them to the quality I did without the help I got from others along the way at GAN, PR, and FAC, as well as WP:ELEM and WP:AST. Aside from featured content, I had worked on alkaline earth metal for a while, which basically required a complete rewrite, and is now B-class. I have also been involved in revamping the constellation templates as well as the list of stars in xxx constellation, and have worked a lot to fact-check our astronomy stubs, create some notable ones (expanding some of the short ones I created in 2012 is on my to-do list for the future), and on general cleanup of our astronomy stubs.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I like to think that I have remained rather light on drama, although there a few times that I have, well, not been exactly pleased with others on the project. One time in August 2012, there was a user who I felt was hounding me by referring me as having "myopic view of the universe" by nominating an article for deletion (which looking back on may not have been the best or most convincing nomination, but it was nearly 2 years ago and I've learned since then), and when I tried to discuss with him, I was met with more personal attacks. The matter was then settled after I took it to ANI with the other user getting blocked for a number of things. Another time, in mid-to-late 2013, I was in a dispute with two users regarding the interpretation of our WP:NASTRO guideline, which we had different views on. I had recently PRODded some articles, which got deleted after the 7 days expired, but these users felt that they were notable, and requested restoration. I still felt that nearly all were not notable (although there were a few that I felt they had very good points on), so things got a little ugly, but we eventually reached a resolution in which a few of the possibly-notable articles were restored as retroactively-challenged PRODs while the majority remained deleted. I'm not perfect, nobody is, but finding a common middle-ground is probably the most important thing in solving most of the disputes that are sure to come my way again.


 * Additional question from Lord Roem
 * 4. Borrowing this question from John-- You've come across an edit war on the Abortion article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of an entire day. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in twice (both used rollback and neither are sysops). No talk page discussion has occurred, no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation?
 * A: One thing interesting about this question is that the abortion article appears to be under discretionary sanctions, and therefore if they have received a notice, it is possible to unilaterally place sanctions. While I don't think this is appropriate here, it is important to note. In this scenario, editor B appears to be at 3RR, while editor A is currently at 2RR. Thus, an edit-warring notice is appropriate for both candidates. I think the main thing to do here is to first tell the editors to take it to the talk page, and if they fail to comply and keep reverting, then it is necessary to block to prevent disruption. If one of the two (or both) editors appears belligerent and unwilling to work with others at the talk page, I think, if they have received a discretionary sanctions notice, then a discretionary sanction might be appropriate, but it would depend on the situation. Since you say they both used rollback and left a summary, I assume you mean that they used Twinkle's rollback feature. Assuming that is the case, since the rollback userright has not been abused, I don't think it is necessary to strip it if they have it. In short, leave warnings for both to use the talk page; if they continue, block for edit warring.


 * Questions by Dennis Brown
 * 5. Name two of the biggest problems that Wikipedia faces and what you would like to see done about them.
 * A The user TCO put together a nice presentation here (the user hasn't edited since last July, so I don't think the echo notification which would canvass them is an issue) that I think really shows that the lack of important featured content is a huge problem we are currently facing. Since I brought Caelum to FA as practice for more important constellations, I basically have vowed that I will only work to bring articles on the vital 10000 list to FA unless there is another reason why they are incredibly important, since the benefit is vastly greater for readers. We currently are working on many obscure topics, which may be more fun, but is much less beneficial. The other most important problem I think is probably editor retention. While we certainly should not sacrifice quality of content to retain new editors, we should not just pepper them with automated messages, and instead leave them messages saying why we are, for example, nominating multiple articles for deletion. At User Talk:D A R C 12345, see where I left a message stating why I was nomming lots of his articles for deletion. I think it's importnat to do stuff like that to retain the new editors instead of appearing cold with repeated automated messages. Also, retaining old editors, especially content creators who drive our project, falls into the same boat; see the example of TCO who seems to have left due to a dissatisfaction with how stuff is run. If we can keep productive content editors, then we will be on our way towards bettering ourself.


 * 6. What do you believe is the greatest injustice in the world today?
 * A Definitely discrimination against the LGBT community. While I am not a member of said community myself, I fail to see a single reason why they should be unable to get married and be able to be accepted members of society just like everybody else. Instead, they are faced with constant discrimination in multiple areas. Aside fro that, there are so many injustices (such as subtle racism, income inequality, subtle discrimination against women, and the lack of basic human rights to a huge number of people) that it is hard to choose a single one, but I think the sheer amount of discrimination against the LGBT community beats the others.


 * Additional question from Randykitty
 * 7. Regarding AfDs for astronomical objects, what steps do you take to satisfy WP:BEFORE?
 * A: Well the first thing to do is to check the SIMBAD database, as well as Google Scholar, for sources which have their main focus on the object in question. If there are any, then outside of very rare cases such as HD 1 in which the paper was published solely due to the star's catalogue number, I won't nominate it. Next, I make sure that the object hasn't attracted any attention in the press; a Google News search usually works for this. Next, per WP:NASTRO, if the object is in a catalogue of note (i.e. the Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues), or if it is above magnitude 6.50 (visible to the naked eye), then I won't nominate it. If throughout this process, I find a source demonstrating that it has been known since 1850 before photography, then I won't nominate it. The last thing to check for is whether the article should be an exception. The causes for this can vary, in general, if it is a stellar extreme (such as R136a1]]) or something like that, then I won't nominate it even if everything else fails. WP:BEFORE criterion D2 seems to be the bulk of what my AfDs fall under; most of them have some sourcing, but only in passing mentions. For asteroids, as WP:NASTRO says, if a good-faith search for sources has been conducted, then I will redirect it to the corresponding list instead of AfDing. Lastly, if I think there will be little to no controversy over the deletion, I will use the PROD process instead of AfD, and if the PROD gets removed, I will sometimes take it to AfD if the dePRODer has not provided what I believe is a good reason that it should be kept. I find the whatlinkshere feature can be deceptive, as many articles are linked from navboxes. I'm a big proponent of lists, so, although I didn't really do this in the past unfortunately, I now try to check to see if there is a list that the article would fit in, such as the list of nearest bright stars, and would advocate redirecting to the list instead of straight-up deletion if that is the case.


 * Additional question from Townlake
 * 8. Please explain this and what if anything you would do differently now, a year later. Townlake (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A: Well the main thing is that unlike two years ago, I certainly wouldn't nominate it now :). If you are referring to my revert to keep my name out of it a year later, I do think that I would still do that; as it was resurrected by another user that year who appears to be the one who intended to nominate it that year, I don't think it is appropriate to keep my name as the nominator; I see no value for anybody in doing that.


 * Additional question from Jim Carter
 * 9. Are there any areas of administrative work you have little intention of taking part in, and for what reasons ?  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 15:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A: There's multiple areas where I have no intention of working. The file namespace is something that I have barely ever touched, and have no intentions of ever getting into it. Arbitration enforcement is also something that I do not plan on ever touching. I also do not know enough about parser functions to feel comfortable editing protected templates when they require parser functions.


 * Additional question from -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * 10. I think nobody should be promoted to admin status in the absence of a community-led recall process. In my view, the almost admin-for-life status we elect people to is simply wrong - I know of no other community-led election process in which the community then never has the ability to recall. Because of that, I won't be !voting (simply opposing everyone would look a bit dickish, so I won't do that either), so there isn't a !vote hanging on this whatever you say - but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the idea of a community-led recall process should you wish to offer any.
 * A: I definitely believe there should be a community led recall process; in fact, if this RfA is successful, I plan to first instantiate a recall process for myself before taking any administrative actions. However, there is is a lot of potential for abuse in that if you annoy enough people by, say, deleting their articles even after an AfD has produced consensus for deletion, it is totally possible that they could band together and recall you, unless there are safeguards in place. In my opinion, for a recall to succeed, a supermajority of 67% or higher should be voting for recall, to help prevent tag-teaming, and to go in-line with basically all other practices on WP. If I have lost the confidence of more than 2/3 of the community, then I should not be an admin anymore.


