Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amortias

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

Amortias

Final (147/23/10); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 22:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Amortias (talk · contribs) - It's with great pleasure I am able to present Amortias for your consideration for adminship. Amortias has been around for two years or so and through that time has made over 26000 edits to the project.

In amongst those edits are a decent number of well thought through and actioned AIV reports (330 to be exact!). These reports show a real need for the tools, as Amortias primarily focuses on anti-vandalism. Some other supporting statistics include 133 requests for page protection and 71 actioned reports to UAA.

Even though Amortias is a caretaker at heart, they've also created a number of articles such as St Mary and St Peter's Church, Barham and contributed heavily to improving pre-existing pages.

Amortias has also been active recently on the Account Creation tool and OTRS. I hope you can join me today in supporting a fine candidate -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 18:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm very happy to be co-nominating Amortias for adminship. Amortias is a level-headed and productive editor who I think could do a lot of good work if given access to the administrator toolset.

Amortias' prolific anti-vandalism work, Arbcom clerking, and Account Creation tool activity is all of great value to the community, and I found him to be nothing but sensible when working in these areas. He also has an extensive and very red CSD log.

Amortias' primary interests don't lie in content creation or at AfD, and yet I found his contributions in these areas to be more than adequate. He has created and contributed to a number of articles, and his AfD votes are sensible (though per his question answers, his nominations are sometimes less so because of nominations via OTRS). I am not concerned about the presence of an 'admin someday' userbox, as it's clear that Amortias isn't attempting to 'hat collect', but rather is eager to provide help where it is needed - as evidenced by his recent work clearing out the Account Creation backlog - and I see no problem with putting this enthusiasm to work in the admin areas.

I think Amortias is absolutely trustworthy enough to be given the administrator right, and could be an even greater asset with the extra tools. Sam Walton (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Amortias (T)(C) 18:48, 12 February 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 intend to mostly deal with anti-vandalism work and issues around new page patrolling and creation as well as helping out with backlogs where required such as AIV and UAA.

Alongside this I envisage dealing with requests for page protection when dealing with vandalism or edit warring alongside rev-dels for copyright violations and other things that meet the criteria for removal and if required use of the block/unblock functionality.

I have experience of IP networking and would be willing to use this in relation to calculating or performing rangeblocks if required.

I have been closing sections at AN, ANI and recently started closing RFC's so would continue in these areas but with the ability to close and action those that require admin intervention, merges/splits and the likes.

Being able to access deleted revisions would also be helpful when working in the en-help IRC channel and OTRS as there are often requests for help with things that have been deleted for various reasons that so far I have been willing but unable to deal with. Sometimes there isn't an admin readily available who can help with these requests.

As an arbcom clerk there are times when actions requiring the admin toolkit are required such as protecting case pages. Due to the possible perception of COI with arbcom work and enforcing decisions I would plan to steer clear of AE however.

I don't intend to have much involvement with regards to AFD, this isn't an area I find interests me as much as the others areas mentioned above. Most of my work here (to the best of my recollection) is things I've found either through OTRS when we did afd by request or where I have found things during NPP and I don't imagine this would change regardless of the outcome of the RFA.

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

A: My best contributions in my opinion would be the anti-vandalism work. Ensuring (as best as we can) that the encyclopaedia is free of errors, abuse or attack pages and other information not relevant or appropriate to the aim of the project as a whole is the majority of my work directly on site. Alongside this I work on both OTRS ACC and in the en-help channel on IRC. I much prefer helping others to learn and become more confident in doing things. By assisting with these processes I hope that I'm not just giving my time to the project but assisting others in understanding how it works and enabling them to become productive editors as well.

With regards to article content my creation is somewhat limited, I have recently been advised that there is a distinct lack of articles on Suffolk Churches (an area I am familiar with geographically and ecumenically through volunteer work) and have started on a mini-spree of creation, my favourite article would have to be St Mary and St Peter's Church, Barham as my first article, my best article (so far) in terms of level of content and detail would be my most recent(at point of writing) St Andrew's Church, Westhall. There is a list of planned content that I am working on with another contributor in my subpage here. Do I see myself having a long list of GA's or FA's on my user page, probably not, but content creation is creeping up on me and I feel confident in my knowledge of policy and options behind creation.

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 have had various conflicts over my tenure on site, fairly early on I managed to become a target for a prolific sockmaster who created various attack pages about myself and other users. I enjoy dealing with conflict like this as there is a clear line in the sand of this is right this is wrong, I dealt with it as it was; it was someone who had decided to attempt to negatively impact the project and I dealt with it as I would do now. Tag the pages for deletion, report them to an appropriate channel such as ANI/AIV or SPI and continued with what I was doing before. Even if given the bit I would still want oversight of actions where I have become the target so as to reduce the risk of being or running the risk of being considered involved I would however still delete obvious attack pages or material that should be swiftly removed but I would ask for a second set of eyes be it AN or IRC.

I had a brief issue where I received a warning for edit warring early on due to a misinterpretation of the policy on BLP and removal of unsourced content which is probably the biggest conflict I consider myself to have been involved in. I have had run-ins with IPs and other people who have been misusing the site, but they tend to either be not here to contribute or agreement is reached after discussion. I have on occasion decided that the issues being discussed doesn't require continued input from myself at which point I've removed myself from the situation.

I don't tend to get stressed by other users, but if I do find that something is bothering me its either urgent and someone else should be drafted in to help resolve as if I'm not working with a clear head bad decisions can be made, or its not important, I'll take a break come back after I've done something else and re-engage.

---

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.

Additional question from Linguist111

4. A new user (we'll call them "Alice"), in their very first edit, changes the infobox photo at Donald Trump to File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg with no edit summary. An experienced editor (we'll call them "Beatrice"), who has created 50 featured articles, reverts with an edit summary of "rvv" and places {{Uw-vandalism1}} on Alice's talk page. Without responding to Beatrice, Alice puts the 2015 photo back with no edit summary, and Beatrice reverts again with an ES of "not here for this again" and puts {{Uw-vandalism2}} on Alice's talk page. Alice reverts again with no edit summary and without responding to the warnings; Beatrice reverts a third time with an ES of "CAN'T YOU FUCKING SEE WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PHOTO???" (indicating the hidden text which says not to change the photo without consensus) and puts {{Uw-vandalism4}} on Alice's talk page. When Alice repeats her action again, Beatrice reverts a fourth time and reports Alice to AIV with "vandalism after final warning; actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account." You are the first administrator to see the report. What actions do you take?

A: The edits aren't vandalism so shouldn't be reported to AIV as such it wouldn't be eligible to be actioned there. I'd remove it from AIV as not vandalism. Both editors should be pointed to the talk page to gain consensus on the change (or lack of change depending on outcome) as this is what is suggested by the hidden text, the new user may not be aware of either the hidden text or how to raise a discussion on the talk page so guidance on this should be given. It would be worth also advising both editors (not through templates otherwise the new user would be seeing nothing but a wall of warning messages and you shouldn't template established editors where possible) about 3RR as they are edit-warring as it doesn't require 3 reverts. If needs be start the talk page section myself to encourage take up of it. Stick the page on my watch list and monitor. If the changes continue without discussion then options would include blocking one or both editors for edit warring or locking the page to prevent the changes being manifested. If consensus isn't able to be formed about the image then options such as a third opinion (unlikely in this instance) or an RFC would be available. Blocking people should be the last resort if other viable options haven't been tried first. Both users should also be advised of the current discretionary sanctions in place The use of language by Beatrice may also want a gentle reminder per the civility policy, for all we know Alice could be a non-native English speaker, unaware of the hidden text or unaware of the guidance otherwise and shouldn't expect a rather hostile response to what could be a simple lack of understanding on how the encyclopaedia works. Amortias (T)(C) 19:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Spartaz

5. Your first edit was to join the guild of copy editors. That is too obscure for a genuine noob. What was your previous account?

A:I have no previous accounts. There is another account that edits from this address that has been disclosed to the arbitration committee but it is not operated by myself if you wish to point them to this section they have my blessing to confirm this though I would rather they did not disclose the account name as the work I do here does tend to make me a target and I don't want that to become anyone else's problem. I have previously carried out copy-editing and other similar tasks on other wikis including a wiki hosted internally at my work that I am part of the team responsible for maintaining. I was advised (per my userpage message) that this was a good place to learn to evaluate others work while studying for teaching qualifications and decided to find something that interested me. At the time this was copy-editing but I have found a more comfortable niche with anti-vandalism work.Amortias (T)(C) 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I can confirm that Amortias has declared to the committee that he shares an IP address with another editor, and that it is not an undisclosed former or present alternate account. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Glrx

6. What is the story behind Adolf Dassler being quickly tagged as a hoax by you?

A: That was a misread on my part, the article popped up on the edit filter log as [1], if I recall correctly I misread the edit filter line (probably with one above or below it) as new article, the change (which I was interpreting as a new article) read like a hoax, it was reverted by another editor and I didn't get edit conflicted while tagging. Realised my mistake when the page reloaded and undid my own tag. Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

7. Amortias, your percentage of article edits (8,434 out of 26,992, or 35.5%) is rather low, while your edits to User talk pages is high (10,009, or 42.5%). I'm an editor who's concerned that we appoint admins who understand the problems and needs of content contributors, so this concerns me. I believe I know the answer to this, but I'd like to hear your explanation for why your percentage of content work is low, and your user talk page contributions are high. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A:The low article to talkpage ratio is mostly down to antivandalism, discussion, answering {{helpme}} and other gnomish work. If I tag something as unsourced or another issue and someone queries that it may lead to 4-5 edits around that question that would have an impact against only one article edit (this would be worse if it doesn't take into account deleted page edits such as those I've tagged for speedy). I'm not sure how much of an impact arbitration work would have had an effect on this as I haven't been doing it as long as some editors. Every time I advise on an issue with evidence/statement length, removal or amendment of evidence this again would have no corresponding article space edit and further push the statistics in one direction. The articles I have created tend to be done in very few edits to start with as I tend to draft them off-line in a text editor and then copy them in rather than doing a bit and preview/save, even so this wouldn't generate a massive swing towards article edits as this isn't my main area of interest (though it has increased now I've found a topic that I know where to research on and feel comfortable writing about).

