Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2

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

Anarchyte

Final (166/6/0); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

• Anarchyte (talk · contribs) – Anarchyte has been editing since 2015. He's recently got Fallout 4: Far Harbor through FAC and has taken several other articles to GA, including turning Fighters Uncaged from this to this, as well as helping me with improving Regent Street, which makes him an official "good egg". As far as administrative work goes, he's mostly focused on CSDs and move requests.

Since an unsuccessful RfA last year, Anarchyte has been encouraged to run again by several editors, but has held off until he can be certain that he is likely to pass. As one of the editors who opposed last time, I've been sounded out for my views, and we have had extensive discussions (eg: here and here) about whether he is ready this time around including nitpicking through a bunch of CSD and AfD nominations, as well as a encouraging candidate poll here which closed as "Consensus that Anarchyte will make a likely-to-pass candidate." I get the impression that multiple administrators, including several that opposed last time, are now confident he would be a net benefit to the project with the tools, and I think it's time we gave them to him. So I'm going to put it to the rest of the community to see if you all agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Dweller

Proud to co-nom I spotted this potential candidate some time ago. Looks an impressive Wikipedian. I particularly liked this answer to my question and his readiness to take criticism and admit fallibility. I like admins with some humility and desire to improve themselves. I'd like to invite !voters to support this nomination. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

As some might have noticed, I haven't been around much in the past few years, so I missed Anarchyte's first attempt at RfA. Looking back, I can say that I probably would have opposed him for many of the reasons others did, especially CSD concerns. However, since I didn't know about the RfA, when I did encounter Anarchyte for the first time a few months back, the first question that came to my mind was "Why isn't this clueful, civil and helpful editor an admin yet?". Before I could ask him, he came to me and asked me for assistance where to improve which I gladly offered. Back then, I checked his contributions, especially when it comes to speedy deletion and AFD, extensively and found him to be a clueful editor, willing - as Dweller notes - to accept criticism and improve their behavior as needed. His speedy tagging especially has improved greatly, with hist CSD log showing a good mix of several criteria, with the last mistake I found stemming from October 2016 [1] (I did not check all his taggings but a random spot-check showed no reasons for concern). Since my assessment in April, his contributions have not changed, which is why I am happy to offer my co-nomination for Anarchyte's request and hope you can support him as well. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Harry Mitchell

I'll keep this brief to avoid unnecessary clutter, but I wanted to note my absolute confidence in Anarchyte, having had the pleasure of helping him guide Fallout 4: Far Harbor through FAC. I've never been of the opinion that writing a featured article should be required in order to become an administrator, but I've long felt that the skill set involved in successfully navigating FAC is very similar to that required of an admin. As well as demonstrating a sound grasp of content policies, Anarchyte was responsive to feedback, was able to creatively solve problems and reach compromises, and worked with multiple editors from different backgrounds to produce an outstanding article—precisely the skills we need in our administrators. Having followed Anarchyte's edits for several months, both when the spotlight is on him and when it's not, I've been very impressed with his calm demeanour and his willingness to help. I'm firmly of the opinion that he would make an excellent admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank all of you for your very kind words and for putting your trust in me. I accept the nominations. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to use the administrative tools primarily in areas such as CSD, AfD, RfD, and to a lesser extent, RM. I have a large amount of experience in closing discussions as a non-admin, some of these can be seen here: AfD, RM, and a mix of both AfD and RfD. I am also interested in lending a hand at both AIV and RfPP, and I think I could help there because of the timezone differences; there is usually a backlog whenever I have a look at it.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Obviously I'm most proud of my one FA, which also happened to be my first GA, but alongside this I've enjoyed the times when I've worked with other people, primary on Rust, Fallout 4: Far Harbor and Regent Street. It's exciting to finally get the green dot at the top of an article, but it's even more fulfilling when you've collaborated with other people and made something together. I worked with HJ Mitchell to get Far Harbor through FAC and his continuous support throughout the process helped me immensely. I worked with MjolnirPants on Rust for a couple of months, and through his advice, he helped me with getting the article to where it is today. I've still got plans to bring that article to GA status, though I can't until the game gets fully released.

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: Although I've tried to stay away from conflict, I, like most others, have been in the middle of disputes. One of the more recent incidents was during a discussion at Talk:WannaCry ransomware attack where I incorrectly closed a merge discussion as a "snow do not merge", which was later closed as a "merge". I acknowledged my mistake both at the article's talk page and on the nominator's talk page. Alongside this, I've had a few conflicts further back in my past, notably the GamerGate and Ketchapp incidents, where I, in regards to the GamerGate incident, asked a non-policy and opinion-based question which resulted in quite the discussion, as can be seen on my talk page, and in the GG talk page archives. I accepted that I was in the wrong here and haven't edited in that area since, besides a few gnomish edits. For the Ketchapp issue, I added some poorly sourced content which resulted in legal threats and subsequently an ANI report. Having looked back on this issue I've noticed how poorly I acted, specifically in the sense that I didn't directly reference the claim and I didn't use a reliable source. I've learned from my mistakes here, and I haven't been to ANI since, besides a few times when I'm adding my opinion.

---

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

Optional question from 78.26

4. In Wikipedia terms, what is the difference between consensus and voting? Bonus points for explaining where use of these concepts is appropriate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A: Hello 78.26. In regards to Wikipedia, consensus is based off the strength of an argument along with its affiliation to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. What consensus isn't is a tally or headcount, which constitutes as a strawpoll or a vote. Consensus is what makes Wikipedia run smoothly, and is used primarily to solve debates or discussions. Voting on the other hand can be used to see how many people are in support or opposition of a certain idea, for example, when Wikipedia had the idea of a blackout for SOPA. A vote was conducted to see how many people were in support of such an action, and the consensus was that a blackout was a good idea, in one shape or another (which was decided by finding a consensus, again). Consensus plays a larger roll on Wikipedia than voting because we don't want to solve a complex situation by a simple and unenthusiastic "yes" or "no" tally. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Argento Surfer

5. What is your least favorite part of Wikipedia to work in, and why? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A: Hi Argento Surfer. I don't think I could give a definitive answer to this question (I don't have a "least favourite part"), but there are parts of Wikipedia that interest me much less than others, such as UAA and FfD, though I have respect for everyone who lends a hand there, admin or not. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Gerda