 * Additional questions from Gamaliel
 * 11. I was impressed by the amount of work that you described in your answer to Randykitty that you put into researching potential AFDs. Do you do that sort of research for every article you put up for AFD or just for the astronomical articles because of the specialized sources required by these articles?  Do you think it is appropriate for the community to expect this level of research from the average editor before putting the average article up for deletion?  What do you think of the reaction some editors have had to your AFD history?  Do you think it is appropriate for editors to object in such a manner to those who have opinions that differ from future consensus?
 * A: Well the stuff specific to astronomical objects, such as the catalogues of note, I wouldn't do for other objects, but I always try to do at least a Google Scholar and Google News search for stuff related to the article in question. Of course, Google News can be somewhat unreliable for fringe theories that somebody is trying to promote, so they should be taken with a grain of salt. I think that in general, editors should do this kind of research for all articles, because if not, then something could be missed and we could be deleting a notable topic if the nominator hasn't bothered to look for sources. To be honest, I expected some people to react negatively to my AfD history, so it didn't come as much of a surprise, and I don't see a problem with opposes such as Vejvancicky's that cite some examples of recent errors; they're perfectly legitimate.
 * 12. Could you clarify what specifically you mean by "I plan to first instantiate a recall process for myself"? Are you referring to Administrators_open_to_recall?  What criteria will you use?  Or is this something else entirely?  Why do you feel existing processes (Arbcom, etc.) for this are inadequate?  Administrators open to recall/Past requests has many requests which appear to be motivated by animus or editing disputes.  How would your chosen process avoid this?  A supermajority may prevent recall, but how would the process prevent being a giant waste of time and energy for yourself and other editors?
 * A: Yes, I would place myself in said category. The reason I feel ArbCom is inadequate is that I have noticed times when I have felt that admins, while not specifically abusing tools which seems required for ArbCom to take a case, have taken questionable non-administrative actions that lead me to question their judgment as administrators. I think that if an admin has lost the confidence of the community to perform their role, then they should not be an admin. As for how my process would work, I would require certification of a recall request by some number of uninvolved admins or experienced editors that I have not interacted with in the past, and a 2/3 supermajority so that a small group cannot team together and attempt to recall me for annoying them over deleting their article after a legitimate AfD or something. This would be achieved through a post at AN and ANI notifying the community of the recall opportunity, which would thus attract outside input. If I have truly lost the trust of the community, then it is pretty certain that 2/3 will want to recall me. Hopefully this is clear; if not, then just let me know here!


 * Additional question from Gryllida
 * 13. Here and here you reverted edits by another contributor. They would've got an automatic notification about this, but as you mentioned above, communication to people about their edits is vital. Where did you talk to this specific contributor about his/her reverted edits?
 * A: You are correct in that I probably should have told them on their talk page, and if they had reverted me back, I definitely would have gone to their talk page and told them why their edits were inappropriate. I will admit that I did not act ideal in that situation, and your question here is quite insightful in that regard; I will certainly try to do that in the future.


 * Additional question from Gryllida
 * 14. While content work is essential (you know what an article looks like and offer expertise in your particular topic), the sysop role is special. Newcomers often turn to sysops for help and support. Could you please show a few cases where you had supported a newcomer or a confused contributor in a situation out of your free will, where doing so was completely voluntary. (Someone asking a question on your article talk page is not your free will.) Thanks. :)
 * A: Whenever I see a new IP or user edit some article constructively, I will usually try to leave a Welcome template on their user talk page. To be honest we don't really get confused or new contributors in the astronomy area very often (which is unfortunate, since we certainly need more editors there), but see recently when I've worked with the IP 77.57.25.250 to work on some cleanup of articles. Nobody made it so that I had to help him/her clean up the articles, but I stepped in and helped him/her do it.


 * Additional question from Alex Lukic
 * 15. A good admin needs to know to tell which comments are useful regarding AfDs. Can you tell me how would you classify arguments if you were to close an AfD nomination?
 * A: The arguments with the most weight are definitely the ones that cite policy-based reasons for the position. Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, those who fail to cite any evidence to support their position and instead are WP:ILIKEIT-type arguments should be counted at a much lower influence, and ones that are simply personal attacks such as the bottommost keep argument here should not be counted at all. In the middle, arguments that cite "per user x" should not be totally thrown out, but should be taken with a grain of salt, and !votes that do cite off-wiki evidence but no policy-based arguments should be counted, but not to as high of a degree as policy-based arguments. The overall highest weight arguments though are ones that cite off-wiki evidence and provide policy-based arguments.


 * Additional question from Gryllida
 * 16. You are now working within a specific topic area. However the role of sysop may be likely to involve extra load from the outside on topics outside of your primary field, or on dispute resolution. How ready do you feel?
 * A: I have made occasoinal edits outside of the science areas, such as the one I made yesterday reverting an unexplained removal of content on Armin van Buuren's discography (who by the way is an excellent musician, but that's beside the point). My content work would stay mostly within the science areas, but when working on something such as RfPP, I would not ignore a request just because it is not science-related. To answer your question, I do feel ready.


 * Additional question from Gryllida
 * 17. The role is rather broad, giving access to a variety of tools and simply to the ability to step in a dispute and attempt to resolve it. In some cases, newly recruited sysops step in with their opinion, but occasionally their opinion is wrong. Could you please comment on how ready you are to admit mistakes.
 * A: Of course I would admit a mistake when it has been shown that I have made one, such as not reading something closely enough or pressing the wrong button.


 * Additional question from Gryllida
 * 18. Would want to use the entirety of the tools and privileges or only a narrow set?
 * A: As I mentioned above in the answer to question 9, there are multiple areas in which I have no plans to work, such as the file namespace. As for specific tools that come with the admin kit, I have no use for stuff like editing through full protection or making edits to protected templates.


 * Additional question from Gryllida
 * 19. The nomination cites your «experience in discussing aspects of notability with respect to marginally notable articles» and you are mentioning that you do not like «obscure topics». Could you please give a few examples of such successful deletion queries and why you feel that the articles do not belong to the project.
 * A: If I could see deleted history to see what was in articles, this question would be so much easier... However, to analyze one example, let's look at GJ 1279, which was deleted after I nominated it for AfD in August. It's a star that, aside from being somewhat nearby, does not have any interesting features. It has not had any studies done that specifically study it, and the studies that have been done do not constitute significant coverage. The object has not been featured in the press, and does not have any unusual features. It is far too faint to see with the naked eye. All these combined fail to pass any of the criteria of WP:NASTRO or any reasonable exception, and thus since Wikipedia is not a directory, it does not belong on the project.


 * Are you serious ? Please, I think you should post at least another 10 or 15 questions, the candidate has a full day left.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 21:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I find them essential for understanding the concerns raised below. Gryllida (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have this many concerns why not just go with your !vote you placed three days ago, will good answers here change your mind ? This is so typical of this user.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good answers could change my mind. (I've missed the point of your last sentence due to its ambiguity.) Gryllida (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to commend for providing (IMO, good) answers to these questions, which could of easily been ignored, even 17 and 18 which were already handled in previous answers.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Solarra
 * 20. Administrators are often requested to mediate disputes and handle controversial materials according to Wikipedia policies and a neutral point of view, how would you handle such controversy should it arise and how would you respond to editors that strongly disagreed with you?
 * A: If I make a decision that some editors disagree with, then I will have to determine whether their complaints are frivolous (e.g. they didn't get their way so now they are complaining) or if they have a legitimate point. Assuming the second is true, I think outside review of my close by other editors should be necessary, so I may ask a query on AN, at least for the first few months while I'm relatively new, asking for second opinions on the close. On the other hand, if the complaints are frivolous, then talking to the editors about consensus and how we are driven by it is the way to go, to try to make them understand that. I hope this answers your question; if you want further info, just let me know.