With regards to knowledge and problems faced by content creators I have spent (and still do) spend time assisting editors in the en-help irc channel where I have to be able to advise on why this article hasn't been accepted, what people need to do to improve an articles chance of being accepted and the processes behind it, I tend to try to get others to carry out the changes themselves as it enables them to carry out these changes in future. Amortias (T)(C) 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply, I appreciate it. P.S. My observation is that an editor's content work tends to decrease once they start adminning. I have no problem with that: they're doing other things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from SwiftyPeep

8. Would you be willing to put yourself up on Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall?

A: I would be but am not sure yet what my process/terms for this would be, I would imagine it would be something along the lines of if X number of these people advised I might want to check then I'd imagine putting some form of vote/opinion gathering together. I'd not be willing to just open for recall at anyone's request as this would be open to abuse and I could get people trying to recall me every day/week/month, but if there were enough editors whose opinions on the matter at hand are uninvolved and able to explain what I did wrong that was that bad that it should lead to what is basically a no-confidence vote then I would consider it. If you would like more details on what the terms would be I can attempt to knock something together but it may take a few days to advise on a process I would be happy with. Amortias (T)(C) 11:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, it is much appreciated. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Feminist

9. Here's the infamous UAA question.

• 192,168,8,1
• Amoritas
• Democratic party consultant
• For me, the issue of feminism is just not an interesting concept. I’m more interested in, you know, SpaceX and Tesla, what’s going to happen with our intergalactic possibilities. Whenever people bring up feminism, I’m like, god. I’m just not really that interested.
• IsisDriver
• JamesBayCanada
• Qantas787
• 😨
• Requested moves
• UnbornLivesMatter
• WikiStewardess

A:

• 192,168,8,1

Block per UPOL with a username block advising to change as it appears to be trying to look like an IP address

• Amoritas

I'd hope the anti-spoof would have caught this one, I wouldn't touch this one unless it was actively disrupting the project and it needed an urgent block, if it is block it to stop the disruption. If its disruptive a standard block would suffice. If it's not disrupting the project I'd get someone else to review as it would fall foul of UPOL as well

• Democratic party consultant

As is I'd leave this as it doesn't appear to fall foul of any policy, keep an eye on edits in case it is a promotional account which can be dealt with as and when.

• For me, the issue of feminism is just not an interesting concept. I’m more interested in, you know, SpaceX and Tesla, what’s going to happen with our intergalactic possibilities. Whenever people bring up feminism, I’m like, god. I’m just not really that interested.

Assuming not being disruptive nothing to do here, policy advises the length of a username is not significant grounds to block on its own. Maybe suggest they don't use the entire name as their signature but pipe it down to something more user friendly, I'd also be surprised as I imagine this would be more than the 85 bytes technical limit.

• IsisDriver

Too similar to Image_and_Scanner_Interface_Specification so seems possible is a shared account, username block with option for name change, the link to ISIS is possible but unproven.

• JamesBayCanada

Refers to an area so would block as implying shared use.

• You're going to have to block Northamerica1000 then...79.73.69.6 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Qantas787

Nothing to do at the moment, could just be a fan of the particular plane, in the same way wouldn't block English WW2 Spitfire. If its promotional or coi it can be reported to an appropriate board for that.

• 😨

Depending on how it was created I would have expected the Account creationn process to prohibit this - Without knowing the exact coding used to enter this particular image. Its also unlikely they would be able to create user or talk pages for themselves per this restriction.

• Requested moves

Username block, intentional or otherwise would be representative of a role account working as Requested Moves, similar to User:Oversight or User:Arbcom, unless its been created specifically for this purpose in an approved manner.

• UnbornLivesMatter

Nothing to do here yet but might be at risk of POV or COI editing, monitor and deal with if/when necessary. It's possible its a shared account due to the protest (for lack of a better description) statement but it doesn't seem to represent a specific organisation that would push it over the shared account line.

• WikiStewardess

Too close to Steward for my liking so would username block.

Amortias (T)(C) 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Linguist111

10. Sorry to be a bother, but I also have a UAA question. You see these usernames, none of them have edited:

• FightingAgainstSupremeGenghisKhanTheLTA
• WikipediaLogOut
• MillyDowlerofWalton-on-Thames
• MyNewAccount38
• IDislikeTracyBeaker
• KarenMatthews

A:

• FightingAgainstSupremeGenghisKhanTheLTA

I'd be suspicious this is possibly an account linked to the LTA itself. Its disruptive as a username implying your here to fight against another user (blocked sock or otherwise) still seems disruptive especially considering AGF. Might want to request an SPI on this one depending on how stale the other accounts are.

• WikipediaLogOut

Misleading username especially if they have a standard signature, clicking on a link with log out may lead inexperienced users to believe they have logged out when they haven't. Block with option to rename.

• MillyDowlerofWalton-on-Thames

Poor taste perhaps but not a living (or recently deceased) person so impersonation wouldn't apply. Potentially offensive to some editors so maybe explain why it may appear inappropriate and suggest a rename. Nothing enforceable though.

• MyNewAccount38

Could be a clean start, advise if is the case to follow guidance at WP:CLEANSTART and suggest that the name might lead people to think they were a sock so consider renaming but nothing actionable.

• IDislikeTracyBeaker

Watch for COI or NPOV issues but nothing actionable here.

• KarenMatthews

Block per WP:Impersonation, refer to OTRS for confirmation of ID.

Amortias (T)(C) 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Becky Sayles

11. An editor below has pointed out "You quote so many internal WP shortcuts in your first AfD contributions". In your answer to question 5 you wrote: "I have previously carried out copy-editing and other similar tasks on other wikis including a wiki hosted internally at my work that I am part of the team responsible for maintaining". 3-5 days after creating your account, in AFDS you used links to WP:SOAP, WP:NEO, WP:COS and WP:Notability, WP:SPA and WP:NOTE, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:GNG, WP:GNG and WP:SPA, noteability, notability, notability guidelines, WP:NOTE, notability, notability, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. It may seem implausible that a new user would appropriately use wiki markup and shortcuts and understand/apply multiple underlying policies in such a short time. But someone with relevant prior experience might be able to do so. Can you please clarify/expand on the nature and duration of your previous wiki experience and wiki maintenance at work?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A:

The organisation I work for has its own internal wiki used for storing information, helpguides/faq's etc, this uses the mediawiki software and I had some experience of working on this for 6 months or so before moving teams five years ago so was aware (but rather rusty) on the methods for linking and piping links and was able to find the information on-wiki to bring myself back up to speed with this fairly quickly. I have also used and am a member of other wikis for specific gaming communities which I have used for several years now on an occasional basis where I have picked up some other experience. With regards to the maintenance this included tasks such as fixing typos formatting errors broken links (internal and external) and other general copyediting as well as occasional file uploading. With regards to policy and other knowledge all wikis tend to have varying policies but the pickup of policy on-wiki was mostly a case of reviewing what others had used in similar locations and seeing what fitted, I'm pretty sure I may have been policy-based filibustering (unintentionally) on my early AFD attempts as I was not fully aware of the policy and how it should be used to come to a consensus as none of the other wiki's I have used have such a policy. Amortias (T)(C) 12:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify I moved back into the same team who now manages the internal wiki (as mentioned earlier) around two years ago but there is less work being done on site as we are moving over to an alternate platform for hosting. Amortias (T)(C) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias, in your early AfD contributions you correctly quote many specific (often not easy to understand and interpret) en-wiki notability related shortcuts but at the same time you sign your edit summaries with four tildes. Sorry but to me it looks that it was your intention to look like a newbie. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

12. The account name Amortias has a nice ring to it. What does it mean, please? Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A:The name was generated by a random name generator on a MMORPG several years ago for one of the characters I was playing at the time. The name I had planned to register here which I use more widely on the internet (also my main character in the MMORPG in question) with was taken so I went to a backup. Depending on which translation software you use depends on what answer you get to the question, I've seen variations between "Love Aunts" to "Love thanks" and all sorts of weird combinations depending where and if you put a space in it anywhere. Amortias (T)(C) 12:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Coffee

13. You state that you had experience with MediaWiki prior to creating an account here (to explain your initial edits); if that's so, why did you continuously put four tildes into your edit summaries?

A:My first uses of the Mediawiki software was on a wiki where it was used primarily as an information store and there was next to no talk page use. I don't believe I used it at all in my role at work as there was no discussion over changes, the relevant department/person e-mailed going "X has changed" and we changed it.

To the best of my recollection I interpreted "sign your posts" as just that, I posted an update and the edit summary seemed like the appropriate place to sign without my signature appearing in the article. Amortias (T)(C) 05:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Jkudlick

14. An admin is expected to have a complete understanding of the intentions and consensus surrounding notability guidelines. Could you explain your interpretation of WP:NSEASONS which caused you to believe 2007 Columbus Crew season was not eligible for its own article and believed redirection was preferable to improvement?

A:My interpretation of WP:NSEASONS in this instance was that the page in question was purely listing statistics, it is suggested (not required) that these are redirected to the team page, as such I redirected it. I was reverted and the suggestion given was to take it to WP:AFD and I did. Was consensus against me, yes. So I reconsidered my interpretation of the particular suggestion. Was it a mistake to nominate it in the first instance possibly, but will I have learnt from it, yes I hope so. Amortias (T)(C) 05:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Smartyllama

15. I have some username questions as well. You come across the following new usernames, none of whom have edited yet. What do you do?

• Left Sock of Gogo Dodo
• 4101 Crain Highway Bowie MD 20716
• CBS2DC
• Hot Springs Georgia Hilton
• WKQE-TV
• Ko ahau he karetao tōkena
• Jeg vil dræbe administratorerne

A:

• Left Sock of Gogo Dodo

Block for impersonation of existing user.

• 4101 Crain Highway Bowie MD 20716

Nothing yet, monitor though as there is a notable organisation at that address, at most give them guidance on COI due to the username and explain why doing so.

• CBS2DC

Cant find anything actionable with regards to this one.

• Hot Springs Georgia Hilton

I'd wait and see on this one, I can find a Hilton Hot Springs Hotel but there's not enough to link it for me as its not in Georgia. Quite possibly someone from a location called Hot Springs called Georgia Hilton.

