Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cerebellum

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

Cerebellum

Final (81/0/3). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Cerebellum (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination.
I have been a contributor on and off since February 2007, with about 8600 edits. I am primarily a content editor, but I see a need for more administrators and I'd love to help out with some admin tasks if the community feels I am ready. I've been active in most areas of the encyclopedia at one time or another and I feel I have a good grasp of the policies and guidelines. I love interacting with new users as well, so if selected I will do my best to avoid biting newcomers and will place a lot of emphasis on helping them successfully navigate Wikipedia. Cerebellum (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2013 (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 have a fair amount of experience with new pages and article deletion, so I'll start with CAT:CSD and AfD. The past few weeks I've noticed something of a persistent backlog at CSD, so working to control that is my first priority and the main reason I am interested in adminship. I also enjoy resolving disputes and building consensus, so after I start to feel comfortable with the tools I may try my hand at RPP, wikiquette assistance, and Administartors' noticeboard/Edit warring. Other than that, I could see myself helping out at RM, CP (after some research and study) and anywhere else with a backlog. I am somewhat conflict-averse, however, so I do not see myself participating at ANI or AIV unless the need is very great.

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

A: I've done a reasonable amount of content work, resulting in three GAs (1, 2, and 3), and I've created about 150 articles, both long, such as 1 or 2, and short, such as the stubs listed here. I also enjoy doing GA reviews, probably the best of which is Talk:Feminism/GA1, and I've done lots of work at New Pages Patrol and AfC. My current project is updating articles related to the Iraq War, many of which have been sadly neglected since the war ended.

However, I think my best contributions involve people. Wikipedia is a resource for helping people, and it is written by and depends on people, so reaching out to new users and trying to build relationships with them is very important to me. My first contribution ([1]) was (correctly) reverted almost immediately, and it would have helped me a lot had someone come alongside me, explained what I was doing wrong, and pointed me in the right direction for future edits. In my opinion, helping new users get integrated into the community is one of the most important tasks of an admin. Here are a few examples of my interactions with new users: [2], [3], [4], [5].

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: Nothing too crazy, though I did get a little worked up in this deletion discussion and this content dispute. Like I said above, I don't tend to seek out conflict, but I don't run from it either. My general approach in such situations is to sit back, take a deep breath, and imbibe a healthy dose of don't-give-a-fuckism. I've found that listening to the opposing party and showing a willingness to compromise goes pretty far, but if I ever ran into a situation I didn't know how to handle I would probably ask an experienced admin for their advice.

Additional question from Steel1943

4. The role of an administrator can sometimes require you to be a "jack-of-all-trades" when it comes to all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. With this being said, is there any specific policy or procedure that you would consider yourself "not experienced" or "not knowledgeable"? And, if so, do you either: 1) have a plan to make yourself more knowledgeable and experienced in that policy and/or procedure, or 2) have a specific reason why you have chosen to not participate or become knowledgeable in the aforementioned policy and/or procedure?

A: Looking at the administrators' reading list, the revision deletion and copyright policies jump out at me as being unfamiliar. I don't have a particular interest in those areas and I probably won't pursue them as an admin, but if I was ever called upon to do so I would read the policies carefully and then follow them to the best of my ability. In general, anytime I do a procedure I haven't done in a while I review the relevant policies to make sure I'm not screwing up, and when I start something new I take it slowly at first and observe experienced editors before acting myself. I'll use the same approach as an admin.

Additional question from TParis

5. RFAs are generally accompanied by a lot of stress. In a way, it's a test of an administrative prospect's ability to cope under pressure when in future conflicts. As a self nomination, how much time did you spend considering this request and what did you do to prepare yourself for the week long debate? What are your normal stress control mechanisms?

A: I've considered applying for RfA several times over the past couple of years, but I always felt that I was too heavily focused on content editing and didn't have enough experience in admin areas. This time though, I decided that I've delayed enough and I might as well let the community decide. Even if I fail, it will be a valuable experience since I'll receive feedback on where I need to improve. That said, I didn't do anything in particular to prepare myself for the debate. If it gets too stressful, my usual coping mechanisms are to take a break for a couple hours, read a book or go work out, and then come back with a new perspective.

