Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zephyr2k~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 21 October 2006 (→[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C|MER-C]]: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MER-C

Voice your opinion (50/12/7) Ending 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

MER-C (talk · contribs) – MER-C is a user who constantly is fighting vandalism and is a good overall Wikipedian. Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. MER-C 10:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nom if I may please My first ever nom, and for good reason. MER-C is a fantastic vandal fighter, who has already shown tremendous dedication to the project. I guarantee there isn't one AIV regular who hasnt seen his name dozens and dozens of times. In fact, according to Voice of All's statistic tool, from his last 5000 edits alone, over 270 of them were to administrator noticeboards. Apart from his anti-vandalism efforts he's incredibly humble and civil, with a fantastic attitude, one that will be a credit to the mop and bucket. I asked him about adminship many weeks ago, and he replied that he thought it was a bit too early (testimony to his maturity - normally if a sysop offered to nom a user they'd jump at the chance). Anyway, his contribs speak for themselves, all I can say is I feel sorry for the vandals come 7 days time! :) Glen 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with a co-nom any co-nominations here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nom as well, I nominated MER-C for adminship a few weeks ago, but he declined stating that he needed more experience. I respected his decision and told him that I would be glad to nominate him whenever he felt he was ready. MER-C is a great vandal-fighter and he would be a valuable asset to AIV and Admin Noticeboard, among other things. Even with only a few months of experience, I have strong confidence in this user's potential. Nishkid64 14:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:

I plan on doing what I have always done - whacking vandals, helping on AFD (and nuking the ones I would !vote speedy delete for) and finding deletable pages through dead ends, spam hunts and RC/NP patrols. I feel that my efficiency at performing these tasks would increase when given the mop. I also plan on blocking vandals at WP:AIV - I edit at a time when there are hardly any admins around and I end up trying to clear the list anyway - and doing speedies and prods. I can also answer any unblock requests that show up on my RC feed and have done so in the past.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:

I'm definitely pleased at keeping the vandals and spammers out. I've only been here for three and a half months and it could be said that I am Willy on Wheels' most hated enemy (better sprotect this RFA right now :) ). I've been responsible for the deletion of around 200 pages of userspace spam in the last fortnight. I'm a regular participant at AFD, often !voting on AFDs with little votes. I've been bombarded with admin-like requests over the last month which led me to put up "I am not an administrator" in big, bold and red letters. I've tried to arouse the dust at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martian Geography, to some success.

Finally, here are some testimonials:

  • "MER-C IS A FUCKING BASTARD!" - Willy on Wheels [1]
  • "M E R - C D I D W T C L O L" - Blu Aardvark here
  • "He is a deletionist chinese communist censor" - Communism vandal, see source | contribs.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:

I've tended to avoid content disputes, as they are counterproductive. If someone had disagreed, it was mostly due to a mistaken revert. Though I've been in many a conflict with a vandal. I think the things that have caused me the most stress are my "broadband" connection and database lag of up to ten minutes(!), though the vandals may occasionally cause me to walk away for five minutes. Most potential conflicts about deletions and such have been defused on my talk page before escalating out of control. MER-C 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:

IAR is the codification of common sense. For example, you might have an "article" about someone that barely asserts notability, e.g. being in some random band but looking at the editors and noticing the amount of superlatives used, you see that it is hopeless vanity. Being autobiographical is also another deletable concern. It makes sense to reach out for the delete button. It also allows one to take into account mitigating circumstances, e.g. strongly warning a user who violated 3RR instead of a block.

Snowballing is for debates where consensus has been achieved, or in the case of making a decision to delete hopeless articles such as the example above. Prod would be too ineffectual for that, since the author can easily remove the prod and we're back to cube one. MER-C 12:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:

Generally no, unless it has been discussed on WP:ANI. MER-C 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?
A:

Very. One couldn't cope with the crap from the vandals unless you saw their comments as a joke (as per above). MER-C 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gwernol (talk · contribs)

7. Could you explain, with an example, where you think the borderline between an article that should be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:A7, one that should be Prodded and one which should be taken to AfD is? What would you do with User:Gwernol/HillstoneLows and why? Thanks. (with apologies should there actually be a band called Hillstone Lows)

It's about assertions of notability. Speediable articles don't assert notability (but not all articles that don't assert notability are speediable). Also in this basket would be articles that assert notability weakly (e.g. the only assertion of notability is a discography section or the mention of a few local gigs) AND are autobiographical containing superlatives. I'd go straight to AFD if the claim to notability is rather strong, e.g. finished highly on a highly rated TV show.