 * Additional question from Wikimedes
 * 21. Much has been made over your votes at AfD not matching the results. Under what circumstances would you delete an article without having first gone through a deletion discussion?
 * A: The only two circumstances in which I would ever delete without even so much as a PROD is if the article either: 1) met the speedy criteria, or 2) consisted of 100% blatant inaccuracies which no sane person could debate and there was nothing to revert to (this could also fall under criterion G3 or G6 of speedy). In regards to the PROD process, if I don't believe that the deletion would be contested by anyone, then I will PROD it, but if there is reason to believe that somebody would possibly vote the other way, I will take it to AfD. Of course, I would not act on my own PRODs, but if an article has remained at PROD for 7 days and there is no evidence of notability in a Google Scholar, Google, or Google News search, then I will most likely delete it.

General comments

 * Links for StringTheory11:
 * Edit summary usage for StringTheory11 can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Before this inevitably gets asked, I will state that the only accounts I have ever edited from are this one and my previous username User:Yankeesrule3, aside from a few IP edits before I registered. I also have an alternate account User:StringTheory11-alt that I intend for use on public computers, but I haven't had a need to use it yet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to self: never express a dissenting opinion on WP. It's clear evidence of clouded judgement and perhaps even malice. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty usual to consider that not agreeing with the majority means bad judgement. Though I think it's bad judgement to consider that as correct.  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support No concerns. Some really nice article contributions; namely Periodic table. Mkdw talk 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, since I brought the PT to FA on 7 November 2012, it has been extensively worked on by another team even since then, so a lot of what is in there right now currently isn't even mine though to be perfectly fair to myself. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Same as above. I expect some comments reflecting negatively on the candidate's lack of obsession with the project namespace, but hopefully they won't gain any traction. It's nice to have some admins with experience in science-related articles. good luck. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Jianhui67 T ★ C 02:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 is an excellent candidate. Has edited every month since the user started, including 100+ edits every month since May 2012. Uses automated edits, but the vast majority of the user's edits are manual. By the amount of featured writing, obviously a very competent and talented editor. No blocks (clean block log), and Wikipedia definitely needs more admins. --gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Edit: In the incident StringTheory11 mentioned above, StringTheory11 dealt maturely with the problem despite repeated personal attacks. If you're interested, see,  --gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I've been very happy with the article work I've seen. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. The candidate is thoughtful and has a good track record helping others. Encyclopedia-building skills are appreciated. Majoreditor (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as nominator. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) SupportWarrenkychu (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support logs look OK. Happy to see someone working on astronomy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I'm not concerned at all by the deletion stats: he works in a specialist area and he takes counter-arguments on board. I believe what he says at the end of Q1. No other warning signs at all. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Looks reasonable enough. —Kusma (t·c) 12:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Looks good. About the AfD, that was years ago and if you look at the stats then you'll see that recently most of his votes have matched the result. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Good candidate who can use a mop. Deletion record no concern here either.  Mini  apolis  13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The candidate plans to help with PROD and AfD pages but editing in these areas reveals little experience and competence to deal with deletion, from what I've seen. I also miss constructive attitude, responsiveness and wider participation in the deletion discussions they initiate, see for example Articles for deletion/GJ 1062. The candidate usually comes up with vague and repetitive "Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO" rationale and then leaves the scene or withdraws, which depends on the direction of the discussion. I did not check all the AfD's and I apologize if I missed something important. It is just my general feeling. Otherwise, they seem to be on the right track - good content creation, friendly and calm attitude. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is an indented support or a comment on my vote.  Mini  apolis  00:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't be support - he's in 'Oppose'. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The AfDs are OK with me, especially their response to when the community disagrees with them. IMHO the response is more important than how they would vote, as it shows that they are good at gauging consensus (viz. their actions when the consensus goes against them). I find the deletion rationales all right: they're to the point and can be readily clarified if need be, although perhaps they should mention explicitly what part of WP:NASTRO the article doesn't satisfy in their opinion on future discussions. The answers to the questions indicate to me that this user can certainly be trusted with the tools. Logs look OK as well. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support StringTheory11 has been a hard working user. I can see good work on cleaning up articles and creating redirects. I still am amazed when I see a user with 100% edit summaries; I hope I can get to that point someday. I like the articles that he/she has created and worked on. I think that StringTheory11 will be useful in cleaning up the 'pedia. Good luck! -24Talk  15:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) ///Euro Car  GT  16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Rschen7754 18:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Could be a little bit more careful at AfD but there's nothing too outlandish for me to oppose over. T  C  N7 JM  19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - trustworthy; no concerns. United States Man (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I'd be a go on just tech issues. Qs OK. The AfD percentage gives me pause, but some looking doesn't trip any alarms. Stay away from deciding AfDs for a time (your Q1 lists other goals), stay away from deciding stellar AfDs longer, and cite to sections of WP:NASTRO rather than generally. Glrx (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - AfD could use some work, but I don't see that as a larger problem, rather somewhere for improvement over time. As long as he keeps in mind that adminship is no big deal and continues to improve I believe he will make a fine admin.  Also, for those worried about his seemingly falling outside the community's decision at AfD, I find it important to remember that consensus can change and voicing your opinion (as long as it is well argued and reasoned) is not something we should be concerned about.  A diversity of opinion benefits all and is a great source for new ideas and perspectives, even if they are not the solutions eventually implemented.  Best, Mifter (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. An intelligent and articulate editor with strong content work in the sciences. I think that the answers to questions demonstrate good judgment about things administrative, including a willingness to correct mistakes. I'm unpersuaded by the concerns about deletion processes, because I'm not seeing a propensity to "supervote", and I do not believe that RfA candidates need to demonstrate an absence of personal opinions in AfDs in order to pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've watched this discussion as it has gone along, and I've come back to say that none of the oppose comments have made me change my mind. It looks to me like a mixture of sincere opposes over AfD combined with some other opposes that are frivolous. I'll say it again: someone who will ignore the discussion at an AfD and impose their own view should not be an admin, but someone who has a personal (and intelligent) opinion, but knows the difference between personal preference and community consensus should not be rejected for having personal opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Per what I said on his talk page. Kurtis (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - a solid editor, however I hope they take the concerns raised here re:AFD on board should they get the mop. GiantSnowman 21:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support in spite of a rather weak answer to q4 (I would probably at least consider protection rather than blocking in a case like this) but he sounds like he knows his stuff, CasLiber is a good nominator, and I am sure he won't break the wiki. I liked the answers to 5 and 6 very much. --John (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Per It's very refreshing seeing an editor working with articles about the cosmos (wish I knew more, I'd be editing there :P ) also willing to wield a mop, Good luck to you.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sure, some concerns about AfD, but I don't doubt the candidate will improve if/when a mop is given.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as I see no evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 02:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I see no reasons to suspect they'll delete the main page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Content creators need the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Good candidate. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Needs more experience at AfD, but AfD isn't some arcane, super-complicated area of Wikipedia that requires specialized knowledge.  If you can identify a reliable source and count to four, you're qualified to vote.  If you can judge consensus neutrally, you're qualified to close a discussion.  I fail to see any truly worrisome elements in his most deficient area.  