Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MER-C

[edit]

Final (157/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]

MER-C (talk · contribs) – MER-C is one of the most productive Wikipedians I know. They are highly active in anti-spam patrol and copyright cleanup, and if you go over and investigate Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations or WP:CCI, you will find MER-C's name all over the place. For example, MER-C is the top contributor at CCI with 449 edits, and that is just the main page - in the last month alone, they have helped with cleanup at 16 different CCI subpages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). MER-C has also done an enormous amount of work at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations; they have 757 edits there (the number four contributor if you don't count bots), and I count 29 edits to the daily logs in the last month, all of which were resolving multiple reports at once. At WikiProject Spam, the numbers are even more impressive: MER-C has a whopping 3582 edits to the project talk page (where the spam reporting occurs), and there are a great many spam reversions in their contributions. (I was going to count how many of those they did this month, but I gave up because there were too many.)

MER-C is also a regular speedy deletion nominator, and from their deleted contribs (sorry, admins only) I see a large number of successful G11 and G12 nominations, but also a good understanding of other often-misunderstood criteria like A7 and A10. I count around 80 successful nominations this month, and those nominations go back a long way. That's work that MER-C would be able to do themselves if given the admin tools.

Although MER-C's most valuable contributions to Wikipedia by far are in the areas of spam and copyright cleanup, they are not a total stranger to content creation. There are few content gems in MER-C's contributions if you are willing to look back a few years. MER-C likes their Mars articles, and they have a few Mars-related DYKs at Planum Australe, Planum Boreum, Eberswalde (crater), Tooting (crater) and Zunil (crater). I also found some good work at Victoria (crater). They have also done a lot of work with pictures. As well as having a featured picture to their credit, MER-C was also a regular at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates a few years ago, and has closed a large number of nominations there. Take a look at this FPC log page from 2009 for an example. I see a good eye for judging consensus, and it also looks like MER-C's prodigious ability to reduce backlogs hasn't changed very much in four years. :)

MER-C has run for adminship twice before, the first back in October 2006 and the second in February 2007. They actually came quite close to passing the second of those RfAs, and I think the experience they have gained in the intervening six years have shown that they are more than ready for adminship now. I also like what I see from reading MER-C's talk page. While MER-C's communication style is direct and to-the-point, they are diligent about replying to messages, and they do a good job of explaining the ins and outs of our policies, guidelines, and practices to newer users. I believe this will stand them in good stead for adminship, when those newer users will likely increase in number. All in all, I think we will benefit a lot from giving MER-C the admin tools, and if this RfA is successful I predict that we will see a large spike in useful admin work done. I hope that you all agree with my judgement. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Wizardman: Stradavarius above and Moonriddengirl below have already given a good overview of the candidate and what he would bring to the table, so for my co-nomination I will simply note my own experiences with this candidate. For six years I have seemingly seen the candidate everywhere, primarily on the anti-spam front and the copyright front. Both areas are ones where a few more admins (and a few hundred more editors, quite frankly) are sorely needed. There are times where it'll seem completely dead doing copyright investigations, and MER-C will pop in to help out. To be blunt, this work alone should make him a no-brainer for adminship, yet the praise doesn't stop there. It's not just WP:CCI he can be found at, where he both cleans the copyright issues and accepts/declines the cases, showing good judgment, but he helps out at WP:SCV and WP:CP, copyright areas that are a bit more timely and need help a bit more quickly. So, just give him the tools, make working on this site a little bit easier on all of you. Wizardman 17:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Moonriddengirl:

Mr. Stradivarius has given a broad overview of MER-C above. I wish to speak to one major aspect of his work: copyright. I have collaborated with MER-C on copyright cleanup for years, having first run into him at the suspected copyright violations page in 2007. He is one of the stalwarts in the area of text-based copyright concerns, contributing to all aspects. He has been active in maintaining and assisting at the copyright problems board, helps keep the suspected copyright violations from running utterly amok, and reviews and processes contributor copyright investigations. He has handled this work reliably and steadily, without undue drama, and could benefit tremendously from admin tools. We are very short handed in copyright work at the moment (and for the past several years), as a number of admins who worked in that area have reduced their activity levels or left Wikipedia - User:VernoWhitney, User:Mkativerata, User:MLauba, User:Toon05, User:TheLeftorium. Those of us who are left are struggling to keep up. MER-C's contributions to copyright cleanup especially would be even more efficient if he were able to process listings fully.