To clarify this, let's pretend we ran a Wikipedia Idol (tm) competition and someone felt the need to create articles on various contestents. Articles on editors who just auditioned and were "rejected" would be speediable. If they got past the auditions stage but not in the top 25, then I would speedy it if it were autobiographical or prod it if it wasn't. Prods would be from places from 25 to 12 inclusive and AFD would be if they made it to the finals. The top three, if they've released something, will be kept.

As for the article mentioned, that'll be a prod. MER-C 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from trialsanderrors (talk · contribs)

8. Could you expand on Q2 and point out your editorial contributions? It's a bit hard to sift through your reversions to find them.

Most of my editorial contributions have been to deleted articles, saying they are not fit to stay. However, there are a few here, here and other Martian geography articles. The dust is settling again as Mars is in solar conjunction. Most of the real information is locked up into subscription only journals, which I don't have access to. I'm also wikignomish. MER-C 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC) MER-C 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

9. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • Is three months (and a half, apparently) really that short a time to be editing Wikipedia? I think it's plenty of time to get acquainted with the software and the community, especially if one has been editing at the rate MER-C has. Adminship is no big deal, so barring some obvious deficiency in an editor's abilities, I don't think it's in the project's best interests to tell good editors to "try again later" simply because they fall short of some particular target. --Slowking Man 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - outstanding editor. Gracious too. Honoured to be first to support. --Dweller 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per my comments above as wannabe co-nomm'er Glen 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - the usual cliché, could have sworn he was an admin already! Budgiekiller 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WTF? I was supposed to nominate! - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, great vandal fighter and a prolific editor to boot. —Xezbeth 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Erm... support per Budgiekiller. Excellent user. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. This user often makes reports on WP:AIV, so I believe he could use the extra buttons. Errabee 12:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, excellent vandal and spam fighter, only good interactions with him. Kusma (討論) 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as one of the nominators- I keep seeing him reporting vandalism, I think he should have the tools to take care of it in the first place. Nwwaew(My talk page) 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support - one of the best vandal-fighters on Wiki Alex Bakharev 12:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dammit If I'd known you had any plans for adminship, I would've co-nommed you with pleasure. riana_dzasta 12:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Clearly a good faith editor, but I do find a few hasty CSD taggings, after looking into it per Steel's comment. However, it was literally just 2 out of his last 1,500 contributions. Granted it's not very easy to browse deleted contributions anymore, even if some invalid taggings did get deleted, it was obviously by someone we already trust with admin tools. I'd put forward that everyone makes a mistake or two, and often users knowingly tag something borderline for deletion with the trust that the experienced admin will look into it and make the right decision. So that someone tags something for deletion suggests, but doesn't prove, that they'd just straight out delete it as an admin. Same with vandal reports. MER-C is clearly dedicated to the project and I have every reason to think they'd exercise discretion and make a good admin. --W.marsh 13:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Superlatively strong support. MER-C is a fantastic and reliable new page patroller and vandal fighter. Granting him sysop tools would only help improve our project. -- Merope 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support I see him all over AIV and he could certainly use the buttons. Good luck! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Normally I wouldn't support someone with as relatively little time on the project (I usually like to see at least 6-9 months), but I've seen MER-C all over the place and I think he could have an immediate positive impact. That said, I would ask that he initially exercise a little restraint on speedy article deletions, per some of the concerns listed in this RFA. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support, good vandal fighter, I see see him around reverting vandalism. MER-C is commited to Wikipedia and will make a great admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per noms. Rama's arrow 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, great vandal fighter, good attitude. NawlinWiki 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Outstanding user, one of the most common names I see around. Excellent work, will make a fine admin and use the tools wisely.--Húsönd 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems like a good vandalfighter. (aeropagitica) 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Sem him vandalfighting, been very impressed by it --Mnemeson 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Excellent fighter of spam and other vandalism. Only 3 months here, but 18000 edits overrides any concerns there. He seems comfortable justifying reverts and explaining his position. I'm certain will be a top administrator who will use the tools effectively. — Moondyne 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support; partially took part in my spam crusade.