If he said he was going to do range blocks or aggressively use regular expressions, then I might worry about his level of skill and experience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good contributor to Wikipedia, and per NinjaRobotPirate for lack of "expierience" at AfD. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  17:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support AfD is not complicated and intricate as many people want it to look like, so no big deal. Also, if Casliber trusts you with the buttons so do I.  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Competent, no evidence he'd abuse the tools. Like some of his answers. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) wp needs moar content admins. string fits the job. Cloudchased (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Occasional anomalies like "VV Corvi", but generally good contributions. The April Fools joke does not bother me.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) Support The only issue is his work at AfD.  He has been upfront about being a deletionist, which I don't agree with, but can respect.  He has stated that he will follow consensus when closing at AfD.  His word is good enough for me. I am One of Many (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) Support – Patient contributor of good content. He has collaborated with others to produce featured articles and appears to seldom get into disputes. His answers to the questions (above) indicate knowledge of policy (for example, Q4 about a hypothetical dispute at Abortion). EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Level-headed editor, excellent content work. I admire the devotion to scientific topics, a genre that I feel should especially be patrolled for encyclopedic integrity, another set of admin hands should prove helpful. Reports at WP:RPP look good; AfD activity may not be perfect but I trust they will refrain from closing debates they may feel partial about. I've got a good feeling overall. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 04:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I'm trusting that the candidate will take on board criticisms raised over his AfD participation. Everything else looks good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I can trust this user with the mop -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - gone back and forth on this a bit, but I'm in this section. There are some very legitimate concerns in oppose / neutral; however on balance a bit of NOBIGDEAL. The candidate seems to have gotten plenty of feedback over some (and only some) poor AFD calls that I believe they will take on board. As they are a responsive editor, I believe that any screw-ups with the admin tools will be effectively handled with minimum cost/drama etc. So, on balance, net positive. Pedro : Chat  21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Despite some concerns on that have been brought up on the AfD side ( having read through the opposes ), I see no reason strong enough not to support. The answers to the questions seems reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Overall, okay. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 25) Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --rogerd (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - I agree with the comments from and . The candidate should pay close attention to the comments in the neutral and negative sections relating to AFD. After receiving confirmation, perhaps a period of mentoring (as suggested by ) would be a useful learning experience. -  t u coxn \talk 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, no concerns. Where did this obsession with conforming to the majority on AfDs come from? You can be "wrong" in 100% of AfDs that you participate in and still not go on a deletion rampage, there is no correlation between the two. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins have the power to judge consensus and close AFDs. This candidate does not understand the community's deletion standards. Townlake (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Source? Nobody has provided any evidence that StringTheory fails to understand the community's deletion standards, merely that they might differ in some cases. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Links are provided and discussed at length below. The reader of these comments will decide how comfortable they are with this candidate's deletion competence. I responded to the above Support vote because it misstated the importance of the connection between adminship and AFD. Townlake (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did it though? Xezbeth is absolutely correct; you can be a flaming, merciless deletionist and still bring the necessary level of impartiality to AfD. I've yet to see any links that show StringTheory is prone to abuse in his own interests. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support AfD concerns are overrated as most nominations are marginal by definition. Looks fine.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This user appears to be a thoughtful and reasonable candidate.  I don't agree with everything that they've said here, but total agreement should not be required by the community, only that they will act in the best interests of the community and the encyclopedia.  In regards to AFD, I don't see any specific cases brought up where I think the candidate exercised extremely poor judgment, only the statistical evidence that he has some disagreements with community consensus.  Editors and admins must abide by consensus, but consensus does not require capitulation, much less retroactive capitulation, and given the amount of research the candidate claims he does before the astronomical AFDs, it seems more plausible to me that there were a bunch of knee-jerk, drive-by keeps and less plausible that this user was engaged in a whackadoodle deletion spree.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I will support this user for adminship. He seems reasonable and I think he will be a great addition to the admin-crew.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Looks good enough to me. The opposes don't convince me otherwise. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I'm unconvinced by the oppose arguments; which, frankly, are moving with ever increasing rapidity towards absurdity. Bellerophon talk to me  19:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Changing my !vote from Neutral based on the nominees pledge to undergo a period of OJT/Mentoring with emphasis on AfD/CSD. I am sure the details can be worked out with one or more willing Admins. Ping @User:Dennis Brown. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Gamaliel and to cancel a few of these silly oppose votes, I'll be willing to mentor. Secret account 20:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Excellent content creation, thoughtful answers, respectful interaction, and the AfD concerns appear to have been worked out. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. In most RfAs, there are some well-supported reasons for opposing and and some reasons that are trivial and pedantic.  This RfA is no different in that regard.  As someone who has previously worked extensively in AfD (albeit in sports and biography AfDs, not AfDs for stellar objects), I was curious to see what the alleged controversy about String Theory's AfD work was all about.  Here's my simplified analysis: String Theory has expressed an opinion in 101 AfDs to date, 94 of which have rendered consensus results, with five "no consensus" results and two still pending (not counted for stats).  Of the 94 with consensus results, String Theory expressed an opinion consistent with the consensus in 61 instances (61.6% of 99), and an opinion inconsistent with the consensus in 33 cases (33.3% of 99).  Focusing solely on the 33 cases where String Theory's opinion was inconsistent with the consensus, nine of the 33 (9.1% of 99) were instances of merge vs. delete, which can be remarkably close calls and often effectively render the same practical outcome.  Of the remaining 24 inconsistent opinions, four were April's Fools votes (4% of 99), and four (4% of 99) were nominations that were withdrawn by String after discussion and input from other knowledgeable editors (often citing offline sources).  That leaves about 16 questionable AfD opinions (16.2% of 99), more than half of which were divided or weak opinions, and several of which were closed as "keeps" without prejudice to the talk page "merge" process.  Only one of the non-consensus delete vs. keep votes has been expressed by String in the last eight months.  What I did not see in his AfD work was anything like a "deletionist" mentality; quite the opposite, in fact.  I saw a good-faith editor who was receptive to other editors' reasoning and arguments, who was learning the AfD process and logic over the last four years, and who has gotten far better at it with time.  After my review of String's AfD work, as well as his other editor stats, I give him a thumb's up as an administrator candidate.  Good luck, String Theory, and don't screw the pooch!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Valuable editor that seems reasonable and mature. I am sure the deletion issue can be worked out sensibly, and Dirtlawyer makes some good points above. Iselilja (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support This is starting to look exactly like my RFA except no one has gotten blocked yet and the drama level is lower. Based on the promise of Secret to mentor, and StringTheory's promise to accept mentoring, I will change from neutral to support.  It would be hypocritical for me to decide otherwise, as when it comes to editing, you are a superior editor and no less trustworthy than myself.  There are some serious talents here I would hate to lose, but there is a problem that needs addressing.  I suggest something similar to my own CSD mentoring, which was my and Boing!'s design, and I suggest a duration of 3 months instead of 2, like my own.  This includes staying away from all deletions (except very obvious stuff or user requested) until a couple of established admin sign off at the end of the 3 month period.  This will earn you the dubious distinction of being only the second candidate to do this, with myself being the other.  It was as humbling as it was enlightening, and I think made me a much better admin in all areas, for what that is worth.  For anyone bothering to read this to establish an opinion, I would encourage you to do as the community did for me and extend trust that he will complete and learn from the experience.  AFD isn't rocket science, but it is as important as everything else, and it requires a solid foundation.  I'm confident that appropriate mentoring will build that foundation. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I'm confident enough that he can separate his personal opinion from consensus even if they differ. I don't really see it as "right" or "wrong" that his opinion in some AFDs was different than the consensus (or different than mine) and I haven't seen him personalize the conflicts in a way that is destructive. So yeah, I trust him with the tools. Chuy1530 (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Seems to have head on this shoulders, and be very collaborative. I disagree with those who feel candidate has exhibited bad judgment at AFD. He has nominated articles for deletion while doing clean-up, and seems to have been very accepting when others' analysis demonstrated those articles should be kept - even in some of those cases then helping improve those articles in the future. I would only be concerned that candidates "votes" don't match consensus if s/he would continue to insist that their opinion is right and others' wrong. Otherwise it is part of the collaborative process. Martinp (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Per Double sharp, Tryptofish, Xezbeth, Gamaliel, Chuy1530, and others, it's not a bad thing if someone doesn't always agree with consensus when !voting at AfD. The point of AfD is to decide what consensus is, so it doesn't make sense to hold it against someone because what they said didn't match the outcome. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Now that the mentoring proposal is in place I no longer have a reason to sit on the fence. Switched from neutral and the best of luck! Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Per Dennis Brown, Trytopfish, Gamaliel and others. Donner60 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I totally trust StringTheory.   J i m Carter  ( talk ) 11:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Moving to support per answer to question 11, Gamaliel, Dirtlawyer1, Dennis Brown, and frankly my own analysis of the AfD issue. I do thank Vejvančický for taking the time to outline the most compelling case for an oppose.  The % of votes against consensus indeed warrants further investigation, but a detailed analysis does not reveal any pattern of abuse.  Granted, there are two actions that are questionable, but these are completely negated, in my opinion, by candidate’s promise to be mentored.  I see nothing here but the desire, and the ability, to improve Wikipedia.    78.26   (His Wiki's Voice) 12:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Support hesitated quite a while over the whole AfD issue, but in the end felt that candidate's content contributions sufficiently outweighed those concerns.--Staberinde (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I trust StringTheory to do his best to benefit our encyclopedia. Not following the crowd or piling on in AfD discussions isn't wrong.  He made a few mistakes but I saw no pattern that would cause me to oppose.  His comments are concise, perhaps terse, but never uncivil.  I'd like to see more thorough explanations but that's his style.  His willingness to take action to improve just strengthens my support. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Good content creator, AfD !votes not always matching the eventual consensus doesn't seem worrying - that means that the candidate can think for themselves, doesn't feel the need to follow the crowd, and contributes in an important way to the AfD discussion by providing a viewpoint different from the majority's. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 23) Support After looking through many of the neutrals and oppose opinions and his answers, I feel the candidate is trustworthy, has recognized what the issue is and will strive to get better at it. There aren't enough negatives here for me to oppose, on the contrary. I think he will be a net positive. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Do I trust the candidate with the tools? Yes. Do I believe they'll be extra careful when using the tools in areas where the community has expressed a concern. Yes. --Neil N  talk to me 23:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 25) Support No concerns. Unlikely to go around deleting articles without establishing consensus first (see answer to my question). Looking at the latest article where he voted to delete and the result was keep Articles_for_deletion/Gliese_250 StringTheory11 appears to know the criteria well enough to recognize a borderline case. Looking at the latest article where he voted to delete and the vote was speedy keep Articles_for_deletion/VV_Corvi, I see that he is capable of making a mistake, but corrects it as soon as it is pointed out to him. No one has mentioned deletion reviews, so I can only assume that he can recognize consensus and moves on when consensus goes against him. All the above means that I have no concern about supervoting either.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, while some of the concerns raised are valid, I don't think they clearly indicate future problems. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, I am happy to support this user for the mop. From his answers (especially to my question), he seems more than willing to work with other admins and the community.  As for the AfD stuff, he may not sway with consensus 100% of the time, but honestly an editor that thinks for themselves and brings their own judgement to the table is refreshing.  I have no concerns with supervoting he seems perfectly capable of separating his views and consensus. ♥ Solarra ♥ <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  03:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I have to say that when I went through the AfD record carefully, my takeaway was pretty close to Dirtlawyer1's analysis above.  I laughed at the Earth nom, too. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 29) Support There are good points in some of the opposes, but not enough to sway me that way. More in the supports. AfD - I seem to remember someone getting slated for being in agreement with the majority every time. Having a specialised area of editing - so what? Who doesn't? (OK: Corbett, Blofeld and me - I just delete things...) I don't know this candidate through contact, so I've let everyone else do the leg and spade work. Thanks, folks. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 30) Support -- Rzuwig ► 19:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Their answers to questions and overall work looks satisfactory, I can trust this editor with the extra tools. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - terrible judgement at AfD, where they've argued to delete more than three quarters of the cases where the articles they commented on that were ultimately kept. Someone with such unsound judgement about inclusion simply can't be trusted to close neutrally given their extreme biases, no matter how honourable their intentions. Wily D  08:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) *Candidate's AfD statistics, for the record. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) *Looking at these AfDs, I find it hard to see evidence for unsound judgement. Many of them are about borderline notable stars, nominated for deletion by the candidate. He withdrew many of them when others opposed the deletion, closing the AfDs with a result opposite of his intention. I fail to see how this demonstrates we should not trust him to close neutrally. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) **I see mainly mass AfD nominations of astronomical objects with poor participation in discussions and with mixed results. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) **Somehow making a lot of errors, and in the direction that's driving the decline in the participation, is not a redeeming feature. In four fifths of cases, when presented with an article that the community would choose to keep, they wanted to delete it.  Trust isn't really even the issue - with such a warped perspective, it's simply too hard to read a consensus.  Wily D  13:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Wily I think you're misinterpreting his AfD statistics. First: In more than 60 % overall, the result and String's vote concur. So, to say "In four fifths of cases, when presented with an article that the community would choose to keep, they wanted to delete it" is grossly misleading, since in about four fifth's of all his AfD participations, this candidate nominated the article for deletion: you see that it was not the community that presented the candidate with an article, but the candidate presented the community with the question: "Should this be kept or not?" Proposing deletion is not necessarily a vote for deletion, but might be a question for other users to comment on the issue. Most of his nomination have been described as borderline-notable, and it is legitimate to try to determine where exactly runs the border, hence his nominations. Second: the other 40% in his statistics contain a few undeterminable outcomes, and a few April Fool's jokes (like nominating "Earth" for deletion), so that his overall vote-correctness at AfD is not far away from that of a vast majority of active admins, I'd say. And, well, April's Fool jokes are frowned upon by some, but it has not been an obstacle to adminship, as far as I can remember... Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I prefer that my Admins don't take life too seriously. LOL @ nominating Earth for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, screw the Earth; we need that article gone! On a serious note though, that nomination was over 2 years ago now, and looking back on it it was a dumb decision, so yeah. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) * Disagreeing with other editors or with the community is not a sign of poor judgement. Poorly thought out, blatantly inaccurate, or downright foolish reasons for disagreement are indications of poor judgment.  Can you point to some specific cases where we can examine reasons for disagreement that you feel are indications of this poor judgment?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) **Hear, hear! Deb (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Wouldn't have bothered to vote, but the Q8 answer is really troubling. Admins need to be willing to take accountability for their actions, even their mistakes. If you're going to drop an AFD into mainspace (even a LULzy social networking AFD), and then you regret it, the proper thing to do is withdraw the AFD, not try to hide your connection to it. Townlake (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it's quite an obvious April Fools' nomination, which I wouldn't really even consider a mainspace AfD at all. If there hadn't already been an AfD that it was at first redirected to the previous year, I certainly would have kept it and not removed my name from it. However, the fact that it was resorted the next year against at the whim of a single editor who quite obviously (judging from his april fools nominations and antics) would have nommed it himself, it would make much more sense for him to be the one to start a new one, rather than try to resurrect one that had been redirected. The connection is still there in the page history, and there's no justification for removing that. I hope this provides a little more explanation. I would certainly take responsibility for any bad admin actions I take that have any effect on content or other editors. In fact, the first admin-related thing to do if this RfA is closed as successful is to instantiate a recall procedure. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. You're really saying your AFD wasn't in the mainspace because it was a joke? And you're going to be an administrator? Wikipedia continues to boldly travel through the looking glass. Townlake (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * what the history file you linked to in Q8 shows is that StringTheory11 created an AFD on 1 April 2012. On the same day, User:Lowellian changed it to a redirect, because there was an unclosed one already. On 1 April 2013 -- the following year -- User:TenPoundHammer decided there should once again be an AFD for that article, but instead of creating new one, he reverted the year-old redirect, leaving StringTheory11's year-old signature in place, and then even reverting StringTheory11's removal of it. That was unfair: if TenPoundHammer wanted one in 2013, he should have created a new one with his own signature. AIUI StringTheory11 did not intend to nominate Earth for AFD in 2013, and quite justifiably didn't want the 2013 one to be in his name. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He had a whole year to close his disruptive AFD. He chose not to. He wouldn't do anything different now. Therefore, I do not trust this editor with the tools. *shrug* Townlake (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No he didn't, . For that whole year, it was a redirect to someone else's "disruptive AFD", which was actually closed on the day it was raised. How do you close a redirect to a closed AFD?! --Stfg (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Answer: That's the jokester's problem, not mine. I'm looking forward to seeing how this adminship plays out. Townlake (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the redirect confused the course of events. If the revert to a nomination again the following year had been left at that, the candidate could probably be forgiven for believing the nomination to have been dealt with the previous year. What is unclear to me is why the sig was removed twice rather than being struck through or appending a withrawal statement. Still, on its own this isolated incident isn't a great deal. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree it's no big deal, except when I asked the candidate about this episode in Q8 above, he said he wouldn't do anything different if it happened again today. So for my purposes, the incident happened today, and his actions make me fairly confident he will misuse his admin tools. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per my comment above. I don't trust them with the deletion button. I have concerns over candidate's deletion efforts even in the area of their expertise, see the edit history of R Corvi, S Virginis, 2MASS J0523-1403 or WISE 2220-3628, aside from the AfD noms. No evidence of broader experience with the Wikipedia deletion processes - and StringTheory wants to work there. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Uncomfortable with the tone of the reply to question 2, in a collaborative project claiming authorship of preexisting articles and the relegation of other editors to the status of mere helpers is not the mindset I would expect in a Wikipedian let alone an admin.--KTo288 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that was not how I intended it to be interpreted at all. Would you be more comfortable if I were to claim myself as the primary author of the FAs instead of just the author, since I think that would imply more of collaboration with others on the articles, which I intended to have a strong message of in the answer. I of course believe that WP would be absolutely nowhere without collaboration between editors. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This has got to be the dumbest oppose I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Are you the least bit serious?  Editors should not be proud of writing articles that were peer reviewed and selected for Featured Article status because some previous person wrote some crap article in it's place first?  GTFO.--v/r - TP 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) There are several positives about this editor, not least the Featured content that they have written. Participation in April Fools doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as you keep the jokes out of mainspace (I'm in no position to complain about AFDing the Earth). But as WilyD, Vejvančický, Dennis Brown and to some extent DGG have demonstrated this is a candidate who could be heavy handed with the delete button. Vejvančický's examples are particularly important here because they are from the last few months. Happy to reconsider in future.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose by everything starting with the nomination message and down to the answers to the questions provided and conversations on the candidate's own talk page. I regret to admit that the role may involve an essential extra load from outside the topical domain and a thorough understanding of project goals (+ability to orient yourself in unexpected situations) is necessary. :) Gryllida (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm being dense, but I have no idea what that means. Could you please try to put your concerns more clearly? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with every answer of the candidate. The problems he is trying to address are being solved by too many people already. There is a clear lack of communication skills or judgment outside of a narrow topical area. Gryllida (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The problems he is trying to address are being solved by too many people already." To what exactly are you referring? You think there are too many admins? I'm genuinely confused here. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, too many admins whose work has scope issues. Gryllida (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest, you might have too strict standards on scope. If I'm not misunderstanding you, you want somebody who writes content in a variety of different topics. Most contributors to the site, let alone admins, have one specific area that they work in (roads for me, storms or military history or sports for others, etc.) and generally don't wander outside that project unless they have to. If I tried to do anything in the military history project, I'd be terrible at it, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be an admin (there are other, better reasons). Nothing wrong with an editor who contributes greatly to one section of the encyclopedia, I say. T  C  N7 JM  07:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I expect extra random load on random topics from the outside however. It is a question of how the candidate would like to handle such queries. (I have asked the question now, too.) Gryllida (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I expect from them is the ability to do thorough reading and writing on any topic on routine basis, and ability to communicate on unfamiliar topics clearly. The candidate has not demonstrated such abilities. Gryllida (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind to explain why you moved your account to User:Gryllida/1 but still sign Gryllida? Kraxler (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a user subpage. I found I don't need a user-page anymore. Gryllida (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As cited above, the candidate's actions in the AfD section of Wikipedia does not inspire confidence. And the statistics cited by DGG below -- out of 85 delete !votes, only 36 of them were deleted and seven were speedy keeps -- is a deal killer. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Four of the speedy keeps (the only ones since early 2012 on April Fools' Day) were me withdrawing my own nominations after evidence of notability was provided. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I am sorry but I must oppose if any user says that the candidate had "a terrible judgement at AfD". That's a point of disqualification for me.  Alex discussion ★ 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Seeking to work in an area where the candidate simply has a woeful track record doesn't inspire confidence. On hold until measurable improvement in AfD judgement is evident. Leaky  Caldron  21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Misuse of rollback on a good faith edit (revert; discussion). Wincent77 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't TW's "bad faith" labeled revert, it was a generic revert with a full explanation and polite discussion, similar to an "undo". I can't see this as a bad faith action in any way.  As an admin, I wouldn't have even mentioned it to the editor had I stumbled upon it.  If anything, those links show he is willing to do more than just "undo" an edit, and instead willing to explain and help the editor. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rollback allows the use of rollback in only certain cases, such as obvious vandalism, and forbids the use of rollback on good faith edits. That was an honest attempt to improve the page, and probably a correct one, because the version reverted to by ST makes no sense. Wincent77 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That page is out of date and doesn't cover Twinkle use. With TW, you have three kinds of revert, "rollback (AGF)" "rollback" and "rollback (VANDAL)".  He used the generic rollback.  Would have been better to use the AGF but it is still not calling someone a vandal.  What he did is the equivalent of an undo.  Without Twinkle, all reverts are labelled as vandalism.; his was not. There is no violation here. Had he used the "rollback (VANDAL)" feature, then you would have a complaint, but he didn't.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Absent some strong evidence of malicious intent, I almost always use the AGF rollback option on Twinkle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not choosing sides nor do I want to get off topic, but from my understanding all three features labeled "rollback" are indeed equivalent to actual rollback. Undo only reverts a single edit, rollback reverts all of the last user's edits. The documentation and Rollback seem to make this fairly clear. I'm unsure however if Twinkle's generic rollback is suitable for non-vandalistic edits; It seems to be functionally the same except allows for a custom edit summary. This RfA is about to be closed, so feel free to discuss further on my talk page if you'd like... I agree use of Twinkle should probably be covered in Rollback. Cheers &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In most circumstances, it is less than ideal, but the main point is that it doesn't leave an edit summary with the word "vandalism" in it, thus it isn't an incivil revert if the edits were made in good faith. In this case, it might have been hard to tell if the edit was good faith or bad faith (he added the word "food" in a place that didn't really make sense.)  