• WKQE-TV

Nothing for now, possibly a shared username if it refereed to a company or TV Channel but cant find one that exists with this name.

• Ko ahau he karetao tōkena

Block, labelling yourself as a sockpuppet is disruptive because you either are or people are going to waste time making sure you aren't.

• Jeg vil dræbe administratorerne

Block, advising you are going to kill the administrators is more disruptive than saying your a sock, if they had started editing by the time I got round to reviewing it their edits would definitely want review in-case anything needed sending to emergency@

Amortias (T)(C) 23:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Coffee

16. In your reply to Q5, where you were asked why your first edit was to join WP:GOCE, you stated "I was advised (per my userpage message) that this was a good place to learn to evaluate others work". As it couldn't have been this account, since the first message to your userpage came 2 hours after your first edit... on what user account did you receive that advice?

A:Sorry might not have been clear on this, at the top of my userpage is a brief statement regarding how it was first suggested I looked around here. I was studying at the time and the course tutor advised that due to the ever changing state of content here it provided an opportunity to evaluate what is basically a work in progress. Part of the course involved evaluating the work of participants on the course I would be teaching, providing them feedback on the work and suggestions on what might want improving. I cant recall if I was actively searching for something such as the GOCE either on here, on Google or even if I was pointed in that direction or happened upon it by chance but it seemed like the best fit for what I was looking for. Its possible that I took it as part of a group that required a sign up to participate with (as things often do in the real world) but it looked like the sort of project that would be helpful for what I was looking (at that time) to use the site for. Amortias (T)(C) 15:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

• Edit stats on talk page. --QEDK (愛) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support – Yay! First support! The noms above from experienced editors that are also admins are enough to persuade me to strongly support and the opposes are unconvincing. J947 19:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - After evaluating the candidate's answers to questions and overall experience with Wikipedia, I have come to the conclusion that they'd make good use of the mop. --TL22 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as per my nomination -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 19:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   How hypocritical! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Support Everything I've seen so far looks good. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
5. Support per my co-nom. Sam Walton (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
6. Another "thought he was already" support. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
7. Strong support - I've always been a big fan of Amortias and I have absolutely no doubt that he could put the extra tools to good use. This RfA is painfully overdue! Swarm ♠ 19:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Excellently qualified candidate. --Joshualouie711^talk 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
9. Support per both noms. I don't see any glaring issues. Net-positive for the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
10. Support – When I first arrived I interacted a bit with the candidate, mostly on IRC, and they gave me the impression they were already an admin based on their extensive knowledge. No complaints here. Penskins (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
11. Support - Amortias seems to be very qualified for the job, and seeing their response to the AIV example given above gives me confidence that this user would be a good administrator. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
12. Support - Always helpful at OTRS. Net positive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
13. Support Great answers so far, no concerns. Add me to the tally of those on the 'already thought they were an admin' list. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
14. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

    Support: (edit conflict) No issues overall. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC) (Moved to neutral)

15. Support per nom(s) and interactions with the user. I agree this is quite overdue! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
16. Support - Clear net positive to the project. The opposes are supremely unconvincing. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
17. Support (edit conflict × 2) Amortias is a knowledgeable contributor with experience doing content and anti-vandalism work. I have seen their judgement and trust them to not break the wiki. It's always good to have more anti-vandalism admins, and the two oppose !votes hold no weight with me. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

    Sorry to bang this stick again, but half the time when I visit WP:AIV it is empty or can be cleared quickly (I just looked now and addressed everything in under two minutes). Whereas CAT:CSD is perma-backlogged. And ask The Rambling Man about the backlog at WP:ERRORS sometime. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    It's hardly necessary to ask, since TRM periodically complains about it on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    I think Ritchie means that you need to ask for admins to be aware of this problem. While you consider it to be trivial and irrelevant, millions of others don't. And you don't need to keep chasing the dragon here, let it go. I'm looking for a solution, you're not interested, but stop diverting others from something that may help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    @Ritchie333: I do not remember where and who but someone had made the argument elsewhere that yes, the AIV backlog is small/inexistent and/or easy to take care of, but the response time of admins there is crucial. A single vandal on the sprawl will cause, over their short lifetime, a number of problems proportional to their time-before-block; whereas on other areas (e.g. AfD) things can go unattended for a week without major disruption. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

18. Support Is a good candidate for the tools. They definitely are a net positive to the project. This is the kind of editor we need as an administrator. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
19. Support A solid editor who will undoubtedly be a net positive to the project with the tools. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
20. Support, do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
21. Support Unless anyone can find good reasons to oppose, then the RfA should go through..I support. 3 years editing is long enough in my book. SethWhales ^talk 21:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
22. Support Overdue, opposes are unconvincing/ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
23. Suport. Moved from Oppose. See my rationale here (or at this permalink).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
24. Support, promising candidate with a good track record. GAB^gab 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
25. Strong Support, Good answers to questions, no concerns. A solid editor who will benefit from admin tools. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 21:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
26. Support Always happy to get behind a fellow vandalism patroller.Triptothecottage (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
27. Support A good candidate for adminship. FITINDIA (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
28. Yes! WP:Thought They Were One Already indeed! I know Amortias from IRC and they are a friendly and competent user from my observations. Their work in the anti-vandalism field brings me great joy and the only entries in the block log were accidental. As of this writing the one oppose !vote is rather bizarre and seems to show a lack of good faith. Indeed we must be wary of sockpuppets but we must also refrain from shooting down competent users. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

    I share in Ivanvector's concerns about the candidate's grammar, although it is not enough to change my !vote singlehandedly. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

29. Support because I see no reason not to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
30. Support: Another member of the "do you mean they're not already an admin?" club who I'm happy to support. --Drmargi (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
31. Support - No issues here. Good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
32. Support no issues, and very good answers to the questions. Amortis has just the sort of Wikipedia experience we need for an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
33. Support, yes, definitely, a very easy decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
34. Support - candidate will be able to make good use of the extra buttons. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
35. Support A very good candidate. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
36. Support Long overdue. Miniapolis 23:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Looks good to me. Qaei ☎ 00:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
38. Support Answers to questions are very admin-worthy. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
39. Support Per noms and my own interactions with Amortias, which have been nothing but positive. He will be a fine admin — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
40. Support: Clear net positive and no glaring issues. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
41. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
42. Support - seems like a sensible person, even if they are overly-involved in the bureaucratic part of the project. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
43. Support - Amortias has a fantastic record and is active in many different parts of the project. He will make a great admin! -- Dane ^talk 03:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
44. Support - Absolutely, not even a second thought. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
45. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    On the other hand, "Why?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

46. Support. Indeed, I don't see why not. Double sharp (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
47. Support. Seems reasonable. Twitbookspacetube 04:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
48. Support Per noms and support from numerous experienced admins I'm familiar with and whose judgement I trust. lNeverCry 05:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
49. Support Absolutely, another editor who should already be an admin! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
50. Support, why not? Graham87 06:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
51. Strong support - With pleasure. Amortias is one of the best qualified editors to be granted the additional responsibilities that come with being an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
52. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
53. Support - I don't weigh in on a lot of RfAs, but Amortias would be such an obvious net positive. I do a bit of anti-vandal work myself and keep seeing Amortias' name there; I have nothing but respect for their judgment and good sense. They serve as an OTRS volunteer and an arbitration clerk (with no issues that I am aware of); while those are not the same as being an admin, they are positions of trust and I believe there's absolutely no reason not to trust Amortias with the mop as well. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
54. Support - You're in the top 2 pillars of my RfA criteria, which means you meet my criteria, at least. Linguist^talk|contribs 10:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
55. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
56. Support - I'm happy to support this user's nomination. ComplexParadigm • Talk 10:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
57. Support - my notes say "has been asked about adminship several times, only to falter when it comes to content creation. Mainspace edits are just about on an acceptable level, but they seem to be too much of a 'greasy pole' climber and spends a lot of time clerking at Arbcom, will be ample reasons to oppose, I think" so I didn't approach them directly for a nomination. Also see related conversation at User talk:Amortias/Archives/2015/July. Looking through past conversations, I see there was concern about questionable AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Publishing Group (2nd nomination) but that's too long ago to be of interest anymore. In summary, I don't think Amoritas will use the tools very often, but he has shown the right level of aptitude, which is what counts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    Ritchie, your comment confuses me. Why should we give the tools to someone who won't use them very often? If we are in the middle of a Great Admin Drought, as many people claim, don't we want to give the tools to people who will actively use them to benefit the community and the encyclopedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    Just one net positive admin action makes it worthwhile. Even you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    No, in fact I don't know that, and, in fact, I entirely disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    It's a free country, disagreement is allowed (provided you don't bring up "alternative facts"), but in my case I don't think a lack of interest in using the toolset often should be an impediment. I would rather have somebody who is cautious and only uses the administrator toolset occasionally and with diligence, than somebody who goes ballistic with the blocking button immediately on receiving the mop (naming no names, but have a look at who I opposed last year as a clue). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