--Andeh 15:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong strong support, I have seen enough of MER-C on RC Patrol. He'd do a good job with the tools. Best of luck, buddy! — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, MER-C's not an admin? Really? · j e r s y k o talk · 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, even though you're not a Jew named Putnam from California USA ;) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support, He seemes to be a good candidate and I have seen some of his work, Kudos =) EagleEyes 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A very strong vandal fighter and a good editor as well. The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I keep thinking he's an admin, since his name comes up so frequently in RC feeds. Fully support. --Slowking Man 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good user, I;ve had nothing but good experiences with him on AfD. Plus, I actually borrowed a template from him.-- danntm T C 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Great vandal fighter, very supportive of this user. (just got edit-conflicted supporting) Hello32020 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Naconkantari 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Enthusiastic aupport definitely one of our best vandal fighters, I see him on WP:AIV (and CAT:CSD) all the time. There was just a big backlog there yesterday which he could have helped clear - a lot of the reports were his anyway. I do not think his reports are too unreliable at all, there are occasional ones that I deny because they have stopped, but this is usually due to the delay between him posting and me responding.--Konst.ableTalk 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support. Very diligent and personable. PJM 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support as co-nom. Nishkid64 21:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    MER-C IS SOON A FUCKING ADMIN! ~ trialsanderrorsONWHEELS 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Moved to Neutral[reply]
  37. Support. Absolutely. Deizio talk 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Block, {{impersonator | Can't sleep, clown will eat me}} Support, {{Greatest vandal fighter since | Can't sleep, clown will eat me}} Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Ladies and gentlemen...we have the new Curps. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Piling-on Support.--Lord Kinbote 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support for being the quickest non-admin reverter I've seen. james(talk) 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Although I am sure he isn't Willy On Wheels worst enemy I am sure he'll be a great admin SOADLuver 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Excellent user. I've seen him a lot on AIV. He's not perfect, but, IMHO, he could use the tools. Alphachimp 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Thud... Thud... MER-Czilla is coming... Vandals are scared... They are shuddering... they know they cannot escape the powerful MER-Czilla! Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support This guy is great, Having him as Admin would be great for wikipedia--Seadog.M.S 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per nom. Michael 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Is this a joke?! He's seriously not an admin!? What a fantastic candidate! I'm thrilled to be able to support. Srose (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support, Surprised MER-C isn't an admin already. Casper2k3 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. He may not have written article, but he certainly has cleared the way for others to do so. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I keep vacillating on what I think about admins having extensive article-writing experience, but in this case I like the extent of his specialization. Wikipedia is like a leaky boat in a river of sewage; we need people to bail out the constant influx of crap. Opabinia regalis 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support MER-C is active in AFD and is a great vandal fighter. He's also helped me handle a possible copyvio where the contributor claims to be the author (see article Hyperthermia). zephyr2k 01:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. MER-C is clearly an up and coming user, and I see him at AIV regularly. However, In my experience I've found him to be a somewhat unreliable vandal reporter. A number of vandals he reports have either not been warned, stopped ages ago, are shared IPs with no recent warnings, haven't vandalised since their last warning, etc. Much the same applies to CAT:CSD. I've found him tagging things as spam which aren't spam, and so on. That, combined with an apparent lack of real encyclopedic contributions, means I can't support this RfA. I also really, really don't think 3 and a half months is long enough. -- Steel 12:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vandals he reports have either not been warned" - diffs please? It's sometimes appropriate to go straight to AIV, e.g. obvious sockpuppets of banned users, inappropriate usernames, returning vandals, etc.
    "stopped ages ago" - that's due to AIV being mainly ignored for hours.
    "are shared IPs with no recent warnings," - my rollback script doesn't open AOL talk pages and it's likely that these pages aren't seen by the intended audience.
    "haven't vandalised since their last warning" - diffs please?
    "things as spam which aren't spam" - my idea of spam is different from yours. The creator being a single purpose account is a very strong indicator.
    "lack of real encyclopedic contributions" - Adam Smith said in The Wealth of Nations that specialisation is one of the keys to improved productivity, see here. This can be applied to Wikipedia. With that, I'm signing off for the night. MER-C 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in your recent contribs to support what I said about AIV, however it is the general feeling I've gotten. Having said that without any diffs I'm happy for that bit to be given less weight or ignored completely. One question though, "The creator being a single purpose account is a very strong indicator.", how strong an indicator? And I'm familliar with the division of labour, thanks - I have studied economics. Being an administrator isn't just about reverting and blocking. -- Steel 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that MER-C has a very good grasp of what spam is, at least as set out in these criteria here. (Which, admittedly, I wrote, but with input from other editors.) Users with names identical to the corporation or product they post about are clearly single purpose accounts and their posts should be deleted. In cleaning up CAT:CSD, I've been pleased to see that MER-C has been judiciously using the spam criterion (e.g., never applying it to articles about people or bands, etc.). Just my two to three cents. -- Merope 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - per lack of time with the project, and poor answer to part one of question 4 (IAR should not be used to change the requirements for speedy deletion) --T-rex 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, Ive never commented on an oppose before in an RfA (with the possible exception of my own), but let's go back a couple weeks prior to the introduction of g11, and say you found a blatant spam article on a non-notable ab-roller or similar piece of junk. Written in the 1st person, a total blatant advertisement telling you how to get rock hard abs. You wouldn't nom it (just clarify what I meant) tag it for speedy deletion? Glen 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would defientlly nominate it for deletion, however the appropriate way to do so is through AfD or WP:PROD. The problem I saw with that responce is more the casual use of IAR, rather than the idea that the article needed to be deleted --T-rex 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Better yet, I've found viagra spam (complete with spelling it vi@gra) and even a Nigerian scam e-mail created as new articles. I suppose those deserved 5 days on AfD since we can't IAR to make speedy deletions? --W.marsh 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding right? I thought they only did that to avoid email spam filters lol! Glen 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But as new articles, they would qualify for speedy deletion, and no acception to IAR would need to be made --T-rex 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm... no prior to G11 (advertisements/spam) non-notable products were not "technically" speediable; they did not "fit" A7 (An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject). So if you believe that it's in Wikipedia's best interest to have spam about ab-rollers, vi@gra and nigerian banking scams on the site for five full days under AfD or prod then, fine. But in my mind thats exactly why IAR is there Glen 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opppose per concerns addressed above, and answers to question s. It is my feeling that this person is not quite ready for adminship. Most recently I've witnessed this person revert "vandalism" by someone who was trying to remove unsourced libellous remarks. [2] As if that weren't enough, MER-C then proceeded to warn that person for doing so. Sorry, but there is no way I can endorse this person at this time if they are going to be so careless. Silensor 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This diff appears to comprise two different issues that one might understand from Silensor's oppose are properly conflated but between which exists a distinction that some editors might perceive to be meaningful. The editing behavior is unquestionably bad: (a) one should never revert or rollback without explanation any edit that is not plainly and exclusively vandalism, even where no edit summary from which one might appreciate good faith editing is given concomitant to the antecedent edit; and (b) the text removed was almost wholly, notwithstanding its being unsourced, probably unverifiable, and perhaps other-than-unbiased, unencyclopedic—the minutiae of a school's operations are presumptively that which Wikipedia is not—such that the excision was, on the whole, quite fine (if one wanted to return some of the text, such return ought to have been accompanied by note on the article's talk page in order that other editors might discuss the issue). The text was not, though, under any theory of United States law of which I'm aware, libellous, such that its return in no way placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Not only would it be exceedingly difficult for an educational institution to advance a claim of defamation, but a public institution (namely, one that is taxpayer-financed and government-run) would almost certainly not be permitted to advance such claim. In any event, though, the text was not libellous; the riot paragraph appears to be true (and even, were it not, would not be defamatory), and the second paragraph, while undoubtedly unencyclopedic and non-NPOV original research, is an assertion of opinion (even if it appears to be offered as fact) and thus not an actionable pronouncement. I mean only to suggest that any inference of carelessness and bad judgment from the diff ought to be made only as to the particularly poor editing and incivility evidenced by the diff and the warning rather than as to the concerns underlying BLP, et seq. Joe 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose if he felt unready to be an admin a mere few weeks ago, I somehow doubt he's ready now. Plus the stuff Silensor and Steel brought up isnt so great. I just dont feel he's quite ready yet... maybe in a few months I would support, but just too green right now and appears to jump the gun alot.  ALKIVAR™ 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is probably due to pressure of people with their "6 month" rules more than anything.--Konst.ableTalk 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, he said he wanted a bit more experience on Wikipedia before becoming an admin (he specifically said a month more or so). Nishkid64 21:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Obviously this editor's vandal fighting resume is impressive. However I have to oppose based on a few factors. First, I'm not comfortable with this editor's position on IAR and the example he gives. Yes, IAR means using common sense, but not at the expense of consensus. Band articles are the most contentious and emotional debates right now at AfD, and I'm not comfortable with an admin who would speedy a band article on the basis of his opinion that it's "hopeless vanity." It should go to AfD where the editors will have the opportunity to clean it up, make it encyclopedic, and cite sources to back up the assertion of notability. Second, the ratio of article talk edits to mainspace edits is quite low (6.9%) which shows little participation with the community in article content discussion. Lastly, editor only has 3+ months of experience. More time on the project will allow for more interaction with aspects of the project other than vandal fighting. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I respect and understand your opposition vote, I would like to point out that "ratio of article talk to mainspace edits" is a totally meaningless metric. It will be low for a vandal fighter and high for someone who goes around and tags talk pages with WikiProject tags or makes assessments. You can have 5000 talk edits and no content discussions, or zero talk edits and lots of content discussion at AFDs or WikiProjects or regional noticeboards or similar Kusma (討論) 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, it shows that the nominee's attitude is "shoot first, ask questions later, ignore consenus." There's more to being an admin than vandal fighting—we all have the capability to revert and warn. I'd like to see a nominee that engages the community more than this one does. Frankly, I'm surprised at some of the support votes. This editor seems to pride himself on the enemies he's made, while many support voters have opposed nominees on the basis that they don't play well with others. Am I missing something here? —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Racking up insane amounts of edits in 3 months vandal fighting is impressive (I must assume it's using VandalProof or some such), and appreciated, but does not make someone admin-ready. That, combined with the fact that I am "one of those" users who thinks 6-months is a minimum amount of time with the project leads to my oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themindset (talk • contribs)
  7. Oppose, reluctantly. I'd like to have supported but I absolutely detest a lack of article writing (even simple start-class articles). I'm not pleased either with concerns brought up above by Silensor and Steel. – Chacor 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose As I went through the contribs I noticed the same thing others did, very little (if any) writing, and didn't follow up reverts with warnings in many cases. But also, he doesn't see to have his speedy judgement very well tuned, I find many cases where he's tagged something as speedy but was overturned. Examples: [3][4],[5],[6],[7] I just don't feel like he's ready for the delete button yet. And not to pile on, but he put lot's cleanup tags on articles, it'd be nice if he'd pitch in with some of the cleanup. It'd give him a better feel for content, he has a pretty narrow particpation range at the moment. This is not to diminish his work or attitude, but branch out a little and you're there. Rx StrangeLove 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, reluctantly, for now. Although MER-C puts a lot of effort towards vandal fighting I see a bit too much "ready-fire-aim". Sometimes it is best to slow down and analyze what you are seeing before pulling the trigger. I'd also like to see at least six months of activity to demonstrate that the user has a long term commitment and not just a passing fancy. Finally, spread out into a few more activities on the Wiki. Even if it is just typo and grammar corrections, try to spend a little time on articles. When you see a short article, consider spending a few minutes on it to clean it up, link it somewhere appropriate, and put a stub tag on it rather than just tagging with CSD or PROD. Another way to spread out is to get involved in some Wiki-space activities. With that, I think you can be ready to try again before the New Year. Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose If one uses IAR at all, one might apply it to a speedy deletion once in a year. Candidate's answer indicates poor understanding of "deep and subtle policy"; also, I share above concerns about experience in other areas. Xoloz 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Certainly a good faith user, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. — mark ✎ 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per answer to #4. Answer leads me to believe that deletion is a better alternative than editing in many circumstances where the opposite is true, and the view that IAR "is the codification of common sense" is especially worrisome. A number of admins who believe the same are/were amongst the worst we have, and I'd hate to see an otherwise positive contributor head down the same road. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral at this time, leaning oppose per Steel above, just not as forcefully. I don't doubt MER-C's intentions, but three months is not really enough time, coupled with the overwhelming lack of Wikipedia_talk: edits. Vandal fighters are an excellent and needed resource, but as that's your area of expertise, I'd have preferred you not say you would start whacking what you think are speedies out of AFD. Weak answer to Q2 made me comment where I ordinarily would have passed by. -- nae'blis 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning oppose. — Where are the contributions? - I can not support a user who does not make contributions to the encyclopeadia - Spending all day reverting just does not cut it for me, i look for several factors in a candidate, one being the balance between contributions and vandal fighting, i see no contributions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: A lot of edits, but, although a promising vandal fighter, 3½ months is a little too soon to ask for the mop. The way my standards see it, he should have waited till next March. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral There's no doubt that MER-C is a terrific vandal fighter. I'm an experienced RC patroller who came to the 'pedia around the same time (late spring/early summer 2006) and I know I still have way too much to learn before I stand for adminship; on the other hand, MER-C may have logged many, many more hours here than I have. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, so on the fence I stay. KrakatoaKatie 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, pending answers to q7 and 8. Leaning towards oppose for relative newness and per Chacor. I looked (quickly) through all October's edits and didn't find a single instance of actual content addition. We do need people to delete things, of course. Just not sure at this stage if you are ready for it. --Guinnog 06:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral at this moment, per Chacor. I prefer that you'd did some bit of article-writing. No, I'm not even asking for an FA here. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral with regrets. Sheer lack of editorial contributions would normally be an oppose, but I shift into neutral for your other contributions. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MER-C&oldid=82738470"