It would have been better to AGF and use the AGF, but there isn't a policy violation that I'm aware of using the neutral revert because you aren't making any statement as to their faith.  Again, not ideal, but not against policy as I understand it. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, basically per Vejvančický. Not ready for access to the delete button yet. Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. His history of nominations for deletion does not inspire confidence. Contributions of the user are excellent, especially in his preferred topic, but do not require admin access. If there was something like admin-readonly tools, I would support nomination for them, so that he would be able to see history of deleted articles. The user is honest, hard-working and 'light on drama'. He also has a good point about automated messages. However, I have an opposite view on obscure topics: if an article is not notable, it should be expanded, not deleted. Wikiwide (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, can you clarify what you mean by "if an article is not notable, it should be expanded, not deleted"? If an article does not meet notability standards, isn't it a prime candidate for deletion? MJ94 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per all who have raised concerns about AfD, especially since he wants to work there. Given his apparently poor judgement, his wish to work on PRODs is also concerning. BethNaught (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I oppose this candidate becoming an admin, solely because of their answer to question 2 seeming way too much like WP:OWN. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 13:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, to be honest "...but I definitely would not have been able to finish them to the quality I did without the help I got from others along the way..." sounds completley the opposite of WP:OWN to me. Pedro : Chat  13:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a rather extreme (and erroneous) interpretation of the candidate's answer. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Neutral after a more careful read-through. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 02:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose because of Ad Orientem's change to support. Wikipedia should never accept admins on the basis of their willingness to improve. Either the community trusts the candidate or they don't. I don't. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In contrast to your hard-and-fast rule of opposition above, I will oppose every candidate who expresses an unwillingness to improve.  And, yes, I am being facetious, but I do believe that a candidate's willingness to continue to maintain an open mind, to learn, to expand his or her understanding of Wikipedia procedures, guidelines and policy, and, yes, to improve over time are among the key qualities I seek in administrator.  I hope I have made my point gently, and have given no offense.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman I think you might be misreading the depth of my reservations, or maybe you think there should not be a Neutral !vote option. I have some concerns about the level of his experience in AfD and other Adminny areas, but those concerns did not rise to a point where I felt obliged to oppose the nominee. He has agreed to a period of mentoring which I think is more than reasonable. I don't see any red flags in this nomination. If I did, I would join you in your opposition. Of course everyone has their own priorities in what they look for in an Admin, and your standards may be different from mine. There may be something you see as a show stopper that I either don't, or I missed. But I don't think you should oppose someone based solely on my changing my !vote, unless perhaps your opinion of my judgment is so low that my support vote is itself grounds for opposition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've said "I have some concerns about the level of his experience in AfD and other Adminny areas, but those concerns did not rise to a point where I felt obliged to oppose the nominee." I agreed, which is why I !voted neutral, initially. But your subsequent statements (as well as those from Secret and others) sounds to me like WP:NOTNOW, but we'll accept as they promise to let us rehab them. Perhaps that's not what you intended but no matter how many times I re-read those statements that's what I come away with.
 * Certainly no offense was taken. I'm glad any candidate has enough of an open mind to learn, to consider the facts, and to admit when they're wrong. That should not be a condition to accept an otherwise questionable candidate. Support votes for a position of responsibility shouldn't come at the price of qualified promises from the candidate to do as they're told. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I seem to agree on the candidate, yet I went from neutral to support, based on the "trust" that he would fix a problem that I am confident is fixable. I was in this exact same position two years ago as candidate.  People said "We trust Dennis, but his performance in CSD is less than adequate". They trusted me to fix it, something that still humbles me today.  If anything, I think String is more deserving of our trust than I was at the time. Your vote isn't "wrong" and I can only say there is a precedent and I would like to think it didn't turn out so bad. Maybe a promise to fix a singular area isn't too big a risk to take. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose He seems to lack the experience needed as an admin in the areas he intends to work on. He also seems to not think through all of his decisions before taking action. Many of the things he intends to work on can be done without special permissions or there is an established process for getting them done. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Strikes me as elitist knows-a-lot-better. April eurocentric tomfoolery confirms. Astrodramas leave me cold, loads of stars out there almost as many I would venture to essay as there are Banksia species, great way to up the edit count though. AFDs plainly a significant issue, the repeated refrain "doesn't seem to comply" weasel and troubling. Don't detect any real empathy in those answers. Not on my account, sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per deletion concerns cited above by Vejvančický. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I view accepting a nomination from Casliber as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Also, the candidate's narcissistic overprotection of his userpage, resorting even to giving out barnstars to his friends, shows a childish immaturity unbecoming of a candidate for administrator on Wikipedia. SMJ Examiner (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * — SMJ Examiner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the sensitivity of striking votes at an RfA, I am leaving this vote here for the moment. I just blocked the user for one week (probably should be indefinite). They created this account today. Their user page says: "Nobody should ever be an admin." The did a closure of an MfD (I reverted it). I don't know who they are a sock of, but someone.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing bureaucrat's note I have openly discounted this oppose because it has clearly been made in bad faith with the intent to troll. Acalamari 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral The Nominee is clearly an outstanding content contributor with a lot of promise as a future Admin. Unfortunately I am not comfortable with the level and quality of participation in Adminny type areas, especially AfD, which is just too thin for me to be able to pull the Support trigger. This is not a fatal issue though. I would suggest a few months of working primarily in AfD so we can get a better picture of the nominees approach to article retention or deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Support. See above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Unsure Looking at the matrix, of his 85 delete !votes, only 36 of them were deleted. Seven were speedy keeps.  This much divergency from the community does not auger well for use of the deletion tools. As for specifics, Articles for deletion/ST Andromedae and similar  shows unfamiliarity or refusal to accept established practices in the candidates own  special field.  Too many of his nomoinations have been merely jokes, I hope  Articles for deletion/Brian Eisner. was one also, because ti s otherwise pretty reckless. His understanding of deletion practice needs further consideration.   DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The second one you mention was not a joke as far as I remember, but it was over 2.5 years ago, so I think that I have learned the processes and become more mature since then. ST Andromedae, looking back on it, actually probably is notable; the paper here is probably enough to establish notability; I'll admit that I probably made the wrong call on that one. Nearly all of the speedy keep ones (I think all, but I don't want to say that without being 100% sure) were after I withdrew the nomination after evidence of notability was provided in the debate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Waiting - The AFD record is one that I look at closely, and honestly, this is well outside what I normally consider to support. It isn't about how many votes were delete versus keep, it is about how often the candidate was outside of community consensus.  I also noticed that most of his votes at AFD was when he nominated something, so it seems he has never actually patrolled AFD in an "admin-like" way.  I saw no examples of saving an article and virtually nothing outside of his singular interest.  Virtually nothing in his AFD record give me any indication of how he would handle AFDs (or CSDs and PRODs) on the variety of topics that admin have to deal with.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment I disagree with some portions of your answer to my questions, but that wouldn't affect my vote as there were no wrong or right answers, they were designed to get to know you better, to see if you would be honest and open, and in that respect you did well. The problem is that you specifically mention PRODs and AFD in Q1, and honestly I would recommend against that in the strongest possible way.  