58. Support - we need more people like Amortias possessing mops. Best of luck. Patient Zero^talk 12:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
59. Support – no concerns at all here. And I suspect their primary use of the tools will be in relation to duties like ArbCom clerking, and watching AIV, which strikes me as a legitimate need for access to the tools. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
60. Support Always a good need for vandal fighters, and I don't see any reason to oppose. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
61. Support - Sounds like a good move, and the nomination by two parties seems to reflect that. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
62. Support solid candidate who will be a net positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
63. Support obviously. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
64. Support. In my experience, when an editor is so competent that they're accused of sockpuppetry and they don't respond negatively to such a bad-faith accusation, they'll make a good admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
65. Support. Seems like they can be trusted. [2] and [3] are sufficient examples of articles that the candidate has taken the lead on creating content. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
66. Support - clearly deserving and more than competent enough. Best of luck! DrStrauss talk 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
67. Support. I can't find anything in the history that worries me. Go for it and good luck. Yintan  17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
68. Support - Clearly a competent and constructive editor. I firmly believe that they can and will use the tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Waggie (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
69. Support, no red flags. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
70. Slightly Support – While they seem to be trustworthy, the fact that they first joined the guild of copy editors raises flags. However, their responses to other questions, as well as their experience, makes me support them. Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
71. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
72. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
73. Support I am convinced by both the nomination and the answers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
74. Support Looks OK to me. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
75. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
76. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
77. Support super-strong-agree-with-Brad vote, because those who oppose have clearly forgotten that one net positive admin action makes this a no-brainer. A couple of them should remember what it's like before they had the mop. This is a trustworthy candidate and if anything goes super wrong, we simply hit rollback/nuke and get the flag removed. I don't believe, in a million years, that will be necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    Oh, TRM, don't be so silly. You, of all people, should know how hard to is to get someone desysopped. Until we have term limits or a community-based desysopping process, giving someone the tools is tantamount to giving them power for life, if they wish it. It's not the spectacular failures that we need to be concerned about, it's the incompetent or malicious ones (which I am not at all saying applies in this case. It would just be nice if some people took RfA a little more seriously than their canned "Why not"-type !votes indicate - and Brad, you're one of my Wiki-heroes, but I'm talking to you here. Posting "Fully qualified candidate" on RfA after RfA is hardly an indication to me that you're doing proper due diligence on these nominations.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    Well, contrawise; in any case, it's good to see a support !vote receive the same level of questioning, or scrutiny, that oppose !votes get and have generally got for the last six months or so. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 22:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    "Fully qualified candidate" (or some variation of it) is my standard wording for "I have reviewed the candidate's record and all the input thus far on the page, and I am confident he/she will do a good job as an administrator." When I have more to say I will say it, but where I am supporter #78, for example, sometimes all the important points have already been made. And as it happens, I can think of few, if any, RfA candidates whom I've supported who later proved to be "incompetent or malicious". (That is not an invitation to turn this thread into a performance review of every administrator I ever !voted for.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    I'm more than happy to take your word that that is what "Fully qualified candidate" means. Perhaps others might extend the same courtesy to those who oppose candidates after a similar review? (And no, I have no plan to troll through your RfAs.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    It would just be nice {{|Beyond My Ken}}, if some people took RfA a little more seriously and wouldn't annoy the process with unnecessary comments everywhere of the kind that deliberately (it would appear) maintain the venue as the cesspit it's reputed for being. Perhaps we would then begin to get admins of the quality you demand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    To quote an admin below: "Bollocks". Oppose !voters are put through the ringer regularly, as if by not supporting the candidate they are actively attempting to hurt Wikipedia in some way. It's only fair that support !votes occasionally be called on to justify their comments as well -- and, BTW, I really have not decided whether to support or oppose - so don't you think it might be helpful to me (or others on the fence) to hear some real arguments for and against to help us decide, instead of "Yay! First support" or "Why not"? What the hell do comments like those do to further an evaluation of the nominee? Cesspit? Far from it. What it is, or what it should be, is a crucible to test the merits of the candidate. After all, it's the first (and in most cases the last) chance we get to determine who the guardians of Wikipedia are. Perhaps to you that's not important, but I take it rather seriously, and would like people to put into it at least as much thought as they put into their editing disputes about hyphens or an RfC about whether "Jr." should get a comma or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    Oh, BMK, don't be so silly. Stop trolling my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

78. Support (Edit conflict) Nomination statement and answers to questions look good. Hard to complain about a dedicated anti-vandal. First edits aren't a basis for suspicion, especially if you spent some time looking around first before editing anything. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
79. Support - Fully qualified candidate. I always respect Mkativerata's votes on RfA but in this case I believe he may be pleasantly surprised with Amortias. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
80. Support Based on the noms, the support votes above and my view that we need more vandalism fighters and care-takers, as long as they've got SOME article creation and article improvement experience. I find the fact that the candidate is an Arb clerk and an OTRS volunteer to be additional reasons to trust the candidate with the tools. Tose are responsible positions and I see no persuasive criticism that their work in these areas is deficient. Indeed, the candidate's work there seems, by repute, exemplary. (I have no personal experience with them at ARBCOM and have no knowledge base about OTRS.) I understand the oppose votes based on the editors' concerns that this is a former editor with a new name, but I do not share their concerns. I find the candidate's explanation persuasive and not at al "trite". David in DC (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    Thank you, that's exactly the kind of comment I find helpful in feeling my way to a decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

81. Support because the first two oppose votes are complete bollocks. It is perfectly possible to edit as an IP in a completely non-socking way and learn your way around before signing up. This is what I did. These are opposes worthy of Andrew Davidson. BethNaught (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    I presume you employ "worthy" ironically? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

    Beth: I haven't been following your work closely, but I tend to think that you are a pretty good admin, but, really, anyone who would !vote "support" not because of the quality of the nominee, but because they thought the opposes were "bollocks" is not taking RfA seriously enough. This is not tit-for-tat in the schoolyard playground, this is supposed to be a !vote based on our evaluations of the merits of the nominee, not the merits of the opposers arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

82. Support. Everything looks good to me. I think that the candidate is smart and articulate, and has already been vetted as an Arb clerk (with support above from current Arbs). I like the answer to Q3, and I like the honest admission that he isn't much of a content editor (nothing disqualifying there, because I do see a track record of navigating disputes). I've carefully considered the opposes so far, and I'm still comfortable supporting. By the way, I also want to register my opinion that there are way too many questions about usernames. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
83. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
84. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
85. Support I also thought that A already was an admin. BTW joining the GoCE or any other project is a good idea for one who wants to learn how things are done around here. MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
86. Support reliable, productive, apparently knows the lost art of lurking. Though I'm going to start knocking off a point or two for candidates who respond to those long username questions with anything other than "this is busywork" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
87. Support No question about it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
88. Support – Should be a net benefit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    Support - The opposes are beyond ridiculous and should be ignored entirely!, Anyway this RFA is long overdue! - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Moved to Oppose.

89. Fully qualified candidate. Why not? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
90. Support - Amortias, you once helped me understand a policy that was new to me after I nominated an article for deletion. Thank you. --ZiaLater (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
91. Support—users below raise some interesting points, but there isn't enough substance to make me think the user would be a new negative. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
92. Support indeed. – SJ  06:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
93. Support I'm a bit leery of the minimal content creation, but if they want to fight vandals, ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
94. Support Experienced, Active and deserves sysop. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
95. feminist 07:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
96. Support although on question 9 you missed a prime opportunity to quote Dweller's Sri Lankan cricket team test. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    Support, Though I noticed a few odd things, such as a CSD hoax on the article of the founder of Adidas for some unknown reason (self reverted), everyone makes mistakes, which only proves they are human. The content creation is lackluster, not sure why it is touted in the nomination as it is just a series of stubs, but I'm not one to care so much about content creation in an admin. This seems like a fine candidate to balance a mop on. Decided to change my vote, based on the same reason as Spartaz, and other stuff I've seen in his early edits.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    Support Seems to be a good candidate, I'm new here so I don't know what the criteria is, but based on the responses and discussions I'd say best of luck User:Jimz514 —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    I've taken the liberty of removing this vote. The account was created today, and this is their second edit. (The first was to mark a dead link, and, in fact has now been deleted.) It appears to be someone gaming the system, perhaps per this, as the account was created several hours after the final comment in that thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

97. Support - Allegations regarding previous accounts are, at this point, just that. Evidence presented by Steel and Sam are at least as compelling. Editor shows CLUE, and willingness to learn. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
98. Appears to be a good candidate for adminship, has experience and commonsense, so support. screaming_tiger9 ^(talk) 14:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    Weak support - [Moved to "oppose"] "Weak" because their content work is insufficient for what I'm looking for in an admin. Under 36% in article edits, and behind the superficially adequate 5k pages created, an actual paltry 7 articles created - these are not the signs of a content creator, someone who would be sensitive to the problems and needs of content creators in general. However, as David in DC points out above, the candidate has other attributes to recommend them, such as their OTRS work and their work as an Arbitration clerk. The various other editors who vouch for the candidate's character also weigh in on the "support" side. I am cognizant of, but not entirely convinced by, the charge that the nom had a previous account; if this is true, while it may be an ominous indicator, there are also numerous reasons why an editor would drop one ID and start fresh with another, so I'm willing to give a pass on that issue, whether or not it's true. (I also trust that if it is true, and in some way indicative of a flaw in the candidate's character, that will come out over time, as admins are much more likely than rank-and-file editors to face unusual amounts of pressure, and that tends to highlight character flaws.) For me, the whole thing adds up to a "support", but a "weak support" because of the lack of content work. I wish Amortias the best of luck as a new admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

99. Support - Seems knowledgable in relevant policies, civil, and has sufficient experience in areas where admin tools will be helpful.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
100. Support Not bothered by lack of content - you don't have to be a teacher to work in a school office, or a singer to work a sound-desk. Looks generally sound to me. As to accounts - if this is a ringer, it's been doing a pretty good job. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
101. Support. Amortias does good work around the site, and I think he'll continue doing good work as an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
102. Support. Anti-vandalism and other work good. Edit count makes perfect sense (user talk vs. article) as he is warning editors — Iadmc♫^talk  20:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
103. Support - yes, uh huh..you bet!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
104. Support, seems OK. Andrevan@ 20:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

     Support - Does great work. Never makes it personal. Net plus to the community Sixthy (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

     Indef blocked sock Only 16 edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