6. One of your co-noms recently protected the article Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher. Let's assume for a moment that you are already an experienced admin: would you have done the same, and why, or why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A: From looking at the history of the page, I've gathered that the protection stemmed from the addition of an infobox, which was reverted by another editor, but was then continuously re-added by an IP address (which changed 4 times). Although three editors attempted to reach out to the IP in an attempt to discuss the infobox both on the article's talk page and on the talk page of the final IP used, nothing ever came of it because the IP never responded. The IP broke the three-revert rule as they had reverted other users 5 times over a short period of time, which, although would warrant a block, I do not believe the article should have been protected as quickly as it was. I would have waited until the blocked IP had been unblocked to see if the disruption continued, or if they changed their IP address to continue reverting. 7 days for a low-edited page (last 50 edits go back to 2011) may have been overkill. I would have opted for a shorter length, such as 3 days, to see how that would play out first, and then if the disruptive edits continued after the article had become unprotected and the IP had become unblocked, then a longer protection would have been justifiable. A range block may have also been an option, but those normally have collateral and are used in more serious cases (from what I've seen, though correct me if I'm wrong). Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from George Ho

7. Wow! This is my first time participating in an RfA process. Anyway, you said in your previous RfA nomination that you want to refrain yourself from the Gamergate dispute. What other areas, topics, and anything else besides Gamergate do you want to refrain yourself from? George Ho (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A: @George Ho: Hi. Besides that area, I don't really wish to refrain myself from editing anywhere else. There are areas that don't interest me, such as UAA or FfD (mentioned above), so I'll probably end up not editing there, but that doesn't mean I want to completely refrain myself from those boards. There are other ArbCom sanctioned articles, and though chances are I'm not going to touch them simply because I have not interest in getting involved, I don't wish to rule those pages out entirely. Hope this answers your question. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from SwisterTwister

8. - What is your take on our current policies on promotionalism and paid contributing, and whether you agree with them? For example, that advertising can be removed regardless of WP:GNG if there's still either excessive promotional or unconfessed payment, which would be supported by WP:What Wikipedia is not? Relevant AfDs I mention this with are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Syme, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinge (app), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Prim (not promotional, but no cited guideline or policy basis; improvements can help an article but AfDs are still founded differently beyond that). I also ask this because of the coverage offered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outgrow.me in which one of the sources is claimed to be "possibly paid" along with the others have visible promotional intent as press releases. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A: Good evening SwisterTwister. I completely agree with WP:PAID in the sense that if someone is getting paid to edit articles, they must declare who is paying them and who the client is, alongside any other relevant information. With this said, I believe that people that are getting paid to edit articles should only use the talk page or edit requests so that their conflict of interest isn't directly inserted onto the page. When it comes to deletion discussions of these types of articles, I usually vote along the lines of "is this irremediable, and if not, are there any sources to get this back on its feet?" Usually, promotional articles are just that. Promotional. They only exist to promote an entity, and there are no reliable sources available. Those ones deserve deletion and if the subject ever became notable in the future, then an un-involved party should create it. I can remember one time when, following a couple of G11s, I created an the article in an neutral manner, which resulted in all of the promotional edits that happened to it to be reverted instead of deleted because we had a groundwork to revert to.

In regards to the "possibly paid" reference I linked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outgrow.me, I wasn't talking about it being promotional, I was saying that you may need to have paid to access it (which looking at it now, I've discovered that it is $15). All of the other references I and others had linked (besides the HighBeam one, which is pretty useless anyway) were free, any many were from reliable sources (CNet, The Economist, Time, etc). I hope this answers your question. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Linguist111

9. A registered editor PRODs an article with the rationale of "Fails GNG. A Google search came up with articles by unreliable tabloid newspapers, all of which gave trivial mentions to the subject", before an IP removes the PROD with no rationale. The PRODer leaves a message on the IP's talk page asking why they contested the PROD, but the IP never responds, so the PRODer opens an AfD with the same rationale. Nobody else votes in the AfD during the week, and by the time the AfD has been relisted a third time, there are still no votes. You come across this AfD and upon Google-ing the subject, you find the nom's statement to be true. What would you do as an administrator?

A: Hello Linguist111. If I were to come across an AfD that after four weeks had no input, I would not close it. I'd instead search online to see what I could find myself, and if I couldn't find anything (as the example states) I'd vote delete (assuming there are no alternatives). Admins aren't required to close anything, and in these cases (unless it's a copyvio or attack page), I would simply leave a vote instead of closing it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Linguist111

10. You come across an unreferenced two-hour-old article which in its entirety reads, "Disappeared in 1970 body found a couple weeks ago got international media attention". What do you do?

A: Assuming that the title of the page is the name of the person, I would search for possible references both online and using Google Books/other print repositories to see whether I could find anything about them/their life. If I am able to find some sources, I would clean it up so that it would be a decent stub with the {{bio-stub}} tag and possibly inform the author about WP:RS for next time they make an article. If there are no sources available, then I would first add a PROD tag to see how that would go, and if it is removed, I would take another look around online to see if I missed anything, and if I am still unable to find anything, I'd nominate it at AFD. With this said, the article has only existed for a couple of hours and I do not want to interrupt any possible on-going editing by the author, so I may wait a bit longer before I tag it. In my opinion, saying "it got international media attention" is enough to be a credible claim of significance, so I would not add an A7 tag. A1 would also not apply because the name of the article would allow an editor to search for references: A1 is not appropriate if any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it. Hope this answers your question. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Wee Curry Monster

11. Have you ever edited using another username?

A: No, this is the only account I have edited from. I have occasionally edited through IPs when I have forgotten to log in or when it wasn't safe to (i.e. public wifi). When editing through an IP I have always followed the rules set out at WP:LOGOUT and have never edited in a way that could be seen as disruptive. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional (and genuinely optional) question from Steven Crossin

12 It's been a little over a year since your first RFA. What would you say you learned from that experience, and how do you feel you have addressed the concerns of those who opposed you since then? (If this question is unclear, please do feel free to ask for clarification).