Additional question from Callanecc

6. You have a large number of votes (more than 200 I believe) in AfD debates but no non-admin closures. I was wondering why that was? Can you show some experience of determining consensus, maybe a closure of an RfC?

A: The main problem I've seen at AfD is a lack of participants, not closers, so I've focused my efforts on contributing to discussions rather than closing them. One of my biggest pet peeves is clear-cut cases which get relisted over and over again due to a lack of participation. So, I'm afraid that I can't really demonstrate my ability to close AfDs, and I haven't closed any RfCs either. I have learned quite a bit about closing AfDs from watching how the discussions I participate in are closed, so maybe it will help if I explain some of my beliefs about closing. I try to strike a balance between consensus and policy. Policy is obviously the first consideration, and I won't pay attention to votes which are flagrantly in disregard of policy or are the result of meatpuppetry or canvassing, but if policy says one thing and a number of experienced editors are saying something else, I will tend to listen to the experienced editors. This is based on the ideas that policy is descriptive not prescriptive and we should follow the spirit not the letter of the law. Here is an example of what I am talking about - as far as I can tell the nominator had a sound policy argument, but the admin closed as keep because that was the consensus.

If a discussion has had very little or not participation after one week, I will be inclined to close as no consensus with NPASR, to avoid cluttering up the AfD log, but if a discussion is ongoing and looks like it needs more time to develop, I will of course relist. If several editors are calling for deletion but at least one has suggested merging or redirecting and there is a viable target, I may close as merge or redirect, per the principle that redirects are cheap and if a topic becomes notable in the future, the old article can be used a starting point for writing a new one. When weighing competing notability guidelines, e.g. SNGs vs. the GNG, the holy grail for me is sourcing. It's all very well to say that a musician is notable because their article claims they have a charting single, but if there are no reliable sources backing up that claim then the article is not verifiable and I will be inclined towards deletion. Similarly, if three editors vote "delete" with weak rationales and then someone comes along with a "keep" vote and provides multiple in-depth sources, I will be very hesitant to close as delete even though that seems to be the consensus. In that situation I would probably relist. I don't really care how poorly an article is written or even if it cites sources - if sources exist, then it is notable and deletion is not cleanup. I also freely admit to being biased against BLPs and articles of a promotional nature; I expect higher sourcing standards from them compared to historical or what I consider "important" articles. I'm not going to disregard policy just because I don't like it, but if there's an article about some 2nd-century Hindu scholar and we can only find one source for it, I might fudge the rules a little bit. That's because, first, the article is useful and seems like something Wikipedia should cover, and second because there are probably print and/or foreign-language sources for it which we don't have access to.

I'm sorry to subject you to such a lengthy reply, but I think you brought up an important point and hopefully this allays some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Additional question from Minimac

7. Here's an edit warring related question. User A reverted User B's edits twice on two separate articles within a period of 24 hours, making four reverts altogether. User B has placed a warning on User A's talk page after the third revert but after User A reverts him the fourth time User B decides to report to the noticeboard. What actions would you take for User A, considering that User B's edits are not vandalism or replicas of banned users?

A: Well, User A hasn't broken the 3RR, so I don't think a block would be appropriate. Edit warring can occur even inside the boundaries of the 3RR though, so in this case I think I would look closely at the edits in question and try to determine if User A was in fact edit warring, considering such factors as whether User A was reverting to enforce policy, which is not edit warring, and also the general pattern of behavior between the two users, i.e. if they are being civil to each other, discussing on the talk page or just reverting back and forth, and why they disagree with each other. If I decided that User A was edit warring, I would probably place a warning on his talk page and block if he continued to cause problems. If both users were edit warring, I would do the same but also reprimand User B. If User A was not at fault and User B is just wikilawyering, I would reprimand User B. Whatever the outcome, I would encourage Users A and B to talk out their differences and consider Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.