Looking back at my own RFA, there were a number of opposers and questions regarding my own shortcomings with CSD, but they pale in comparison to the issues here.  This is a real problem.  At my RFA, I ended up agreeing to 3 months of mentoring as a reassurance to the community (monitored by DGG and Boing! said Zebedee).  I still avoid most CSD duty to this day, out of an excess of caution.  I'm not saying that it should be mandatory here, but in all honesty, you need to spend plenty of time mastering our deletion policy before you consider using the delete buttons.  You are very likely to get the admin bit soon, and I fear that if you jump into deletions right away, there is a strong possibility that mistakes will happen and drama will follow.  Under other circumstances I would be opposing here with a recommendation of working with AFD for 6 months and coming back, but I have a great deal of trust in Casliber and know he wouldn't be nominating you unless he was confident you were capable. Thus I will stay down here, cautious, neutral but hopeful. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  08:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it would help appease editors, I would certainly voluntarily refrain from closing any AfD or deleting any PROD that could, by any reasonable person, be classified as a controversial close, for two months after the closure of this RfA, if it ends with me becoming an admin. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to agree to mentoring. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. It's rare to find me in this section because I'm usually  able to  do  enough  research  to  place a clear !vote one way  or the other. However, I  must  share the opinions in  this section  of two  very  experienced editors/admins, namely   and  regarding  concerns about  deletions and AfD. I'm letting  myself be influenced here because if it  weren't  for their going  neutral, I  would probably  be !voting  'oppose'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I have tremendous respect for the work you have done, and I would be really happy to have more admins with an interest in the science side of things; but I must echo the concerns about AfD raised above. If you were to agree to do what Dennis Brown did, then I would vote "support." Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I endorse the more specific concerns expressed in some of the other comments above, particularly from Dennis Brown and DGG. And I also would like to go on the record that I support the suggestion by Vanamonde93. If the nominee were to undertake the suggested Admin in training program, I too will be happy to change my !vote to support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to agree to mentoring. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I would love to give my support but I am a little concerned about how this editor would interpret deletion debates based on the policies and expectations of the community. I cannot oppose such a wonderful editor though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral [Switched to support] While StringTheory is undoubtedly a capable editor and I don't think for one moment that he is a likely to do any damage with the tools, the AfD issues cause me concern. AfD is a microcosm of the whole project that gives a good indication of an editor's understanding of policy and their ability to interact with individuals who often hold contrary opinions. In this case, I'm not seeing enough breadth across the multifarious article genres that Wikipedia embraces (only four BLPs, little outside of celestial bodies) and insufficient depth (no detailed discussion on points of guideline policy, consensus outcomes etc.) to give this the thumbs-up or down. The the "A" in RfA does not stand for "apprenticeship" and the award of a mop certainly isn't part of a learning curve to "become" an admin. An individual needs to be close to the top of that curve to begin with. This submission, IMHO, falls somewhat short of that but as, says above, such things can be fixed with time. Philg88 ♦talk 19:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral per DGG. I won't support this candidate but there's not enough for me to vote oppose. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to oppose. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning toward support. [Switched to support] I was ready to hit the support button, but some of our better thinkers here are in the oppose or neutral column, so help me work through this.  In an admin I look for experience and clue.✅  Does the admin-wannabe play nice?  I don't see any drama-mongering or propensity toward personal attacks.✅  So it comes down to, will this person be distruptive with the tools, and the concerns seem to be pointed toward the deletion of articles (AfD, PROD, ect.)  Since clue-fundamentals have been established, this boils down to: is the editor open to viewpoints other than his own, can they admit they are wrong, and if so, will they take action to rectify any damage caused.  Closely related, how to they behave when consensus goes against them?  I'm going to examine the 33% of AfD disussions where String's vote did not match the result.  The  first 1 is a nomination for an article he created, so he is voting to eliminate his own article.  The result (merge vs. delete) is not out-of-line, he may not have known about the article (list, rather) it was merged to.  2 was frankly a bad nom, from 2.5 years ago and early in wikicareer.  At time of nomination 3 was an unreferenced stub, for which a really good but rather wonkish keep vote was cast.  No harm no foul.  4, 5, 6 are April Fool joke noms.  In 7 article was kept because it was determined the subject was inherently notable despite no "policy" reasons.  Logic trumped policy, hurrah!  8 was a well-reasoned argument.  9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32 are very similar.  Policy-based noms, and consensus against was hardly overwhelming.  13 was probably a poor nom.  14 has no strong consensus, and demonstrates a collaborative spirit.  15 was self-withdrawn after discussion.  16 and 18 were kept after additional sources were found.  17,  19, 20, 21, 22, 28 were merged instead of deleted, but seem solid noms.   23, 29 were self-withdrawn after sources were found in course of discussion.  30 was self-withdrawn after he was shown to be in error.  Finally 33 was a rational, policy-based argument.  In summary, I see two actions that are questionable.  Perhaps others can help me more clearly see why wikipedia would be harmed by StringTheory11 weilding the mop.    78.26   (His Wiki's Voice) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @78.26: StringTheory11 is a good editor doing excellent content work and seems to be also a nice person. S/he has my unreserved respect as a colleague Wikipedian. But I don't think s/he is fit to do deletion related admin tasks at the moment. S/he is an astronomy specialist or fan, but we have seen some recent examples of his deletion efforts in this area which were questionable, badly explained, and reverted. There are almost no examples of similar work outside of this area. Imagine StringTheory11 going to work with the backlogged PROD queue. Administrator (in this area) is the last person deciding about the existence of an article, which is very important because many articles can be deleted almost unnoticed. Therefore, admins should do their research and carefully decide whether to delete or keep the article in this part of the process. Broader competence is required. And I don't see it here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I'm a male. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @StringTheory: Thank you and sorry, your user page doesn't indicate if you are a male or female. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, see my comments on Dennis Brown's neutral vote, if they would help alleviate concerns. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @StringTheory: The nomination and your answer to Q1 suggest that you have "an interest and experience in discussing aspects of notability" and that you want to help as an admin in this area. It turned out that there are some problems, but I have to agree with some editors in the 'support' section and I believe that any screw-up can be handled without much drama on your part. I would suggest to you to follow User:Dennis Brown's recommendation above, if you pass this RfA. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, if the AFD record was just "average", I would be gushing with support. There are many skills here that I wish I had. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  23:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, because of record at AfD. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 02:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. While the candidate has done a ton of great work in creating articles and tidying up lots of articles through moves and deletions, I have some concerns about the candidate's interactions with other editors. In answer to Q5 above, the candidate says While we certainly should not sacrifice quality of content to retain new editors, we should not just pepper them with automated messages, and instead leave them messages saying why we are, for example, nominating multiple articles for deletion. At User Talk:D A R C 12345, see where I left a message stating why I was nomming lots of his articles for deletion. I think it's importnat to do stuff like that to retain the new editors instead of appearing cold with repeated automated messages. Although the candidate provides one example of leaving a non-template message on a user talk page, looking through the candidate's contributions, the vast majority of the messages the candidate has left on new user's talk pages have been templated warnings via Twinkle. To me, there appears to be a disconnect between the candidate's words and their actions; the candidate knows what to say or do but appears to not be doing that themselves. Also, looking at the candidate's contributions and user analysis, its fairly clear to me that the candidate doesn't engage on article talk pages, either. With so little information about how the candidate actually interacts with other editors, I can't tell whether this candidate would be a good admin when it comes to helping editors resolve disputes, helping newbies, and blocking editors. I don't think this is necessarily enough to Oppose the candidate but it's enough for me to not !vote Support. --Ca2james (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I do just template blatant vandals :). StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Following the lead of Dennis Brown, Kudpung, and DGG — three whom I trust very much. Carrite (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2014 (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.