A: Hello Steven Crossin. My first RfA was a very good learning experience, and as I told Dweller a few months ago, I believe the primary focus of the opposition was, overall, my lack of experience. Having only one year under my belt at the time of running was in and of itself a bad idea, and in hindsight, I should've expected people to comment on my account's age. I was too eager at the time. My inexperience also meant I didn't have a complete grasp of the Wikipedia policies, notably WP:CONSENSUS, and how it plays a role. My content creation was also lacklustre at this point in time with my best work being Rust (video game). I had no GAs and very few DYKs. Since then I've written (or helped write) eight GAs, one FA, and I have 14 DYKs (though one was not nominated by me). Alongside these achievements, I've found myself putting a lot more effort into my actions and not rushing to get things done. Hope this adequately answers your question. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Esquivalience

13. You said in your previous RfA (question 4) that you made intentional IP edits before you registered, yet in question 11 you did not mention such past IP editing. Did you make such IP edits before registering, or did you gave such answer to the question in the past RfA by mistake?

A: @Esquivalience: I believe there was a bit of a misunderstanding in question 11. I interpreted "another username" as meaning another account and whether I had edited using different accounts before or after I made this one. This is the only account I have ever used, but I did edit as an IP before registering, as noted in Q4 of RfA1: "Yes, I dabbled in editing for a while using IP addresses. My edits on those were minor gnome-like edits such as fixing typos, adding wikilinks and fixing punctuation". I apologise for any confusion this may have caused, and I hope this clears it up. If not, feel free to respond. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: What prompted you to register an account (e.g., not being able to edit semi-protected articles)? Esquivalience (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Esquivalience: I can't remember what exactly prompted me to want to make an account, except for the fact that I've always been fascinated by the inner workings of the site. I wanted to help out., so I tried my hand at writing an article, which didn't go so well, but I still wanted to learn about how everything actually works here. I read up on how video game-related content is written and gave making an article another shot with Running with Rifles. The article was originally very gamecrufty before other editors came along and pushed both me and the article in the right direction. I got a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment having an article I created being able to be viewed by almost everyone, and to this day I still get that feeling, especially when it becomes a GA (or in one case, FA). Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, and your answers are satisfactory. Apologies if this came off as grilling, as I remember a candidate who played good editor for a year who turned out to be a serial sockpuppet, so any reassurance is a relief. Esquivalience (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Cullen328

14. I opposed your first RFA, at least in part, because of what I saw to be the poor quality of Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch), a stub you wrote. I pointed out that the castle was redundantly called a "tourist attraction" twice in consecutive sentences, and that the claim of current ownership was referenced to a source published in the 1930s. The redundancy remains as does the claim of ownership, which is now unreferenced. How do you feel about the current state of this article you wrote, over a year after my comments? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A: Good morning Cullen328. When I was writing Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) I hit a wall because my knowlege of German is very limited, so I was unable to find that many sources, as I explained here a few months ago. I moved on from that article soon after because of this languag gap, and went on to write my first GA instead. I understand that the burden was on me to find the sources for the claims I added, and I removed it earlier today after I searched online for more sources (though I should not have waited this long to do that, in hindsight). Hope this clears it up, if not, feel free to follow up. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up One of the sources, Mamilade, appears to be a promotional travel and tourism website for parents and children. Do you consider this a reliable source for an article about a historic castle? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. No, I would not consider a travel/tourism site reliable, and upon examining the article again, it turns out one of the other references is possibly a tourism site (though it's now dead). In different circumstances, I'd use it as a gateway to more reliable sources, but from what I can see they don't have a bibliography. I've added a {{refimprove}} tag onto the article, but I regretfully say that due to my lack of German knowledge, I probably won't be able to fix it. I'm going to leave a message at WT:GERMANY in hopes that someone may be interested in helping out. SoWhy may also be able to help. I'm not too proud of the article's current state, but I'm going to use it as a learning experience to prevent myself from hitting the same wall in the future. I hope you have a great day, cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, after seeing this comment, I did a rough translation from the German article (which also isn't very good). Feel free to improve further. AKAF (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Northamerica1000

15. How, if possible, could the AfD process or pages be improved?

A: I don't have a strong opinion on how AfD as a whole could be improved, except for possibly changing the name to "Articles for Discussion" to both prevent newbies from being scared off by the term "deletion" and to be consistent with all the other venues ("Categories for Discussion", "Redirects for Discussion", etc). I think the process itself works fine (voting, the nomination process, the template on the article, etc) and I don't think there could have been disputes that could've been avoided if it was different, though that's just from my own experience.

One thing that could be added is an edit notice similar to what it has now, but have it include the alternatives to deletion to inform newer users that deletion isn't the only option (and hense why there's an argument for renaming it to "Articles for Discussion"). It's always going to be annoying to have a big red tag on a page you've devoted time to, but to inform them that it may not be fully deleted (only redirected/drafted/userfied/etc) could stop people from immediately saying "Keep: I've been working on this for a week and it isn't fair to just delete it".

In a nutshell, I think the process itself works fine, but there could be more upfront information to prevent it coming off as bitey for new users. Hope this helps and thanks for the question, Northamerica1000. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Anarchyte
• Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2