105. Support - Great editor.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
106. Support seems like a fine candidate DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
107. Support No red flags. Content creation is not the strongest I've seen (mine wasn't either) but on balance this looks like a solid candidate for the bit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
108. Support The groundswell of support seems to make this nomination a foregone conclusion, so my vote is not needed, but I wanted to chime in anyway. Amortias' impact will clearly be most strongly felt in administrative areas, but since he's not creating articles himself, then it's important to me that his judgment on which articles are notable or not mirrors mine. I reviewed his AfD activity and I while I did see the aforementioned brief hiccup with the Adi Dassler article, for the most part I think he will protect content that should be here, and remove that which should not. He also seems to be willing and able to learn, which will serve him well if he sees consensus that might run counter to an existing policy, that perhaps could be tweaked. Timtempleton (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
109. Support - I've read the concerns about the nominee starting out with edits to the project namespace and some editors expressing concerns about a possible previous account and while I respect those concerns and objections I find the nominees contributions to stand on their own merit. My own first edit was to a WikiProject so its not impossible for a newcomer to find their way behind the scenes and if the user states they have no previous accounts and has a positive contribution history I'm strongly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The answers to the standard questions and those posed by other editors appear through and well though out and the user is helpful and courteous. I have no reason to doubt they will make a fine administrator. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
110. Support - Red flags? Sure. Green flags? More. Reasons to support? All of the above. Reasons to oppose? Unconvincing. Q&A? Already done. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 00:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
111. Support Well qualified editor. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
112. Support The candidate has started AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarkali of Arrah, which I have voted "delete" on. Also, I see in the contribs that Amortias knows the difference between good faith edits and vandalism. He can be trusted with the admin tools. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
113. Support from another member of the "he wasn't one already?" squad. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
114. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log, and no signs of assholery. Vandal fighters need the toolbox, plain and simple and done. Carrite (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
115. Support - The candidate seems qualified and doesn't have any issues for an admin and response to questions well. NgYShung ^huh? 11:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
116. Support (first vote in an RfA) I read the nominations, the questions and answers, and all the oppose votes. It seems Amortias is a hardworking guy. I would personally like to see more of his content edits, maybe even hold off adminship until something like a successful GA nomination, but I think that's me dreaming. In admin-like vandalism fighting he seems to be indeed qualified.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 13:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
117. Support - Good luck. There's usually not much more to say when you're 120th in line of supports. I always read the opposes to see if I've missed something important or what have you that would give me some pause. On this occassion, aside from one or two perfectly valid concerns (in departments I have little experience with so don't weight particularly heavily on me), I found the other objections to be ... well miserable, honestly. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
118. Support Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
119. Support Has the temperament I look for in an admin as shown by their ARB clerking. Some of the opposes are lacking a little good faith that I think should be afforded sans actual evidence. Getting the feeling that this person is a sock or something because of being competent at the beginning of their wiki career is a ludicrous reason to oppose. Opposing for having too little content creation, or for bad grammar or spelling skills, is fair criticism and I hope the candidate takes them to heart if they succeed. Valeince (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
120. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
121. Support - I've seen Amortias around quite a bit, and I have to say I've never been dissatisfied with his work... and I have absolutely no reason to believe that he'll misuse the tools. The opposes ranging from "he did all the things ... just so he could become a rouge admin" (stemming from amatuer detective work), to "he didn't do enough of my favorite things" are both unconvincing and borderline comical. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
122. Support Wikipedia:Thought They Were One Already Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
123. Support I was initially neutral leaning oppose, but I am pleased to see that Amortias is willing to admit when they may have made a mistake and will learn from any errors made. I think Amortias will be a net positive to the admin corps because of this admission of fallibility. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 09:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
124. Support - Qualified. -- œ^™ 10:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
125. Support, although I do share some of the misgivings highlighted by the opposes (the limited content creation and the early edits suggesting a previous account) but, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, I'm prepared to AGF on what happened three years ago - i.e. there does not seem to be a pattern of behaviour that would stop me supporting. – The Bounder (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
126. Support, He seems experienced enough to use those extra buttons. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
127. Support -- Competent candidate with a focus and considerable experience.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 12:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
128. Support, I thought the editor answered the questions well. Certainly a net positive, and I think this editor's adminship will also be a complete positive. I read the discussions about concerns about prior accounts, and I think that the editor is being honest in their answers. Icebob99 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
129. Support after review. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
130. Support I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is the user's first account. It appears that the user had recent experience with Wikipedia when this account was created. But I'm not going along with the aspersions being cast that there's some kind of really problematic behavior being hidden back there. I don't find it credible that a problematic user could simply walk away from an account one day and then log 2 years and 27,000 edits with no evidence of whatever alleged issues might have existed in the first place. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
131. Support: A competent user with good judgement and a willingness to do more work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
132. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 12:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
133. Support: It is true that content creation is a bit thin but I believe that over all the candidate is a net positive! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
134. Support. Basically per HalfGig below, who explains far better than me why the possibility of another account is a non-issue. I agree that the starting edition pattern is strange, and unadequately explained by the answers to Q5-11-13; see in particular Vejvančický's follow-up in Q11 (they seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policy but unfamiliar with the Wiki edition system, unlike what they claim). I do think the candidate is hiding something from us. But my money is on "20-year-old editor that was banned 10 years ago for replacing content of pages by racial slurs" rather than "long term abusing sockpuppet that has come to destroy us"; too many contributions for the latter. I think opposes on that point are based on a nothing to hide argument and will stick in the support column unless someone can come up with a credible reason why someone who made prolific positive contributions should not be trusted with the tools. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
135. Support. While I understand the concerns many of the opposers have, I can not oppose this candidate. Even if he is hiding the name of an old account he used, should he be treated like Hester Prynne for the rest of his wiki life? Many wiki users seem to think so and/or that they have a right to know every misstep a wiki user has ever done. Maybe this candiate has a good reason for doing this, such as having been harassed in real life for his wiki work. For me, this comes down to the fact that for the last 3 years or so this candidate seems to have been an outstanding wiki citizen. Are the opposers free from wiki-sin themselves? Probably not. I feel this candidate will be a large benefit as an admin and if he did in fact (we can't even be sure) commit some wiki-crime in the past, he's served his time in wiki-jail. He's been a fine member of the community for 3 years so I am all for allowing him to help the project even more. HalfGig talk 18:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
136. Support. Solid anti-vandal work; I don't see anything in his answers and history to suggest he would abuse the tools. I am unconvinced by the opposes - particularly the ones based on nothing more that suspicion that he was too fast to understand policy. We all work and learn differently, and I too am a believer in reading the manual before I put my toes in the water.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
137. Support. Amortias is always helpful, and I have firsthand experienced them helping me. I think he will use the tools in the manner they were made for, and will be a great addition to the admin team. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 04:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
138. Support —MBlaze Lightning ^T 08:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
139. Support Looks as though you've made some great edits there, chap. :) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 11:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
140. Support -  LoMS talk 01:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
141. Support I have concerns about indications of excessive deletionist tendencies at AfD, weaknesses in content creation and hints of prior editing. Hints are not solid evidence and I find the candidate's explanations acceptable. None of these concerns are significant enough for me to oppose, and the candidate's vandal fighting work is a big plus for me. I am impressed by the support from a number of editors I respect deeply, but then again, I also respect some of those who oppose. I encourage the candidate to take the constructive criticism seriously. It seems pretty clear that this nomination will be approved. Please be the best administrator that you can be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
142. Support. I've enjoyed working with Amortias as an ArbCom clerk over the past years, and I have every confidence he will make a great administrator. I understand the opposes and I don't dismiss them, but I think Amortias will be a net positive. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
143. Support When I first started here one of the first places I contributed in was the guild of copy editing. It was a logical first step as it allowed me to learn the ropes using a ready list of articles needing work that were actively seeking help. Therefore I do not find someone else doing this all that suspicious. So far all we have is vague hand waving about a suspected old account, but no one has provided any evidence of who this may be or abuse. It is not rocket scientist editing here and I am happy to accept that not all newbies jump in head first without reading up a bit. It seems a poor reason to turn away an otherwise very competent candidate. AIRcorn (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
144. Support. I see no reason to think I'll regret adding my support to this process. If the candidate doesn't match every single contributor's personal standard for community trust, well, welcome to the world we live in. I hope the candidate will get better at AfD and trust that under the supervision of the entire contributor base, they will be forced to do so. Net Positive. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
145. Support, I'm not persuaded by opposes comments.--Vituzzu (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
146. Support. We should base our judgements on what we see before us, not on anyone else's recommendations nor on speculation. I've known Amortias for several years and I've seen nothing that gives me great concern for his judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