Additional question from Mr. Stradivarius

8. Looking through your deleted contribs, I see that most of your speedy deletion nominations have been done at Articles for creation using WP:AFCH. In article space, the only speedy deletion nominations I could find were this G4 nomination (admins only, sorry) from January 2012 and these two [6][7] (admins only) from 2008. Do you consider your work at AfC to be enough to give you a good understanding of CSD, and if so, why? Also, would you approach article-space CSD candidates any differently from AfC submissions?

A: I don't think my AfC speedys have much to do with speedy deletion in general; I don't remember if the nominations you're talking about were done under G13 or for some other reason, maybe G12, but in general AfC is a much more permissive environment than article-space. Articles in AfC can violate G11, A7, A9, and other criteria because no one sees them and there's no problem with letting them be and allowing their authors to improve them. Once in article-space, though, articles start showing up in Google searches and being visible to the public, so they can cause damage either to their subjects or Wikipedia's reputation and it's more important to deal with them quickly. I haven't done many speedy deletion nominations just because I haven't come across many articles that should be speedied. Those are generally to be found at the beginning of the NPP log and are sniped pretty quickly, whereas I usually work from the back of the log and like to take my time making fixes as I patrol. As above with AfD, I really can't demonstrate my ability to handle CSD candidates from my editing history. However, I do think I have a good understanding of the criteria from observing the process, and I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might have.

Additional questions from Carrite

9. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other account name? If so, what name or names were these?

A. I have not. I edited briefly as an IP before making my account, but I cannot remember the IP address, and I don't believe I made more than 10 or 15 edits.

10. I notice that you were involved in something called the Great Wikipedia Drama Out. If you could unilaterally implement one change to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or practices with a view to reducing the level of drama on the site, what would that be? Carrite (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A. Good question! I'm afraid drama is a symptom of human nature rather than any particular Wikipedia policy, so nothing we can do will completely eliminate it. People with much more dedication and wisdom than I have worked hard to solve this problem, setting up our current dispute resolution system and ArbCom and all the rest, and yet we still have issues. My personal strategy is to deny recognition, tune out the noise and drive on with my editing, but that's not really viable for the project as a whole because someone has to do the dirty work and do something about disruptive editors. That was the problem with the concept of the Drama Out - if all the constructive users stop paying attention to the "drama boards," the vandals and POV-pushers will have a field day. You asked for policy recommendations, and really I don't have any beyond "make people be nicer to each other," which is pretty useless. I'm sure there are ways to fine-tune the current system, but I haven't spent enough time down in the trenches of ANI or its subpages to know what they are. Sorry for the unhelpful answer :(.

Additional question from Stfg

11. In your answer to Q5Q6 you said "if a topic becomes notable in the future, the old article can be used a starting point for writing a new one", and below I commented that this "denies credit to the editor who eventually creates the real thing, and there's no need to have an old, bad article just to be the "starting point" for a new one". You later wrote of "the possibility of readers not finding what they are looking for". I don't understand why a bad article would satisfy a reader looking for information about any topic, nor why you think that an old, bad article is useful as a basis for writing a good one on that subject. Also, I recall a recent RfA in which the candidate was taken to task for claiming credit for an article when in fact he had rewritten rather than it. I thought that unfair. Please would you elaborate on why you disagree with the above.

A. All I meant by that was that I prefer redirecting rather than deleting where possible, because it preserves the history of the redirected article. As an example (idealized and perhaps unrealistic), let's say a well-written, comprehensive article on an academic goes to AfD because it lacks sources and gets redirected to some related article. Later, the academic dies and several obituaries of her are published. An interested editor can now find the old article in the history, source it appropriately, and reinstate it, rather than having to start from scratch. No readers would have to see the "bad" unsourced version, because it is hidden behind the redirect, but it would be there as a resource for other editors. The flip side, as you point out, is that the second editor won't get credit for having created a new article.