• Links for Anarchyte: Anarchyte (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Anarchyte can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support as co-nominator. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!
2. Support . I'm glad to see this new RfA from Anarchyte. On the previous RfA I was so torn I just could not make my mind up so I left an extremely cautious, non-committal neutral vote. I'm happy to say that I give my full support this time round, and to be one of the first to vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Full support, zero concerns. Have worked with him on many articles over time. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - If Kudpung says support. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Support - A well qualified candidate who shows clue and competence, with both the aptitude to know how to use the tools correctly, and the sensibility to know when to leave them in the box -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
6. I supported last time, and the noms say the candidate is even better this time. —Kusma (t·c) 13:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Support - Seen him around. No issues. Jupitus Smart 13:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Support An awesome contributor to Wikipedia. Cheers! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Support I supported last time and the case for support is much stronger this time. --I am One of Many (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
11. Support. I'm excited to see another RfD regular step up and request adminship, especially since this area has had a sharp decline in the amount of admin activity recently. I've done a bit of coaching with Anarchyte over there, and I've been impressed with their thoughfulness and strong self-reflection. I'd be happy to continue to do so if this is successful. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
12. Support passes my two RfA criteria: has the right temperament and has a clue. I'm sure you'll have at least one oppose, but based on those two factors alone it means that any mistakes you make you'll be likely to own up to. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
13. Support - I could justifiably, unto myself, support this RFA on strength of nomination alone; and would have. But I have also seen Anarchyte around the project, myself, many times, and therefore could of as easily joined those before me in nominating this candidacy.--John Cline (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
14. Support This is someone who learned a lot from their failed RfA, took what was said to heart and worked on it. I've crossed path with Anarchyte a few times, and they've always been a pleasure to work with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
15. Support - Per my comments last time around -- haven't seen any reason to oppose since then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
16. Support - I supported last time, and my support is strengthened this time around. Candidate is helpful, CLUEful, and is easy to work with. Candidate has clearly demonstrated resilience and not only has the ability to take criticism well, but is able to effect positive change from positive contructive criticism. The nominations are excellent. Anarchyte has excellent contributions in both content and maintenance areas. I am entirely comfortable with giving them access to additional tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
17. Support I'll be interested to see if he's still "willing to admit fallibility" upon becoming infallible. I've been disappointed before, but then again, I've also disappointed others myself. Seems reasonable to support. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
18. Support as co-nominator. Regards SoWhy 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
19. Support based on User:Tavix's support. I trust his judgment in RfD areas. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
20. Support, per Joefromrandb, and in spite of the four nominations. — fortunavelut luna 15:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
21. Support per my former oppose !vote, which stated because of recent CSD misdeeds. The recent CSD log is clean, and the worse AfD I could find was this (withdrawing a nomination when someone else !voted delete), but it can pass as a justified WP:IAR move. Q3 also eases worries I had (rightly or wrongly) about the candidate's ability to interact with others when under pressure. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
22. Support, as the first round, a good answer to my question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
23. Support - aside from the userpage font, there is no reason to oppose. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
24. Support - Having opposed last year for a rather pointless reason I'm delighted to support this year! - AFD looks good, CSD looks good, They've edited for a year and seem to have a good grasp of policies etc, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
25. Support per noms. --Joshualouie711^talk 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
26. Support A good candidate for the mop, I see no concerns. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
27. Support I supported this candidate last time and don't see a reason that would change my mind. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
28. Support This candidate wasn't quite ready last time, but they definitely are now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
29. Support - Per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, RickinBaltimore, and There'sNoTime. A good candidate, no major problems found! Will be a net positive. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 18:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
30. Support very good content creation and improvement, solid work at AFD and csd, no problems Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
31. Support, has matured since last time and based on review, I don't see issues to not give them a mop. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
32. Support The nominators have done a lot of prep work for this second RfA, and I'm inclined to take them at their word that the candidate has grown from criticism and is ready for the mop. I also see Anarchyte pop up occasionally, always expressing a reasoned opinion courteously. Pleased to support. Having expressed disinterest in UAA in the answer to Q5, I hope he will ignore or refuse to answer the UAA question if it shows up. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
33. Support per noms. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
34. Oppose Just because the user has a 100% track record and 4 nominators. I can't let that happen.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

35. Support. Can't find anything wrong with Anarchyte, on the contrary, and with 4 (FOUR!) nominators I respect, I can only say "Go mop!" Yintan  19:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
36. Support: No issues overall, and good luck with the mop! KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Absolutely. Katie^talk 19:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
38. Support Has taken on board what sunk the last RfA and worked on the deficiencies in a textbook-style manner. Well done; the mop is fully deserved this time round. Schwede66 19:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
39. Support - Sure. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
40. Support – If Dweller is nominating him, I have confidence that he must be a good candidate. Harrias ^talk 21:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
41. Support, why not? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
42. Cautiously, because of one reason: the candidate prominently displays their user rights on their user page, as in spending a paragraph on it. But I trust that the candidate's contributions show a need for adminship and that the candidate is experienced enough in the areas they want to work in. Esquivalience (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
43. Support for the same reasons I supported before. kennethaw88 • talk 21:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
44. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
45. Support he shows a good understanding of the tasks involved and clearly knows his way around most of the wikibureaucracy. Fbergo (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
46. Support - Well experienced and qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
47. Support I have seen him around. Familiar with his activity. I cant think of anything that might present a problem if he is given the toolbox. Goodluck mate. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
48. Support Beyond being nominated by 4 admins whose judgment I would trust, user has made good contributions to Wikipedia and definetly seems to have a good attitude towards improving themselves and learning different ways to improve. WikiVirusC (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
49. Support: No red flags and the four co-noms show the user is ready. —MRD2014 00:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
50. Support Trustworthy to use deletion correctly. I also closed one of the RMs, Talk:Lost in Your Love (Redlight song)#Requested move 15 June 2017, relisted by the candidate. Good content creation as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
51. Support Initially, I was going to support based solely on the noms. I decided I would feel lazy doing that, and that it was a bad idea. So I took the time with the intent of finding something to change my vote, but did not find anything. Equineducklings (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
52. Support: I like the questions a lot and I like the answers even more. Seeing this candidate today, I have trouble believing that they could have ever been considered a controversial choice for adminship. Then again, many of us have had great journeys with our graph of personal improvement here. To top that off, I know that some of the co-nominators are hard eggs, so with their privileged words of support, I inherently have added confidence. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
53. Support: 'nuff said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
54. Support Nominators I respect, seems to have a fair amount of clue at AfD, and has a FA on the board to show they know what is required to create content. Good answers to questions too. Been around more than long enough. Hand him a mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
55. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
56. Tentative support: Seems qualified, the answers to questions so far are okay to me, I trust the judgement of at least one co-nom, and no smoking guns have been diffed. Under 5K non-automated mainspace edits doesn't make my usual threshold, but I'm making an exception since the user has been active for 2 years, and demonstrates competence from what I can tell. Good (and improving) AfD and CSD track record. Reasonable article creation level. I have not pored over the candidate's history in great detail, and am not yet aware how they handle tense conflict situations. Would prefer to see a better edit summary usage; "minor edit" does not mean "no need to briefly explain what I'm doing".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
57. Support One of the very few editors without a single splotch here. Has demonstrated proficiency.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
58. Support well qualified. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
59. Support Does not claim infallibility, looks like an excellent candidate overall. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
60. Support A good editor and a sound candidate.  FITINDIA  09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
61. Support - Candidate looks good.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
62. Support Will be a valuable asset. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
63. Support - I was satisfied with the candidate's contributions and experience before they answered my question, but that the candidate is able to identify how they've grown in the past year shows, to me, a lot of reflection, and good character. Easy support for me. Best of luck. Steven Crossin 12:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
64. Support: Having opposed in last request, in this one, I am confident Anarchyte is now qualified and has gained clue lacking before. Temperament seems balanced and positive. Too, I trust the co-nominators. I am pleased that this time a mop will be placed in trusted, knowledgable hands. Thank you for running again. Fylbecatulous talk 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
65. Support - fully qualified candidate. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 13:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
66. Yes, happy to support again. feminist 14:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
67. Fuck, that's some super serious paranoia from Wee Curry Monster. I would have put their first edit down to the user copying the syntax from another page, changing it, and then saving the edit, not just jumping to the conclusion that the candidate is being deceptive and hiding a dark past. Anyway, as others say, fully qualified (and even if they are a previous user reincarnated, who gives a shit*, they're doing nothing wrong and lots right * Subject to the user exclusions for banned users). Nick (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    If they are a previous user reincarnated, I would care. Why? Because they said they aren't. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    My first edit was to a talk page, my second was because I forgot to sign my post. I had been editing sporadically as an IP for about 18 months prior to December 2005 when I got my account, and by that point I'd already set up two MediaWiki installations for corporate wikis in my professional career, and to be honest once you've programmed in C and Scheme, MediaWiki syntax is a walk in the park. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    To be clear, I wasn't saying that I share Wee Curry Monster's suspicions. I was simply saying that it would be an issue if the candidate was lying about prior accounts. I don't believe that they are, however. Lepricavark (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