147. Support per Special:Contributions/Amortias Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose admins have to be trusted. To believe your explanation for instant joining of goce plus some kind of Arbitration declaration is simply a step to far. I'm sorry but your explanation is simply to trite to be credible and I don't believe you haven't been here in a previous existence., Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   To clarify, are you accusing Amortias of being a sockpuppet? If so, which user do you believe the candidate to be a sockpuppet of? --Joshualouie711^talk 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   My understanding of the oppose is that they believe based on their judgement and my answer that I have a previous undisclosed account, this would only be sockpuppetry if I was using the accounts at the same time and I do not believe they are accusing me of this. Amortias (T)(C) 21:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   WP:AGF??? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   For adminship? Don't be so naive. We did this before with an editor who got an Arb to vouch for their previous account that used Otrs as a passport to adminship. It turned out their previous account quit rather than be sanctioned for inserting blp Vios. So don't lecture me to age when something doesn't righ right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Perhaps I have rose colored glasses, but I'd still like to assume the best in people. I respect your opinion, although mine differs. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Some people integrate faster into the behind-the-scenes parts of wiki than others; my third edit was on a WikiProject talk page talking about the assessment class of an article, myself, and my fifth was a request at RFPP that was approved. I'm not overly concerned when a first edit is in an obscure area of the project; sometimes it just happens that way. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   I really see no reason why a bureaucrat should assign any weight to this !vote, which is openly disdainful of AGF (without much of a rationale) and poorly spelled to boot. 2605:6000:E963:6A00:919B:487F:8C2F:1964 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   Oh give me a friggin' break. The nomination is sailing through, and you want bureaucrats to examine how many angels are dancing on Spartaz' AGF pin? Make an account, why don't you, then you can !vote too, instead of posting inane comments such as this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Beyond My Ken: The IP's comment is perfectly rational, there's no need to complain about it. Also remember that IP's are people too. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Platypus: We'll have the agree to disagree (about the IP's remarks, not about IRs being people): I found the IP's remarks to be entirely unhelpful. "Disdainful of AGF and poorly spelled" as a rationale to ignore a vote? Please... Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   Indeed; it is comments like that that ensure anons remain, rightly, disenfranchised from this place. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 05:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Beyond My Ken: I'm unimpressed by your responses to my comment, which appear very strongly to be knee-jerk responses to an anon's comment. I'm aware of the rules governing anons' participation in this area, but everyone has an interest in pointing out strange kinds of reasoning that make RfA worse. "Some kind of arbitration declaration" is an incredibly dismissive and narrow-minded thing to say at someone's RfA. 2605:6000:E963:6A00:919B:487F:8C2F:1964 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   Considering you were complaining about an editor being openly disdainful of AGF, there is a certain irony to your accusation that we made 'knee jerk' reactions to a comment. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Spartaz. Based on reviewing your edits in the first weeks of your participation here I too don't believe that Amortias is your first account and that you were a new editor back in 2014. You quote so many internal WP shortcuts in your first AfD contributions ... I realize that people may be more clever than me but I don't think it's in a capacity of an individual to learn and apply such a broad scale of rules and policies in such a brief time span. I'm sorry but I don't trust you. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Sorry. There is an enormous gap between the current vote count and the evidence that the candidate has sufficiently broad and deep experience to act as an administrator. The nomination statements are extraordinarily thin and there is very little else. For myself I see a small number of underprepared and error-ridden articles created, such as St Martin's Church, Nacton, which is a very recent and quick creation replete with spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as questionable inferences drawn from sources. I also see erroneous use of anti-vandalism tools to revert good edits made by IPs: [4] (Amortias restores incorrect information), [5] (Amortias restores red links). These aren't fatal, any of them, or at least they wouldn't be in a more well-rounded and experienced candidate. But in this case we don't have the countervailing evidence of the candidate getting involved in difficult issues, saying sensible, measured and thoughtful things, creating quality content or demonstrating sound and instinctive understanding of core policies. In light of that the mistakes have to be taken as symptompatic of the candidate's inexperience and the candidate should be presumed unqualified. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Hiya @Mkativerata:! Restoring red links isn't necessarily bad, right? WP:REDDEAL (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   In your mad rush to question my oppose you overlook that the problem I have is not with the restoration of red links per se but the immediate use of automated tools to do so. The IP was probably right, was certainly trying to do the right thing, and shouldn't have been reverted on sight. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Mkativerata: You underestimate me, I actually thought your !vote was quite interesting, and the reason I voted support is because I believe that Amortias has the ability to become a good admin in the future (a willingness to learn), not because I believe he is perfectly qualified at this moment in space and time. I also didn't question your !vote itself, but I was wondering what your stance on red links was. Please note that the page I linked to is only a guideline, it isn't law. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   I have yet to decide on this nomination, but if you think that "Amortias has the ability to become a good admin in the future (a willingness to learn)", perhaps he should run in the future? I have no doubt that every new admin goes through a certain amount of on-the-job training, but shouldn't we be !voting for people who have the ability to become a good admin now, rather than in the future? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Currently he isn't an admin. When he gets a mop he won't be a very good admin at first, or at least not compared to our best admins (no one who starts mopping is immediately very good at it), but after a while he can become what I would consider decent or even better than average. The best admins we have have made mistakes while mopping, and have learned from them. You need to be an admin in order to make those mistakes, and you need to analyze the impact of your decisions over time to truly become one of the best admins we have. Jimbo (for example) is an admin, and he has been for a long time, but he is not very good at it. That is not a problem, he has other strengths. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Fair enough, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose - lack of content-creation contributions. The user has about 5% of actual content-creation and the remaining 95% are entirely revertions and other WP contributions such as draft reviews and user reports. - TheMagnificentist 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   ...Which means that the nominee has a lot of experience working in the areas where administrators are needed. Yes, the foundation of Wikipedia's existence is article content, but that's not where we need administrators. We need administrators where blocks, page protections and deletions are needed. (Wow, this oppose is making me consider moving my "neutral" to "support".) Steel1943 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   Tend to agree with Steel. Administrators are responsible for blocks, page protections and deletions etc. Candidate seems qualified?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Content creation is thin and recent, and explanations concerning early contributions and presence or absence of previous accounts unconvincing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose. AGF is not a shackle to be bound by. I am not concerned about his acquired skill set. I just fail to see how within 48 hours and less than 100 edits the candidate was making dozens of AfD nominations and comments. I also do not understand the reference to prior knowledge from a wiki hosted internally at my work either. Since when was that acceptable? Leaky Caldron 10:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Leaky caldron: not quite following you with the do not understand the reference to prior knowledge from a wiki hosted internally (especially when you first called it a shared account). As I understand it, at Amortias' place of work they installed MediaWiki and Amortias learnt how to use it as part of their job. Does this help clarify? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   That would explain how the candidate knew the software but I think Leaky's comment is more about how the candidate knew our policies and guidelines as well as our abbrevations so quickly to make AfD noms and comments, which cannot be explained by using MW at work. For example, in his first AfD he used WP:SOAP and within three days (here and here) he used WP:COS and Wp:NEO. I have not made up my mind about the candidate yet but I do understand why Leaky and others find it suspicious that a new editor is already using wiki-speak within a few days. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   I don't grok why any of this is regarded as problematic. A newbie who actually bothers to RTFM before jumping in, is praiseworthy rather than suspicious. He was also already familiar with the software. Opposing because the candidate is competent makes no sense. Are we going to start burning people at the stake because they know the difference between "there", "their" and "they're"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   @User:Dodger67; A disingenuous although inventive Seventeenth-century Godwin's law. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Dodger67: If you intend to make unfounded accusations can you please find a different place to do it? I expressly DID NOT oppose the candidate because they are competent. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 11:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Samtar: I am sure that there are more effective ways of supporting your nominee than trying to trip me up on a simple mistake quickly corrected. Yes, I should have struck it but just like the answer to Q6 anyone can revert an error. Q5 suggested another account at the same address - hence my quickly rectified remark about "shared" account. Nothing in my oppose to worry yourself about and your "reply" alters nothing. Leaky Caldron 11:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I don't expect any editor to write perfectly, but I do expect administrators make some basic effort to proofread themselves. In the internet age editors ought to be forgiven for comma inconsistency and its-it's confusion, but this candidate's answers have misspelled words, long rambling run-on sentences, missing capitals and punctuation, and missing wiki formatting that ought to have been a no-brainer for legible presentation. I found the candidate's response to Q9 especially incoherent. This gives the impression of an immature editor who doesn't let due thought and care for their work impede their typing speed, and this quick-fire approach might serve one well in MMORPGs and other internet forums but carelessness is a quality to be avoided in administrators. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   I do expect administrators make some basic effort to proofread themselves. Oops. #irony —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Leaky caldron. The candidate's answer to Becky Sayles's question doesn't wash with me and I'm surprised she let his answer slide. While I would normally praise editors for RTFM almost nobody does and not in the manner this editor seems to have. I have a bad feeling about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose. I've pondered over this a while, and there are some good things about this candidate and some other opposes and non oppose concerns that I don't share. I'm not in the slightest bothered that someone has only started 7 articles, we have 5.3 million most of which could do with a lot of improvement. I've never seen the relevance to RFA of asking admin candidates to spend some time in an area where there are new articles to create. That said I'm not fully convinced about their ability to add content. I welcome the idea of more admins at AIV, we can afford to have CSD get backlogged for hours at a time but AIV needs continuous cover. However the Milley Dowler example in the UAA question troubles me, I could forgive a less English editor for not being aware of that one. But from his answer I think he is as aware as any Brit would be. If this passes please reread this Especially bulletpoints 1 and 3. ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose per Ivanvector. One of the key roles of an administrator, especially an administrator dealing with anti-vandalism efforts, is being able to clearly and succinctly explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to new users who may have run afoul of them. I had trouble following the candidate's answers here, and you'd expect an editor to spend more time and care at their own AIV then they would in a high-volume vandal fighting environment. I'm also concerned a bit about some of the AIVUAA answers, which seem inconsistent. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 23:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose [Moved from "weak support"] I'm no expert on UAA, but it seems to me that some of the candidate's answers to question 15 are totally wrong. That, combined with the problems I outlined previously, is enough to switch me to "oppose" - not that it matters much, given the state of the !voting. I hope that I'm wrong about the nominee's judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose. While I appreciate the amount of work the Candidate has done and does, and basically like their responses to questions above, the concerns as to the experience in policy as made clear in the reply to the question by Becky Sayles is something I share with Leaky Cauldron and Chris Troutman. Markup experience is one thing, policy experience is certainly quite another. This might not be much, but I feel this needs to be spoken of. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose - This is about the sixth time I've come here and read through the responses, trying to make up my mind. I honestly hate to oppose anyone's RfA, because I think "net positive" is overall a pretty low bar, but at the same time, I personally set what I think is an extremely low bar for content creation experience and unfortunately the candidate just doesn't pass.
    It's hard for me to put trust in the experience of someone who, in almost 30k edits, has never done more than 26 (fairly meh) edits to a single article. I tried to look through my own history for context, and really...I can beat that on pages I don't even remember editing. In fact, my first account can beat that and do so with a grand total of 160 edits. It just, doesn't show that the candidate has ever really rolled up their sleeves, raided a library, and worked through tough in-depth issues on a subject with other editors. The kinds of conflict we expect administrators to weigh in on, and do so measurably and reliably, don't come from obvious vandalism; they come from this kind of mud-in-your-boots work in the trenches.
    Again, I do apologize. I never will take any hard stance like "FA or GTFO", but there are lessons you only learn from doing, and the candidate hasn't quite done enough to give me confidence. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    Note: I replaced line breaks in this comment with <p> to fix the numbering. Mz7 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    Use {{pb}} (paragraph break) instead of invalid HTML! (<p> needs a closing tag, but {{pb}} is easier than <p>...</p>) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    Aha, that's good to know. Thanks, MusikAnimal! Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    MusikAnimal: Actually <p> doesn't need a closing tag, any more than <br> does. It simply creates a paragraph break, and does not affect anything else, the same way that <br> creates a line break and does not affect anything else. Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