Optional question/request from Reaper Eternal

12. I notice you have not been particularly active in "admin zones". Now that is not really an issue, since anybody who can contribute good content can, in my mind, make a good admin. The only issues will likely be simple mistakes regarding for what the tools are allowed to be used. Thus, have you read the blocking policy, the deletion policy, the protection policy, the revision deletion policy, and, above all, the prohibition on using admin tools when you are involved in a content dispute?

Please note that the only acceptable answer to this question is "Yes." If you cannot truthfully answer yes, then go read them, then come back and answer "Yes." Thanks, and I hope this helps you avoid any serious issues in your admin career! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A. Yes - after I saw this question I read through them again just to make sure.

Additional question from Vigyani

13. In A6 you said "If a discussion has had very little or not participation after one week, I will be inclined to close as no consensus with NPASR". What is your say about the WP:PROD process, where a PRODed article is deleted if unchallenged after a given period.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A. I think it's a good process because it's simple and is more efficient than AfD for uncontroversial deletions. There are lots of articles that any reasonable editor would agree should be deleted, but don't fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and PROD helps to keep those articles from taking up a lot of people's time at AfD. I especially like how anyone can stop a PROD just by opposing it, and it's easy to request undeletion, so the articles that get deleted through PROD are really ones that nobody cares about. Of course the procedure is susceptible to abuse, and no doubt some inappropriate PRODs last for seven days, so I think it's important for administrators to judge for themselves whether an expired PROD belongs in the encyclopedia and not just unthinkingly delete.

14. Referring to A6 and A11. When an editor tries to create a article which was previously deleted, the editnotice appears which says "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below" along with details of the deleting admin. Couldn't the purpose of using the old content be achieved by contacting the deleting admin? A minor added benefit of this process is that it provides the new editor with so-called credit of creating the article.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A. Yes, that makes sense. It's a little harder than just looking in the history of a redirect, but it does have some benefits, i.e. the "credit" (whatever that's worth) goes the new editor and people are probably more likely to create articles from redlinks than redirects. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

15. In your opinion what are the major concerns regarding newcomers? How can we fix these problems?

A: The barriers to entry are extremely high, but thankfully lots of work is going in to reducing them. Getting past the confusion of the editing pane and making your first edit takes a lot of commitment, and quite often that first edit is wrong and is soon reverted, which can be discouraging. Fortunately, projects are underway or have recently been implemented to fix these problems, i.e. the Teahouse, Visual Editor, and The Wikipedia Adventure.

Something that I'm not sure we have a good answer to right now is helping new users find work to do. Experienced editors have to-do lists a mile long and live under the shadow of towering backlogs, but when I was getting started I had trouble because most articles on mainstream topics are in pretty good shape, so there's not much low-hanging fruit in terms of stuff to fix, while lots of the backlogs require specialized skills or at least experience with how Wikipedia works.

For me, the breakthrough was when I found WikiProject Categories/uncategorized, because even as a new user I could figure out how to categorize and it became a gateway into wikification and other more advanced things. I think we as a community need to think about how simple tasks like categorization can be made easier for new editors, and then specifically advertise them to newcomers. The lists of tasks on the community portal are a huge step in the right direction, and wikiproject to-do lists are great as well, but we can always do more.

Additional question from DGG

16. In your response to q6, you said that "If a discussion has had very little or not participation after one week, I will be inclined to close as no consensus with NPASR, to avoid cluttering up the AfD log," Are you aware that at present almost all such discussions are in fact relisted at least once (and about half of them do eventually get enough participation for a decision) ? I recognize this is a matter of interpretation, but should an admin follow their own interpretation when most others interpret it differently, but both could be justified by the written guidelines?