68. Support no issues. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
69. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
70. Support - Seems like a good candidate, even if they are an obvious abusive sockpuppet as described below!! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
71. Support - pillar 2's bell is ringing! Linguist¹1¹ 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
72. Support - While I would have liked to see Anarchyte mention WP:BLPPROD in his answer to Q10, I don't think this small oversight is enough to oppose an otherwise acceptable candidacy. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    Um, "body found a couple weeks ago" kind of implies this is not a biography of a living person, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    Per WP:BDP it might be justifiable. Plus, such "victim" articles usually "cover other BLP subjects" (perp, family, etc.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    Nah. There were multiple times in college where I disappeared for a few weeks and my body was later found. TimothyJosephWood 20:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Ritchie333 and Salvidrim: "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." See WP:BLP#Recently dead or probably dead. --Thnidu (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

    Exactly, thanks. "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

73. Support Why not? -FASTILY 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
74. Support: Looks good...thanks for persisting! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
75. As co-(co-co-)nom. Though re: question 2, you did all the work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
76. Support of course, this editor is a net gain to the project and allowing them to help purge some of the toxic heart of it with new blood in the damaged admin corps is beneficial to everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
77. Support I recall one of the oppose voters last year saying "Come back in a year with a little bit of polish." this editor has certainly done that, in fine style. Minima© (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
78. Support. I've seen Anarchyte around doing some admin work in a non-admin capactiy, and his work so far seems excellent. He has good knowledge of policy, and has also more than answered the challenge (from the last RfA) to write a bit more content, with some excellent GA work in the past year. Will make a fine admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
79. Deserving editor who will be wise with the mop. A definite no-brainer.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
80. Support - I've interacted and worked with the editor, and I feel comfortable with him having the Admin-related responsibilities. Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
81. Support -- well qualified; thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
82. Support - Experienced and trustworthy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
83. Support easy decision. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
84. Support: all boxes ticked. Great on content creation, 90% success at AfD, pretty consistent activity, shows good understanding of all areas needed for adminship. Happy to support. DrStrauss talk 12:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
85. Support per all of the above. I've read the Q&A too. He deserves to be an admin! The garmine ^(talk) 13:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
86. Support reflective and learns from mistakes Catrìona (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
87. No reason not to support, plus cancelling out the absurd oppose by Tonton Bernardo below. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
88. Support, an excellent candidate for the tools. bd2412 T 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
89. Support Looks ready for the tools. Comes very well recommended. Clearly a net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
90. Support qualified, capable candidate. Lepricavark (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
91. Support. FA writer, admin-worthy answers, and 25K edits? Yes please! JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
92. Support Trusted and experienced candidate. lNeverCry 19:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
93. Support (wholehearted this time). The lone oppose is, frankly, bizarre. Miniapolis 19:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
94. Support Easy decision for me, come on leaps and bound since RfA #1 (and was a reasonable candidate back then!) OcarinaOfTime (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
95. Support per Cyberpower. Seriously, though, what's not to like? Learned from previous RfA, content work includes an FA, has strong nominations from impressive nominators, no substantive opposition, and gives sensible and courteous answers to questions. I somehow missed the first RfA, but might well have supported then, and this RfA seems like a no-brainer for me. Just one thing: future RfA candidates, please don't feel that you need so many nominators. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    Actually, Anarchyte is innocent when it comes to that. He didn't ask us to, we all wanted to do it Regards SoWhy 21:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    So there is a cabal! (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

96. Support - no concerns this time. GiantSnowman 21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
97. Support I was happy to support at the last RfA and it is a pleasure to do so again. Poltair (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
98. Support good record, seems like all concerns raised in the previous RfA have been addressed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
99. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
100. Support. I supported Anarchyte's RfA last time and I don't see any reason why I should go the other way this time. Deryck C. 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

     I'd like to add that I've come across Anarchyte a few times as a non-admin closer in RfD since the last RfA and there hasn't been any problems. Deryck C. 10:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

101. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
102. Support - No issues for me. Time to pass out another mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
103. Support - I have no concerns at this time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
104. Support - no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

     A couple of new reasons to oppose have been added, but I am not convinced. Even if the Schauenburg Castle article is terrible, so what - someone else can improve it. That's how Wikipedia works, no? As for reverting the IP edit, the problem is that it could also have been vandalism. It's not obvious. I think reverting because it's unsourced is fine, although after what the IP wrote on the talk page I'd simply let it stand and leave it for someone else to challenge the text (if anyone does). Banedon (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