    Actually <p> doesn't need a closing tag—it does in XHTML. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

14. Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    @Kierzek: Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review the candidate! Would you mind sharing what you found that made you decide to oppose? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

15. Oppose The record at AfD indicates an extraordinary predisposition to "delete almost everything" (a total of 4 Keep votes out of 142 is small, and out of 124 Delete/Redirect/Merges, more than 25% were Keep or NC). This is one of the highest such percentages I have seen. On BLP edits, it seems like 95% are simple reverts, and the remaining 5% are insignificant tweaks. On article creation, 7 articles on churches does not, to me, indicate broad experience in that area either, with 5 of the seven just created in January, and not showing any depth of research. Three important areas which any administrator should be competent in. Hence my "oppose" here. I am sure you are a wonderful person, but these are my criteria. Collect (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose 71% AFD rate is not too good for administrator. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
17. Oppose (Moved from support) - The AFD nominations within the 14 days of being here certainly raise an eyebrow - Everyone picks things up quicker than others I get that but you don't just pick up AFD'ing manually within 10-15 days of being here - (I've been here 4 years and I couldn't do a manual AFD to save my life!), I'm not best pleased with some of the answers either (Q11 being one of them), I'm also not happy with the typos, grammar and lack of proofreading (I'm no angel when it comes to grammar however I would expect an admin to have readable English even if English isn't their native langauge!), All in all I see too many issues for me to support at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 17:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    I have been using Twinkle for some time, but before that I created a number of AfDs manually - there is a very pedagogical step-by-step guide at WP:AFD. It is slightly complex but not actually difficult to do. As a non-native speaker myself I do agree with you about the necessity to try to use readable English. --bonadea contributions talk 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

    Personally for me it wasn't the easiest things to do and even when I did follow it step by step I still messed it up , Perhaps I'm simply barking up the wrong tree on this but IMHO it just seems strange they picked it up instantly within the first few weeks of being here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

    My first edit was manually creating an AfD. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

18. Oppose Weak content creation signifies that the user will have trouble solving editing disputes in his new capacity.--Catlemur (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose basically per Spartaz and AfD record. Together, I get the sense of a returning user with an axe to grind. I'll fully admit it wouldn't shock me if the story given about early edits etc. was true, but I've grave doubts. Hobit (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
20. Oppose I could not care less about the new editor/old editor rebooted thing but I'm more worried about the UAA answers, simply put, incorrect decisions. I'm afraid I cannot support even if the editor has been spotless elsewhere and being honest, I've seen Amortias and they're constructive. --QEDK (愛) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Per Spartaz and Chris Troutman, something doesn't seem right in the explanation of the early edits. In particular, this attempt at deflection is setting off alarm bells for me: My understanding of the oppose is that they believe based on their judgement and my answer that I have a previous undisclosed account, this would only be sockpuppetry if I was using the accounts at the same time and I do not believe they are accusing me of this. Here is a concept: If a (hypothetical) user has used a previous account and lies when asked about it, that person should not be an administrator. Amortias might not be that hypothetical user, but he clearly doesn't even grasp the concept of why this deception would be a problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

    Clayoquot ... please read that comment thread again from the beginning. This is an absolute misrepresentation of that comment. I'll presume that that was not the intention. For the record I am specifically calling out the claim of deflection; there was zero deflection. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

    @Clayoquot: That comment was really taken out of context. I misunderstood (my mistake) the opposers' rationale, and thought that they were accusing the candidate of sockpuppetery. Amortias was clarifying the situation, not deflecting attention. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

    1. I read the original thread in full before I voted and I read it again just now. I can see that he wasn't necessarily trying to deflect attention, but he's showing ignorance of what sockpuppetry is. And that ignorance is a problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

22. Weak oppose No one specific issue, but taking all-in-all (and ignoring "how come you knew so much in your early edits"), I am not sufficiently impressed by overall experience. Candidate seems a fine person with sound judgement, and this could all be a 'not yet' situation. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
23. Oppose Write a fucking article. zzz (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

    What a wonderfully worded and thought through oppose vote -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 22:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

    And deliciously ironic too.[6] ansh666 22:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning support - Amortias warned me last October [7], because of this edit [8]. (For context I had said during the arbitration proceedings that I wanted to notify Jimbo & Flyer22Reborn because I believe Jimbo will be interested in the case, and Flyer22 was mentioned in one of the diffs I gave in the case request. I did not do so, because of canvassing issues.) Looking at it five months on, I still do not perceive my comment as trolling or harassment; in fact it looks like Amortias completely misunderstood my edit then. Getting warned for something you did not intend is pretty aggravating to say the least. Nonetheless I lean support because 1) I'm obviously involved in the case and can't be neutral; 2) Floquenbeam came to the same conclusion as Amortias [9] and I have no reason to doubt Floquenbeam's integrity; 3) Amortias is an arbcom clerk, and presumably in a place filled with very angry people, it's easy to misunderstand innocuous statements. Banedon (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Parking it right here. Let's just say that Amortias has improved greatly since their early days of editing. As proven here, Wikipedia is definitely a place where sometimes one must learn how to best serve the community through trial and error. Though I know that Amortias' recent edits are a grandstand above their beginning edits, the fact that I am aware of the "beginner" edits Amortias made ... keeps me here. So, I suppose one could call this a "strong moral support", and it looks like this RFA is going to pass, and I encourage Amortias to continue doing what they are doing here since they are obviously taking the right direction in serving the Wikipedia community well. Steel1943 (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Neutral leaning oppose. Amortias specialises in anti-vandalism, UAA, and quick-response clerking work but isn't interested in deletion discussions so I'm not really in a position to judge his suitability. There are no glaring red flags and his answers to Q6 & Q11 give me no reason to suspect any foul-play; the fact that he misspelled "noteability" convinced me that he indeed came over from another MediaWiki-based project. However, some of his answers to the UAA questions are a bit off. JamesBayCanada shouldn't be a problem because there's no prohibition against picking a pseudonym that is a place-name; "James Bay" is also a reasonable men's name. The answer to 😨 is correct but the explanation isn't accurate: Special:CreateAccount indeed blocks it, but if the account existed it wouldn't be prevented from creating a userpage, noting that 😨 exists as a unicode redirect. Deryck C. 14:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   I noticed comments below that the UAA questions are getting ridiculous, so I'm no longer "leaning oppose". The opposes based on suspicions of concealed previous accounts are also getting ridiculous, but the amount of uncorrected typos the candidate made on this page doesn't inspire confidence either. Deryck C. 10:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Neutral leaning support While I originally supported, and really want to AGF here, the hairs on the back of my neck are standing up. I don't really consider the answer to question #5 to be sufficient at all. Its not just the first edit either, a quick scan of the early contributions such as the second edit that was made to User:Amortias/vector.js just give the impression of a previous wikipedia user. Little things like being familiar with Wikipedia slang and policy which is cited in summaries. this this and this early edit do indicate some possible confusion about basic WP policy though, which gives me more confidence, but not enough to lend my own support.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
   • Second edit being vector.js sounds characteristic of a new editor who came over from a different MediaWiki project! Deryck C. 10:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning support voting is rugged --Plagiat (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
6. Neutral - good contributor and decently qualified to boot, but I don't think the concerns listed in the opposes and Deryck Chan's neutral vote can be ignored. Use of anti-vandalism tools to revert good-faith edits reeks of biting the newcomers, and there are indeed 127 people in the United States named James Bay. The edit count is also extremely high and boosted by automation: according to X!'s Tools 13,941 out of 23,952 edits are automated, and multiplying that by the 35.5% of edits being made to article space, that gives just under 5,000 non-automated article edits. (Not a negative, just an observation.) YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
7. Jeez, I mean 4 Keep votes at WP:AFD and over 100 Delete votes? And over 20% of the Delete votes were for articles that were kept... I dunno... This is a concern of mine because it seems to me I'm seeing more of a trend to delete perfectly good and and sourced articles, for some reason. I don't really want to encourage this trend. I'm not sure I'd like someone with those stats, and the attitude towards articles that they seem to imply, assessing the fate of articles. So I'm a little leery of voting for this person. I'm not going to vote against him because 1) we need admins and 2) hella people think he's generally fine, so I'm sure he is, but 4% Keep votes? Really? Herostratus (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Herostratus: Your argument seems to be twofold: (1) rash deletionist tendencies (most !votes are delete) and (2) 20% of incorrect !voting. If you look at the AfD tool, (1) is explained in a large part by the fact the candidate is patrolling new articles, hence sending some of them to AfD which registers a delete !vote; giving the green light to an article does not count as a "keep" !vote.

   As for (2), AfD stats are not enough. 80% is an okay-ish percentage, you need to dive through the articles (as I did) to really see what is going on. If you do that to check more carefully the kept nominations, you will see things like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grant_Bartholomaeus where yes, the nomination plainly contradicts policy, but that is a policy few people have ever heard of, or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OMICS_Publishing_Group_(2nd_nomination), which is an OTRS ticket. The only AfD post-2014 that is really problematic in my view is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Columbus Crew season (not closed yet, but the candidate's nomination is starting to freeze). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   Oh, OK, right... for nominations, only the negative (delete nomination) would show up in the AfD stats... OK, I get it. Still, 20%... it's not "20% of incorrect !voting" because there's no right or wrong on these matters, but it's 20% where this editor said "let's dump this article" and the community consensus was "no, it's fine". Unless the editor is making a lot of "I don't really have a strong opinion on this article, let's consider it together" type nominations (possible, but most editors don't roll like that), then the 20% shows a little more of a stricter/harsher approach to articles, compared to the general community, than I would like to see. Herostratus (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   Well, I'm one who takes things to AfDeletion for discussion because there isn't an AfDiscussion. I've even posted one on behalf of an editor who couldn't manage to work out how to do it. I'm often not bothered about the result - it's more the consensus I want to see. Peridon (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   Oh, sure. I've done it myself from time to time -- advisory nominations where I either don't have an opinion or actually thought the article should be kept (but wanted advice on the matter). But that's pretty rare. I would say the the overwhelming majority of AFD nominations are when the nominator thinks the article should not exist -- that is why, when closing an AFD, I assume the nomination is a Delete vote and count it as such. I assume this applies to most of Amortias's AFD nominations. If not, then the entire thrust of my comment is mistaken. But if so, then my comment stands. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