A: Your questions are very important aspects of AFD. Let me answer them in sequence. To your first question, I would say yes, you are right, most such discussions are in fact relisted at least once (something that I should also follow generally). To your second question, I would reply that a closing admin should not be prone to following one's own interpretation in discussions when most others interpret it differently, and when both stands could be equally and as strongly justified by written policies/guidelines. The stand that an editor might take while participating in a discussion could be quite different from the stand they take while closing a discussion - as the closing admin would need to heed the consensus evident in the discussion irrespective of his or her personal preferences. Mistakes by closing admins can still occur, but experience is one of the ways in which admins can come to understand the nuances involved in these discussions, and I hope I am able to gain the same in case the community passes this RFA. Thank you for the questions DGG.

Additional question from SilkTork

17. What for you is the difference between "majority" and "consensus"? And how would you determine the consensus in this AfD, which you mention above?

A: Majority is, speaking literally, the group that has more heads. While closing discussions, rather than see the majority view, the closing admin must see the consensus view. The admin should first discard irrelevant/illogical arguments, personal opinions and those not based on policies and guidelines. From the remaining arguments that are policies/guidelines based, the administrator should determine the consensus view taking into account how appropriately the comments are supported by the said policies/guidelines. As I mentioned in my answer above, there are many other nuances also that the closing administrator has to take into account while determining consensus, perhaps even the way the sequence of keep versus delete comments has progressed. In the case of the Thangorodrim AfD, one significant discussion or debate that arose was between WP:NOTPLOT and the GNG, with four users (including the nom) favoring deletion/merger, and 4.5 users - if I'm allowed to use such a perceptual figure, as one of them was a weak keep- wanting to keep the article. It's a borderline case. One closing opinion could be that as the first delete statement (which mentioned that the article was non-notable and fancruft) was made before the sources were provided, this delete statement could be disregarded and therefore the discussion tends towards a keep consensus, so should be closed as a keep. In my opinion, one cannot discount the fact that the first delete editor did not change his/her delete comment despite the sources being provided; and may even have been following the discussions I had with the nominator. At the same time, one cannot avoid taking into account the sequencing of the delete/keep/merge comments. Considering all this, if the last well-explained merge comment had not come in as the last comment, I would have closed the AFD as a keep. In this case, taking everything into account, my personal opinion would have been to close the AFD as a no consensus tending to keep. I hope that sounds sensible. Please do ask me if what I've written is not clear. Thanks.

General comments

• Links for Cerebellum: Cerebellum (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Cerebellum can be found here.
• Editing statistics posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cerebellum—John Cline (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Excellent answers to questions, clean block log, good contributor, even temperament. Looks good to me. You forgot to mention you were editor of the week :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Why not?--SKATER ^Speak. 00:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- I can see this user being a fine admin. Sportsguy17 (click to chat • contributions) 01:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Content admins are always welcomed, particularly ones with Cerebellum's excellent temperament and knowledge. Go Phightins! 02:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support No concerns here! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
6. Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Looks like a good candidate. I have no concerns, and Cerebellum will make an excellent admin. StevenD99 ^{Contribs Sign} 04:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - At first I was concerned that you had scarcely participated in CfD despite expressing a desire to work in that area as an admin but I am confident in your AfD participation up to this point. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Has made good contributions to content and in a number of other areas such as AfD. Appears to have good temperament and has worked well with new editors, a good trait for administrators. Has been recognized for these contributions such as by Editor of Week award and comments on talk page. Long history with the project. Well stated answers to questions. I agree that Cerebellum should make an excellent administrator. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
10. Support – I trust Cerebellum with the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 06:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Trustworthy user. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
12. Support Been here for several years and the glance I took through his contributions and talk page history indicate he'd know how to be a good administrator. --LemonTwinkle 09:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
13. Support Am happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
14. Support User has thoroughly shown they are ready for adminship. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
15. Support Long-term content contributor with wide experience and good answers to questions. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
16. Support Good candidate, no concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - no concerns at all. Tolly4bolly 15:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
18. Support Cerebellum is an editor who I had offered earlier to nominate for adminship; he had declined subsequently as he wanted to gain more experience. And last week, when he contacted me again, almost ten months post our first contact, I unfortunately was busy. An extremely trustworthy editor, I believe Cerebellum is quite sincere in his contributions and would be a significant benefit to our project as an administrator too. For the sake of records, it's a pleasure to second his self-nomination through this support statement of mine. Wifione ^Message 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
19. Support long history of positive contributions and healthy interactions. Appears to favor quality over quantity. Add in thoughtful answers above, and there is no reason to think this is anything but a very fine admin candidate. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
20. Support. No concerns, and I respect and like the answer to my question, as well as the answers to the questions before and after mine. Someone was bound to hand you a mop eventually! Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
21. Support I like most of the answers, and have not seen anything in general editing to worry me. One thing always to remember is that different admins get experience in different areas. It is important not to rush in to areas of non-experience, and I can't see that happening. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
22. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
23. Support This candidate has the brains for the job. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
24. Support See no concerns here. buffbills7701 20:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
25. Support No concerns, trusted user, will not abuse the mop. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. Have seen him around, and was always positively impressed. A little curious about his editing habit, editing more frequently around Januarys, and much less often around Julys. Does it have to do with weather? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