105. Support - Great candidate, well qualified and experienced. - Brojam (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
106. Support - great answers to the questions above - no compelling reason to oppose. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
107. Support I have no concerns as to this editor's ability to handle the tools. Answers to the questions inspire confidence. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
108. Support per last year's nomination. It's a mop, not a nuke. —Guanaco 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
109. Support, try not to burn the place down ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
110. Support whole-heartedly based on past encounters. Cabayi (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
111. Support - I supported last time and will happily do so again. No clue what the two opposing votes so far are trying to say, so they should probably be ignored. Patient Zero^talk 09:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
112. Support Normally I wait until later before !voting, but with WP:100, the good results I'm seeing, and the absurd oppose !votes that make me seriously question the intelligence of some oppose !voters makes me go with an easy support. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
113. Support Anarchyte's willingness to respond to constructive feedback is examplary. Mduvekot (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
114. Support Have followed his progress and come across him at various desks. Have interacted with him too considerably. The previous Rfa was unfortunate (and perhaps more due to the goading he received mistakenly at ORCP from some of the then inexperienced editors, including yours truly). He's developed his experience in a well-rounded manner. Non controversial and dependable. Lourdes 12:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
115. Support Well this looks like it's going to be a nail biter. For the record the nominee has a great record with no red flags and looks likely to be a net positive. As for the sole oppose !vote, I find it to be... I'll be polite here... singularly unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
116. Support - satisfactory answers to all the questions and editor seems to have a good grasp on the duties and responsibilities of being and administrator. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)4
117. Support. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
118. Support. Looks like a good candidate. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
119. Support, looks a good candidate, good nominators, good answers to questions. John (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
120. Support. A good candidate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
121. Absolutely yes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
122. Support Great candidate, best of luck. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
123. Support Best of luck - persuasive and well-drafted replies to the questions. st170e 23:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
124. Support. I was going to sit this one out because I didn't have time to do my obligatory checks—and then I glanced at that oppose vote. So here I am, 90 minutes later, checks all passed with flying colors. If we could get another 499,999 of him, we'd be in good shape. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
125. Support-Candidate is co-nominated by 4 heavy weight (who advice carries weight ) admins, a extremely good history of content work FORCE RADICAL (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

     I fondly remember the last Wikipedia Heavyweight championship.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

126. Support - this editor would make a fine administrator. But would candidates please not edit their own RfAs, even if it's with this kind of intention? link. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

     Absolute nonsense. RfAs are not an exclusion zone form The Encyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit. And removing trolling from anywhere on the project is the WP:PRIMARYDUTY of every editor here, regardless of function or advancement of permissions. Take care, — fortunavelut luna 12:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

127. Support. Good contributions. The answer to question 3, where Anarchyte acknowledges previous mistakes is particularly reassuring. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
128. Support - Seems to be a competent editor with a good grip on policy and will be a net gain to the project if given the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
129. Support per above. Have dealt with the user (albeit rarely, however), but i see no issue not to be granted the mop. Nördic Nightfury 13:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
130. Oppose jk How do you get 4 noms? Enjoy mopping, Wikipedia needs you :) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

     Objection. I oppose your opposal.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

     Objection opposed :) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

     Maybe I oppose your objection and your oppose. ;D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

     I would have liked to have seen six co-nominations. Mkdw ^talk 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

131. Yes. The Archyte has done good. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
132. Support - I have seen this candidate's work and think they will make a good admin. 17:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmurphy (talk • contribs)
133. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE. Mkdw ^talk 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
134. SupportSeems like generally qualified candidate willing to admit their mistakes. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
135. Strongest possible support I can't think of an area more desperately in need of new admins than RfD. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
136. Support. I fully trust the co-nominator's reasoning and judgement. User seems qualified and eager to learn from mistakes, which is very important for an admin. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
137. Support – fully qualified candidate. I've mostly run across Anarchyte at WP:RM where I've encountered no issues whatsoever. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
138. Support Seems genuinely interested in helping, Could use his good neutrality over in some of the more sensitive areas such as the Men's rights movement.Ice fly editor (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
139. Support - Editing history (his contributions, if you will) makes the vote more than easy.  _{The Lord of Moon's Spawn  ✉}  04:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
140. Support – Anarchyte has been helping out at AfD with tasks such as performing non-admin closes and relistings, as well as participating in discussions, for a considerable time now. I have reviewed some of Anarchyte's work and contributions, and Anarchyte comes across as knowledgeable about guidelines and policies. In reviewing some of Anarchyte's AfD discussion contributions, they are typically guideline- and policy-based. Anarchyte is also cognizant of the finer points of topic notability, such as actually performing source searches to make notability determinations (e.g. see this AfD discussion), rather than basing determinations upon the state of sourcing in articles alone (see WP:NEXIST). A positive contributor with a friendly demeanor that comes across as competent to perform administrative duties. Regarding the (non-struck) oppose !votes below, the first one is quite subjective, and in my view lacks objective qualification for opposing relative to typical RfA standards, and regarding the second, that article's creation was almost 15 months ago (link). Users typically improve as time progresses. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
141. Support - Four co-nominators?? All you need is the allusive Softlavender stamp of approval and you will officially be one of the most supported RfA candidates in history.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
142. Support-Well done! TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
143. Support. My reluctant oppose last time was only because I thought the candidate wasn't quite ready, but now I have no reservations at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
144. Support - No red flags from their last 6 months, and if anyone's looking back further than that then you may want to find something else to do with your time. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
145. Support what is at this point a forgone conclusion. There's plenty enough folks supporting already who I have confidence would have found anything worrisome if something worrisome were there to be found. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
146. Support an obviously qualified candidate. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
147. Support per the noms and per my nomination of his previous RfA. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
148. Support we need good moppers who recognize there are issues with AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
149. Support Since last time, this user has shown much improvement. Impressive answers to the questions, some sensible nominators and many good edits make the candidate seem perfectly qualified to the mop. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) 21:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
150. Support No concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
151. Support as per nominators. Looks good. Daphne Lantier 23:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
152. Support per noms. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
153. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
154. Support Anarchyte catalysing adminship. MLA (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
155. Support A level-headed and active WP user with sufficient experience. Giving him the admin rights so he can do additional tasks will benefit the project. Dead Mary (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
156. Support. Ticks all the boxes.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
157. Support - I'm late to the party, but nonetheless happy to support a very qualified candidate.- MrX 22:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
158. Late, pile-on Support - I see lots of positives, and no negatives. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
159. Support. Better than average candidate. Exceeds any standard for net positive. Should make a fine mop-hand. BusterD (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
160. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 23:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
161. Support No concerns, based on past experiences with the editor and a modest review of contributions, Q&A here, etc. --joe decker^talk 23:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
162. Support. Shock horror, he's not perfect. Well, for the benefit of the opposers just let me say admins don't have to be perfect. They will make mistakes just the same as non admins, but so what, they can rectify them as well. This candidate appears to have the skills necessary for adminship and I fully support. Moriori (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
163. Support--Pile on.Perfect to the finest detail.The opposers fail to make sense.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
164. Support Unquestionably qualified. Great contributor and good demeanor. Has worked on improving since previous run. Also per nominators, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, RickinBaltimore, and North America, among others. Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
165. Support Solid candidate. No significant problems here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
166. Support Seems fine. Samsara 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose According to this editor's contribution history, their very first edit was to add a disambiguation page [2]. Subsequent edits show a familiarity with wiki syntax of an experienced editor. This just doesn't fit with their answer to my question. So sorry my spidy sense tells me oppose at this time. WCM_email 14:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So, to my understanding, you are opposing because they did a bit of reading and maybe followed the style of others? What kind of bullshit is that? And even if he were a sock, so what? He contributed well enough to Wikipedia, and all we need is a crat to demote him. The risk of him being a sockpuppet is significantly outweighed by the likelihood that he is a good editor. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One of my first edits was to award another editor a barnstar regarding a dispute that I followed before my registration. It's certainly possible to accumulate a good amount of knowledge on Wikipedia's processes before starting to edit. GAB^gab 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