8. Neutral leaning support: Amortias is a great editor, but the oppose votes are preventing me voting support. I wish her good luck with the admin tools when her RFA is passed anyway. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
9. Neutral The RFA is closing soon, so I don't have enough time to properly review the candidate to do a vote. Looking at the "oppose" section the big caveat seems to be that the editor showed some kind of "unusual" proficiency" in their early edits. Personally I don't find that very convincing. Wikipedia is not rocket science. Looking at other AFDs and basically copying their argumentation is something every internet experienced person can do. A newbie using WP terms and guidelines may look impressive at the first glance but in the end its just throwing around "big words" the editor may not even truly understand. I am pretty sure I did the same too, just because its the logical thing to do. Therefore I would not give that much weight to this supposed "unusual" familiarity of the candidate with WP terms in their early edits. Dead Mary (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

   Agreed. Note that it would be perfectly possible to follow internal Wikipedia processes and discussion, perhaps for years, becoming very familiar with the workings and jargon, before registering an account and starting to participate: Noyster (talk), 11:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

10. We need admins and Amortias seems like an otherwise fine candidate, so I'm not going to oppose over this, but I agree with concerns raised regarding his answers to the username questions, particularly given his stated intent to work at UAA in an admin capacity. Having said that, this RfA is going to pass unless something utterly bizarre happens during the final three hours; I wish Amortias the best of luck as an admin, and hope that he takes the various concerns raised here on board (minus the suspicions of a previous account, which I find to be fundamentally at odds with the principle of assuming good faith). --Dylan620's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 15:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• It's probably worth noting that question 5: "Your first edit was to join the guild of copy editors. That is too obscure for a genuine noob. What was your previous account?" is basically a loaded question, as it assumes that the candidate has an undisclosed previous account, implying that the candidate is not, to quote the questioner, "genuine". If Spartaz would like to open an investigation into this, RfA is the probably the wrong place to do so. --Joshualouie711^talk 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Re question 6, given that Amortias self-reverted seconds later, I'm guessing it was accidental. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was well aware of the revert and timings, but it is not the trivial question that you think it is. Glrx (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• My initial vote was an oppose but I moved to support. My reasons are explained below. Hope the fellow Wikipedians that also commented there don't mind I moved their comments too.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Oppose. Sorry to be the first, but IMO twothree years is not enough time. Regarding Question 1A, to carry out anti-vandalism and page patrolling tasks nobody needs the tools.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • nobody needs the tools – WP:NONEED. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Deleting pages and blocking users are both admin functions designed for anti-vandalism and page-patrolling. GAB^gab 21:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Indeed, but this is an RFA and in the very first question the candidate replied they wanted to carry out specific tasks for which the tools are not mandatory. A lot of non-admins carry out anti-vandalism and page patrolling.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
          • That's true, but that doesn't mean that those who carry out those activities wouldn't find use for the tools while doing so, specifically as GAB mentioned. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
            • They mentioned page protection, rev-del'ing and blocks as well. Those aren't tasks non-admins can do. Linguist^talk|contribs 21:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
              • Since when does protecting pages not require the bit? You do realize that is a valid part of counter vandalism work right? Thant and blocking WP:VOAs ? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
                • Yes, I do realise. I never said that protecting pages was for non-admins. I will move to support based on the history of the candidate's contributions. I firmly believe that if anyone is interested in expanding the admin workforce that candidate should be given the chance, yet the number of edits and mostly the time spent in Wikipedia still bothers me a bit.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

So far the candidate has been given seventeen hypothetical usernames to judge. Those UAA questions are getting ridiculous. What's next? Seventeen lines of texts that might be personal attacks (or not)? Yintan  17:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Now it's 24 hypothetical usernames, with Smartyllama's 7 more. --Joshualouie711^talk 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

17 shades of grey, and the candidate needs to put them in order from light to dark! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BEANS!!! Don't give anyone ideas --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the timing between the two questions being posted, I suspect this was a coincidence and Linguist111 edited his question after noticing one was asked. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, after I saw Feminist's question, I remembered there were some hypothetical usernames I'd thought of and had wanted to ask at the next RfA. Linguist^talk|contribs 17:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

For anyone concerned about the possibility of a previous account, I'd like to take a (admittedly, odd) moment to balance out the edits raised in the oppose section with those that are very much indicative of a new account, such as repeatedly signing in an edit summary, seemingly edit conflicting with himself, creating a signature with no talk page link, adding a new section when replying, and both using the wrong citation template parameters and missing a closing ref tag. These are all reasonable newbie mistakes, and I think any 'suspicious' edits made early on can easily be explained by Amortias having some knowledge of wiki behaviour and syntax and reading pages before jumping in. If you still don't trust him, then fair enough, but I'm unconvinced. Sam Walton (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: Bingo. I interacted with Amortias a bit when they were first starting out editing Wikipedia, and the "beginning edits" I mentioned above in the "neutral" section proved to me that there is almost no possibility that Amortias previously edited with another account. For example, see User talk:Steel1943/Archive 5#Proposed deletion of Jody (given name): An editor, starting out, who has tried to WP:PROD a list article due to notability concerns could not have previous experience editing Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Jody example does not prove anything because lists have to demonstrate notability per WP:LISTN. Essentially what was happening there was routine NPP activity; it was a new page without any references and so it gets PRODed for a lack of notability. It is easy to find veteran editors doing the same sort of thing every day. For example, see Reehal which was recently PRODded by Tavix, who has been editing for over 10 years and is now an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• This just proves that experienced editors/administrators sometimes have a lapse in judgement. With editors who have not been on Wikipedia for a long time, issues like that are caused due to inexperience, not judgement lapses, especially in Amortias' case per their response to me on my talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I am a relatively new editor and I have never signed an edit summary, edit conflicted with myself, or created a new section when replying. On the other hand I didn't know what copy editing was until reading this discussion. If one is trying to hide an old account it's easy to fake things like signing edit summaries. I'm not saying it is the case here, but I don't think pointing these things out is a good defense. Thoroughly explaining the questions raised by the opposers concerning old edits would be a better one - which as far as I can see has not been done (please correct me if I'm wrong). Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, reviewing my own first edits now I went pretty quickly from pasting links in edit summaries to citing policy, so I guess it's not as odd as some opposers point out to be, and a "thoroughly explanation" might have been an exaggeration on my part. It would be nice to see more replies by the candidate, though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

---

I would just like to point out, opposes 1 and 2 seem to indicate an unwillingness to trust the candidate based on supposedly too much knowledge and experience when the candidate was a new member on Wikipedia, whereas oppose 3 is because the candidate doesn't have enough experience! When the opposing reasons contradict each other, I am sorry to say, but I can't take those reasons seriously at all. Penskins (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Penskins: They are both- in different but not exclusive ways- perfectly cogent arguments. One can, of course, have both 'too much' experience to have been a new editor at one time (as that line of argument has it) and 'too little' experience to be an administrator some time later (as the other argument has it). Don't worry, the nuance of RfA will come... if, I might suggest, with a greater tenure and experience in this arcanery. Happy editing! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Both represent trust issues; they aren't necessarily contradictory. But I don't think it's enough to shoot down the RfA. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

I hope something can be done about support #140. This is a purile !vote rationale, provided apparently by a school child using a cloaked user Id. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: This may be a stupid question but what is a cloaked user ID on-Wiki? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

His signature does not match his registered user name. Disguised, masked, concealed, covered = [intentionally] misleading. Breach of WP:SIG#CustomSig. Leaky Caldron 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: See User_talk:Leaky_Caldron... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you going on about? The user's signature is not his user name. What has a red link to a non-existent talk page got to do with anything? Leaky Caldron 13:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: You sign your posts with "Leaky Caldron" but your username is actually "Leaky caldron". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Leaky caldron: I agree the rationale is poor. But the sig is not wrong: as per WP:SIG#CustomSig, A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page; this signature does 2.5 out of these three criteria. It mentions a relevant element of the username ('ninja'), and links to both their user- and talk-pages. Further, they have four years tenure and 10,000 edits to their CV; it is unlikely that they are a 'school child' messing around, and it is also unlikely that, if it was a problem, it has not alreay been adressed Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It is on their talk page. Leaky Caldron 13:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I see now - they are in 12th grade according to their userbox. Is there an age requirement for RfA !votes? I find this very confusing as their !vote is no less than several that came before it - particularly #139, which contained no reasoning just support. It is very discouraging to younger users wishing to participate in the process and who have contributed to the project. We've had admins who were barely in high school when they were given the mop, so to exclude a !vote based on age and dislike of a signature seems rather silly and personal and I'd be as concerned if this were a reaction to an oppose !vote as well. And for the record, I am well beyond this age but I take issue with excluding a !vote or edit in general and attacking someone based on some arbitrary number. I also originally wrote this comment several hours before any of the most recent responses but after reading them, I have to say that your issue seems to be with age rather than content. We're not talking about 5 year olds here who like the color yellow today and green tomorrow, but a seemingly experienced editor with a pretty clean record on-Wiki. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For God's sake, must you have the last word? There is no age barrier. The !vote consists of a meaningless, childish remark, regardless of age. Oppose !votes are invariably challenged for justification. Invariably. I take exception to this one because it is more childish than blank, or "per", or "why not". It is silly and meaningless. In a close RfA it would most certainly be challenged. Reply as you wish. I will not be adding anything else. Leaky Caldron 20:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Are we really going to go on about this? This doesn't even have anything to do with the RFA! If you have a problem with their signature then raise it on the talk page of the user in question, and if you'd like to change the policies surrounding it... well, you should know that RFA is not the place for that. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I was answering a point about them being a child. The problem I have is with a child's purile !vote being allowed to stand when, if it was in the oppose section, they would be justifiably hectored. You are going on about the signature now. Dead issue, Why raise it? Leaky Caldron 15:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There are more !votes such as the one you mention - lacking any substance. Nobody called them ridiculous or comical, such as !votes in the oppose section... --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah right, that's okay then. That's fine - thanks for pointing out how wrong I am. I really will try to follow the crowd in future. Sorry for disturbing so many Admins with this. I really should let you all get on with more important things. Leaky Caldron 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
        • User:Leaky_caldron: Yes, write something like yes yes I thought you were an admin already, add an emoticon, and this peaceful community will love you in all embracing universe of mutual understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
          • WP:Requests for adminship says, in a footnote: Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (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.