    Heh, I hadn't noticed that before. I'm in school so it's probably due to finals procrastination/winter break around January and summer jobs/vacations around July :). --Cerebellum (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

27. Support - No concerns on my end. TCN7JM 23:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - Nothing too scary-looking in their past 500 contribs, active at AFD from what I can see. My only problem is the weak sourcing in a few of their articles, but this is not too significant. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Not afraid to admit a mistake; looks like they will learn quickly on the job. Too good to be a self-nom. Miniapolis 01:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - appears to be a good candidate. Rlendog (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
31. Support - trurstworthy and clueful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
33. Support - No concerns; clean block log, adequate tenure, nice mix of mainspace and backstage edits, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
34. Support - balance of evidence suggests net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
35. Support - Great candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
36. Support - solid, long-term, trustworthy editor. GiantSnowman 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
37. —Kusma (t·c) 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
38. Support Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
39. Support Solid, helpful, courteous. A trifecta. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
40. Support per answers to various questions. I also believe that new users can be given easy tasks such as categorizing the articles properly, for them to get into the flow.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 00:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
41. Support- good temperment, useful contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
42. Support. Nice answers to Qs, great contributions, no concerns. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 08:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
43. Support, per editing history and evidence of temperament. Patient editors who explain their actions tend to make great admins. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
44. Support. Good contributions. _{It's a no-brainer.} Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
45. Support Competent. Calm. Thoughtful. While I am closer to Stfg (in the Neutral section below) than Cerebellum regarding WP:NPASR closure, Cerebellums's demonstrated ability (example) to listen and take on board other opinions is a more valuable quality than him merely happening to agree with me. Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
46. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or the position.--MONGO 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
47. Support A solid candidate, will be a net plus for the project as an admin. Spencer^T♦C 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
48. Support – looks like the user is fit for adminship, no signs of previous abuse, and very helpful, substantial contributions. The community would benefit from the addition of this admin-to-be. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
49. Support: looks like someone who will be a net positive as an admin. Good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
50. Support Holy crap 17 questions in a RfA? Damn its been a while since I've looked at this place... anyways I don't see any real reason to think that he will be a bad admin and I'm honestly a little incredulous this RfA is not unanimous support. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
51. Absolutely. The answers to the questions were outstanding, and I feel very confident that Cerebellum will put the tools to good use. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
52. Support. A net positive, with solid contributions and good answers to questions. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 15:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
53. Support. The recent work on Iraq War articles is quite helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
54. Support. The candidate seems to be very level-headed, and has a good grasp of policy. I enjoyed reading their responses to questions.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  18:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
55. SupportAs per Thane and Content editor and has been here long enough.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
56. Support No concerns. Jebus989^✰ 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
57. NW (Talk) 22:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
58. Support Seems very solid and reliable to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
59. Support, clearly understands 3RR and the Q9 answer was just a misphrasing, not an intent to let people break 3RR when it applies. I don't see any other reason not to support, and I see a whole lot of reasons to be in favor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
60. Complete support now that the editor has confirmed he has read the admin policy pages. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
61. Sarong-shaking support May all editors with Cerebellum's temperament, record, and willingness to answer 17 RFA questions nominate themselves. Mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 02:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
62. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
63. Support because I see no reason not to. I am satisfied with candidate's response to Huon's oppose below. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
64. Support my only concern is a lack of experience in admin areas (particularly closing discussions which something they want to do), however I'm confident that there isn't anything which experience as an admin won't solve. Wield your mop well, and don't be afraid to ask for advice! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
65. Support Rzuwig^► 09:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
66. Support Seen the username around; content focused editor; no concerns about interaction style Bellerophon _{talk to me} 14:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
67. Support (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
68. Support - Looks good to me. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
69. Support moved from neutral. His responses here are too good to sit on the fence any longer. If there's a question about AfD approach, he understands that, and I'm sure he will tread carefully. --Stfg (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
70. Support Definitely have no qualms about this candidate. Best of luck to you Cerebellum. —  dainomite   04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
71. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
72. Support - making it nice and simple here. James^x12345 16:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
73. Support. I looked very carefully at the answers to questions and followed most of the links there, and I'm impressed with the polite and thoughtful demeanor, and the readiness to listen to others' views. I took some time to consider the issues raised under "oppose" and "neutral", and I'm still comfortable with supporting, in part because I think that the details of administrative procedures can be learned on the job. What I want to see at RfA is trustworthiness, and I'm satisfied with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
74. Support - Generally good answers to questions, except Q7, and I am satisfied with the response to Huon below. Good job with the self-nomination! - tucoxn\^talk 01:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
75. John Reaves 03:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
76. Support - Having participated in 256 AfDs, the vast majority of which matched the outcome, I believe he knows enough about notability and deletion policies/guidelines; he may however need to brush up on what the community generally does with school articles. My criteria are probably among the most strict, but this support demonstrates that I can be flexible with them. I'm particularly impressed with his style of communication which is an example for everyone, and I'm sure he will ask for advice if he is unsure of anything. I look forward to welcoming him on board in a few hours time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
77. Support. I'm still a little concerned about the lack of CSD experience given that the candidate has expressed an interest in working there, but apart from this blip I think Cerebellum is an excellent admin candidate. Please go slowly on the CSDs, and good luck! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
78. Support No special concerns. --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
79. Support As per edit history and answers to the previous questions, I feel this user would make a good syops. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 13:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
80. Support - Nice content work, reasonable answers to questions and overall a trusted user which I see. Cerebellum's good intentions to help improve Wikipedia is what is basically needed in any editor who needs the tools to help out further. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
81. In-before-the-close Support AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose; (move to neutral) while my own encounters with Cerebellum have always been positive, the answer to Q7 makes me concerned about handing them the tools: "reverting to enforce policy [...] is not edit warring" - yes it is, with the exception of copyright, BLP or certain legal issues. I've seen edit wars where both sides claimed to enforce WP:NPOV, which is policy; in such a case I wouldn't want an admin to decide which side is right and then declare the other "not edit warring". And that's just what Cerebellum said they'd do. Huon (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the statement "considering such factors as whether User A was reverting to enforce policy which is not edit warring" might not have alluded to Cerebellum's intent to consider all edit warring as acceptable if the same were for enforcing policy. I'll wait for his reply but think what Cerebellum meant was "considering such factors as whether User A was reverting to enforce those policies which are not edit warring." Of course he could have been clearer, but do believe that this is something which we shouldn't hold against him. Regards. Wifione ^Message 08:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Huon, you're right that my statement went too far - edit warring can occur even while enforcing policy. I should have clarified that the exemption applies only to certain overriding policies such as the ones you mentioned above. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral moved to support Very well-mannered and generally competent, but I find the answer to Q5Q6 worrying idiosyncratic. (a) Close as WP:NPASR if there are few or no comments after just one week? There are other options, as listed there, that should at least be considered. Merely "to avoid cluttering up the AfD log" seems a poor reason to make such a decision. (b) "if a topic becomes notable in the future, the old article can be used a starting point for writing a new one": denies credit to the editor who eventually creates the real thing, and there's no need to have an old, bad article just to be the "starting point" for a new one. (c) "... if there's an article about some 2nd-century Hindu scholar and we can only find one source for it, I might fudge the rules a little bit. That's because, first, the article is useful and seems like something Wikipedia should cover, and second because there are probably print and/or foreign-language sources for it which we don't have access to." Every article we have entails a maintenance cost, and we have high maintenance backlogs. If you feel tempted to "fudge the rules", then it would be better to cast a !vote rather than ride solo. How do you know that those print/foreign sources "probably" exist, and if they do, what's to stop the editor who can find and read them from starting the article anew (and getting well-deserved credit)? Deleting doesn't have to mean salting. I would oppose because of all this, but you have a great manner, are considerate to new editors, and have done good work in article space. Also, many other answers are very good, so it's neutral for now. --Stfg (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but just to make sure I'm expressing myself clearly: (a) I don't like relisting articles unnecessarily because the number of eyeballs on each day's AfD log is a scarce resource, and when there are more entries on a given day, there are less participants in each discussion and discussion quality may be harmed. If there is little or no discussion on a nomination, it's either because nobody cares about the article or because it slipped through the cracks of the process and nobody looked at it. If it slipped through the cracks, perhaps the volume of nominations is too high, in which case relisting is unlikely to help. If nobody cares, then the nominator can try PRODing the article. Does that make sense? The other alternative is to close in favor of the nominator's proposal - usually deletion. I would do that if there were at least two editors agreeing with the nominator, but I wouldn't feel comfortable deleting with one or no participants. Point (b) I think we just disagree on, and point (c) probably comes down to a tradeoff between maintenance costs and the possibility of readers not finding what they are looking for. You're certainly right, though, that it's "better to cast a !vote rather than ride solo," I'll keep that in mind. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Articles which have been previously discussed at AfD cannot be PRODed. Thanks to User:Espresso Addict for pointing this out. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a couple admins delete an article at AfD (in similar circumstances) with no prejudice against recreating or requesting undeletion as if it were PRODed. Who do you feel about this, something you'd consider? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The problem with my NPASR idea is that it doesn't actually answer the question of whether or not the article belongs on Wikipedia, just defers it for someone else to worry about, while deleting but leaving the option of undeletion open at least provides a tentative answer for the nominator. I wouldn't want to do this as a new admin because it could look like I've gone rouge and am just doing what I want regardless of consensus, but after I had some experience and confidence I would consider it. As above, I'd love to hear other opinions on this issue. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My wish has been answered: this exact proposal is under discussion here. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Neutral. A very strong candidate. It's a minor point but Wikiquette assistance hasn't been active since September 2012 so this wouldn't be an area you could work in. You have a lot of strengths though and this might change to a Support before the RfA is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral - While I'm impressed with the candidate's participation and knowledge in the deletion area and his/her general demeanor, I'm not sure I'm seeing experience and judgement in other areas of content creation and dispute resolution. While no one is fully prepared to to be an Admin (it has to be learned like anything else) I find a few small things giving me some pause. They are: only 8k edits, saying they are "conflict adverse" (conflict is an unfortunate side effect of collaboration), invoking "don't give a fuck" as a method for stress reduction or impartiality, saying they want tools so they can help newbies and participate at WP:AfD, WP:CSD, WP:CP, WP:Wiketiquette which are all places they can contribute without Admin tools. So while I don't have a clear objection to this candidate I do have some minor reservations at this time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral, I'll assume Cerebellum misspoke in his reply to Q7, but I'm not quite happy with some of the other answers either, so I'll settle for neutral. Huon (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2013 (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.