[3] GeneralizationsAreBad You awarded a barnstar after being here a couple of months. It is certainly possible to accumulate a good amount of knowledge, I certainly did whilst editing as an IP before I registered an account. However, the candidate didn't say anything of the sort, so not being happy with their answer I felt I had to oppose. I may still change my mind if he chooses to amplify his answer to my satisfaction. WCM_email 18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I must be a terrible admin, because my 3rd edit, which I made exactly 6 years ago on this day, I made was to ask for the confirmed permission to edit through protection, understanding what protection is.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to the question "Have you ever edited using another username", the candidate responded with that this was the only account they had used ever. That doesn't mean they hadn't edited as an IP before. From the candidate's first rfA they were asked if they had edited before registering with their account, and the response was yes they had edited as an IP for a while before creating the account. So there definitely was a familiarity and some experience before creating the account. I think perhaps maybe the way your questions phrase specifically asking if they used another username, didn't get you all the information you needed. Or Maybe I'm mistaken and the answer(s) still don't satisfy you. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No that pretty much sorted it for me, thanks for pointing that out. Was there any need for the final comment? WCM_email 22:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you knew about the question from the first rfA or not. If you already did know then my reply wouldn't really help if you already opposed knowing about it. I see now that that wasn't the case, but I guess the last sentence still wasn't needed as it would be clarified if you knew in any response either way. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That probably means he edited as an IP, or he did some reading beforehand. Where's the problem? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose couldn´t find anything interesting in his history that other users don´t make also. Shall everybody nominated admin, therefore? So there´ll be 500,000 admins and no normal users anymore.

b.rgds I'm so tired (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC) User:Tonton Bernardo

(replies from other participants moved to talk page)

Good evening Tonton Bernardo. I'm the person who's being nominated here, and while it's normally a bad idea to respond to !voters, I feel like I need to here in hopes that it lowers the tension. I respect your opinion and if you believe I shouldn't be an admin then that's your decision. People may disagree, but that's just part and parcel of contributing on an RfA. What I don't respect, and what many other's don't, is how you've responded the people that have disagreed with you. Calling someone a Nazi or North-Korean is downright unacceptable, and falls under the no personal attacks policy. I don't expect you to retract or change your vote, but I genuinely want you to look at what you've written and ask yourself whether it was called for. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Tonton Bernardo has been "indefinitely topic banned from participating in any active requests for adminship and requests for bureaucratship effective immediately" per this discussion on AN/I Consequently, I have struck out and un-counted his "oppose" vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2#Oppose from Tonton Bernardo. The closing bureaucrat will review Tonton Bernardo's contribution along with recent history and determine what action, if any, may be required. –xeno^talk 12:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose on the basis that (1) an editor content to create an article on the basis of nothing more than a TripAdvisor page (and then, pointedly, walk away from it and later proffer the lame excuse, "I can't read German") has not even begun to grasp what matters here; and (2) the editor appears to be mostly interested in gaming. Anarchyte appears to have mastered most (if not all) of the technical and procedural niceties of WP's arcane administration and has an admirably polite demeanour but can we do no better? sirlanz 01:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   So to my understanding, you're opposing simply because the nominee created an article based off a TripAdvisor page, and they're interested in gaming? I was unable to find anything about "walking away" because they couldn't read German, and what's wrong with being interested in gaming? Why does it affect your opinion of the nominee? SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   If you're opposing based on actions that took place more than 6 months ago, then you're doing it wrong. That article was created in April 2016 - do people really think that's a sensible approach to take, going back that far just for the sake of nitpicking? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   That's not correct. All actions throughout someone's time as an editor are important, but for older ones, if it's felt that there was a lapse of judgement or a matter of inexperience, the question is whether the editor has learned from it and would not repeat the same action now. @Sirlanz: please could you point to which article it is that you're talking about, that was "based off TripAdvisor"? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   Click the "an article" link in his comment. Regards SoWhy 14:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   OK, thanks. Well honestly I don't see anything to worry about there. So Anarchyte created it with a TripAdvisor reference, and then later replaced that ref with a better one. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comments on mine. I see the candidate committed to creating the page with over 7,000 edits under their belt and that the page was created with no valid independent source whatsoever, then left in that condition for two months (and then explains in answer to additional question 14, above, that they "hit a wall" with limited knowledge of German - the wall was there before the page was created). I don't want to be administered by someone who had failed to develop, despite extensive experience to that point, the most rudimentary regard for the most cardinal principle governing WP and who would plough on creating a bare page regardless. 13 of the candidate's 15 most edited pages are gaming articles; the page under discussion is their equal-37th most edited (i.e. quite significant in their history) and with only 15 edits (i.e. light editing even at this high ranking and we can see that the candidate is interested almost exclusively in gaming for all pages edited right down to those with only 6 edits), so the range of experience/interest is extremely narrow. These are simply some facts to think about before casting a vote. sirlanz 18:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   (Extended commentary moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anarchyte_2#Extended_commentary_from_sirlanz.27s_oppose_vote — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose From the GG archive: "Since Kotaku is a controversially bias website towards the GamerGate" - sounds like recycled talking points from an outside effort to influence Wikipedia. Having an admin that has been involved in such things will not benefit us. Artw (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   @Artw: I guess it is about the perspective. Some would say he is an editor who knows about his sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   @Artw: At the time wasnt that the consensus position? That Kotaku could only be used as a primary source in the Gamergate article? Do you have the diff? Brustopher (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   Diff here - [4] - as you can see it goes a bit beyond that. Artw (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose per sirlanz. This ongoing incompetence displayed with Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) is just too much to ignore. I opposed last time for similar issues, which is concerning. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   @Chris troutman: I'm a bit confused. How is that incompetence "ongoing"? It predates the last RfA. Do you believe that lapse should prevent them from ever gaining adminship? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   Not to express an opinion on support or oppose but just for information, see Question 14 and the entry's edit history for work on it during this RfA. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   We're really opposing because he wrote a crappy article a long time ago? Who hasn't? He's also written a featured article for fuck's sake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   Not seeing how an article created almost 15 months ago (link) could be considered as "ongoing", particularly since the article preceded the candidates first RfA. If anything, this should be worded as "non-ongoing" relative to the time that has passed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose Still seems to behave in the same obstructive way that I noticed in the previous RfA. For example, I looked at the article about Regent Street, which is mentioned in the opening statements. I noticed the candidate reverting a good faith edit made by an IP editor. This contains details about a name change for a significant portion of the street. This is quite a big deal and the IP editor went into some detail about it on the talk page. The candidate did not engage in discussion nor did they pick up the issue and ensure that it was covered properly in the article. Just blowing off such good faith contributors is contrary to WP:BITE and so the candidate should not be given bigger teeth yet. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   Well I did that as well so by logical extension I like blowing off good faith contributors and should be desysopped. :-( (or, more likely, I'm human and make mistakes that appear obvious in hindsight, as does everyone else). I don't think I saw the talk page discussion until just now, because I tend not to put pages on my watchlist until they have passed GA and I need to ensure they stay that way, and sometimes we just miss conversations we might have been interested in. I've added the content the IP wanted as a footnote, with a source to Westminster CC. I'll furthermore add that I would have done that anyway if somebody had pinged me or dropped a note on my talk page. However, I will say that you didn't improve the article or add this source either. (I think this is going off topic, feel free to continue discussion on my talk page). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   I think you might have committed an ego quoque there, Ritchie333. Samsara 00:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

   I agree with Andrew's sentiment here. WP:BITE is very important IMHO, because like it or not we are seeing dwindling editor numbers, and we don't want to do anything to put off newcomers. In this case, the lines entered by the newbie were accurate but unsourced. I think in that case it is up to more experienced editors to either (a) discuss the issue of sourcing with the newbie and encourage them to look up refs, or (b) find a source yourself and add it in. Without downplaying the importance of WP:CITE, I do also happen to think that removing accurate and easily verifiable information just because it is unsourced should never be done lightly. We'd probably lose half the text in the entire Wiki if we did that. So I second Andrew's advice to Anarchyte here to engage and discuss rather than remove and forget, but I won't be changing my !vote from support. This is a relatively minor matter in someone who is otherwise a massive WP:NETPOSITIVE for the Wiki.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose - while the editor has over two years of activity and seems quite experienced, as someone who has been bitten even recently as an experienced editor, the reversion of good faith IP edits is a concern, and I'm also suspicious that the expansion of the aforementioned Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) article only happening after the RfA started may be evidence of trying to collect hats or otherwise beef up stats. Anarchyte's raw edit count itself is excellent, but a closer look at the stats reveals that most of these edits are automated and outside of article space, which also smells of hat collecting. I am very skeptical of RfA's of anyone newer than myself (having joined in 2014), wondering "what's so great about this new user that makes him worthy of the mop?" and I'm not finding it here, sorry. 65HCA7 14:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   ... so your time required for the mop increases at a 1:1 ratio with each passing day? That seems like a profoundly silly criteria. You're asking for over three years of experience to become an admin. That's not new. Further, hat collecting is bad when an editor isn't competent and tries to obtain hats they aren't able to effectively use. Hat collecting is not inherently bad as a thing unto itself if the editor is competent. It always surprises me how many editors become concerned about those allegedly gaming the system to improve the encyclopedia by making thoughtful and appropriate contributions. What a travesty! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   Furthermore, Anarchyte was told among other things last time that his content creation could do with a bit more work. So he went off and got some articles promoted to GA and FA. Quel horreur! Dastardly hat collecting if ever I saw it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

   How terrible! He reverted a good faith editor, and he even left an edit summary explaining why?! How could he! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

6. Oppose My questions about Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) have been addressed in part but I remain concerned about the issue. I decided to take a deeper look at another article that the nominee has written and selected 2016 Australian school bomb threats. I see what I consider to be a significant BLP violation in that article. An 18 year old suspect who was arrested is named in that article. BLP policy says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." The article states that police released the suspect, without further details. The reference for the suspect's release (low quality Daily Mail) reports that the suspect was not responsible for the bomb threats but instead ran a dark web operation that was used by the actual people who made the threats, and that the suspect was cleared by police and was cooperating with the investigation. The article in its current form may easily create the impression among readers that this named person actually made the threats and was released on some technicality. During my review, I also noticed that a significant percentage of the articles that the nominee has written have been deleted, some written quite recently. Accordingly, I lack confidence that the nominee truly understands the importance of BLP policy and I also lack confidence that the nominee has the skills to assess the notability of a topic before adding an article to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

   The nominee has just removed the name from the article, which I appreciate. However, I do not think that it should have been included in the first place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

General comments

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.