For me, the most important question in any adminship request is whether or not the user can be trusted with the tools. We often hear that adminship is "no big deal", and I believe that it's meant to be - but recognize that it is a very big deal indeed when the tools are misused. MER-C has been steadily and usefully contributing to Wikipedia for over seven years in a broad range of areas. He knows where he works well, and he works hard where he is needed. I trust him with the tools, and I think Wikipedia will benefit for his having them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius, Wizardman and Moonriddengirl for the nominations. I accept. MER-C 11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Initially I see myself using the tools in areas that I am familiar with -- dealing with spam and spammers from the linkwatcher feed (it's like recent changes, but only for link additions) and the WikiProject Spam talk page and closing spam blacklist requests. I currently have access to User:XLinkBot, but it is not the ideal tool to stop persistent spamming. I also have access to the whitelisting/highlighting features of the linkwatchers.
I will also address copyvios at WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI. My involvement with these processes is detailed in the nomination statements. Finally, I will close WP:MFD debates, having participated for at least three years. From there, I suppose I will branch out to other related admin tasks including CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The nomination statements have covered pretty much everything, except for my software development work. This includes my cross-wiki linksearch and image CCI tools and the MediaWiki API wrapper they use (which is also used by a couple of bots). In particular, the IEP CCI required a... "custom solution" because existing tools could not cope. Of all these things, however, I feel that the sheer amount of spam and copyright violations I have removed over the years is my most significant contribution to the project.
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: What I do on Wikipedia is mostly non-controversial, apart from the usual (and surprisingly infrequent) complaints from spammers. In practice, I find that I can avoid a lot of drama by exercising good judgement and by concisely explaining my reasoning. One thing that I find helps in these situations is to do something else for a few hours and then address the situation. If that doesn't work I would seek outside input or letting it slide, depending on the severity of the issue.
Additional question from DGG
4. To what extent has your attitude towards deletion changed from your previous rfa? DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A: Six years is a long time ago, so please forgive me if this answer is vague and/or incomplete. I don't make as many deletion nominations as I used to -- I currently focus on the copyvio/spam deletions as opposed to more general NPP. I believe my CSD and MFD record (don't look at AFD, that is skewed towards the first two years) is more accurate than it was back then. When doing copyvio cleanup, I tend to leave any notability concerns to those who are better able to evaluate them. Furthermore, I feel that I am much more reluctant to nominate for deletion when the content concerned is a genuine effort to improve the encyclopedia. MER-C 04:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from BrownHairedGirl
5. The articles mentioned in the nomination as examples of your content creation appear to have been created 6 or 7 years ago. Do you still create content? If so, please can you give some recent examples of your content creation, whether by expanding existing articles or creating new ones? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A: For multiple real life reasons, I rarely have the time and cognitive surplus required to engage in extensive content-building. I feel that I can more effectively contribute to the project doing the things that I currently do, given how thinly we are spread in these areas. That said, I still occasionally chip in -- [1] would be the most recent example -- and gnome work after copyright cleanup. I acknowledge that this is one of my weaknesses and know that I should get some more experience in this area. MER-C 05:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
6. An article I started recently was deleted because of a copyvio. How is copyvio determined?
A: Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to find text plagiarism (yes, I know that plaigiarism != copyvio, but the advice is also applicable for copyvios) give a number of circumstances where copyvio is plausible. Google usually takes care of the rest. MER-C 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Hasteur
7. Under what conditions would you stand for WP:RECALL?
A: If a WP:RFC/U ends with a consensus that I resign the tools, then I shall do so. I don't see the need for an additional process. MER-C 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. To what level do you consider invocation of WP:IAR necessary for day to day operations of the encyclopedia?
A: IAR is not often evoked explicitly and by the letter -- our policies and guidelines are designed using our collective experience to effectively deal with the majority of (but not all!) situations. However, the spirit of the policy -- that one does not need to familiarize with the intimate details of all of the rules in order to edit, that the spirit of our policies and guidelines is more important than the actual words and that rules should always be applied with common sense and good judgement -- is a core element of how and why this place works. MER-C 14:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. What is your interpertation of WP:ADMINACCT?
A: I don't see how one could interpret this policy describing community expectations of administrators in any other way apart from the obvious manner. MER-C 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from BDD
10. I was pleased to see you nominating some fake reality shows in userspace for deletion at MfD. As you probably know, this is a perennial problem. Do you think it would be appropriate to create a new speedy deletion criterion to deal with these and similar articles (i.e., WP:NOTHERE/WP:NOTWEBHOST) more expeditiously, or do you think current procedures for their deletion are sufficient?
A: There's an ongoing discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Propose: G14. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts with no mainspace contributions., which I have participated in. MER-C 02:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong support - Obviously. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support Per Moonriddengirl's nomination statement and my own highly positive interactions with this user. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - No question at all that Mer-C would not only be an excellent admin, but a much needed one as well. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - absolutely...Modernist (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per all three nominations and my own very good experience of working with him. --Stfg (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good contributions. (Also, an excellent nomination statement by Mr. Stradivarius.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. MER-C is an experienced, level-headed Wikipedian who will make fine admin. Deli nk (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Per noms. Very experienced, will make a fine (and much needed) admin indeed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I don't see any reasons to oppose and the areas in which he works (and the whole project) will benefit by him having the tools. Chuy1530 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support You mean he isn't already? Spartaz Humbug! 13:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Heck -- his very first run had opposes from folks with under 25 edits counted <g>. Not even a close call whatsoever. Collect (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support As per Moonriddengirl , Wizardman and Stradivarius .Has been editing without a break since July 2006.One of the most experienced, dedicated,active and committed contributors to the Project. One of the main contributors in copyright cleanup and having tools will help him view deleted contributions.See no concerns and the last RFA was ages ago in Feb 2007.Fully trustworthy and see only the project gaining immensely with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support again, for the third time actually. MER-C was ready to be an admin sixseven years ago, and that doesn't appear to have changed. —Kusma (t·c) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. While MER-C and I have never interacted, they are most definitely a familiar name to me and have been for a very long time; I know, based on my observations, that they are a highly experienced editor. I have encountered their anti-spam work on countless occasions and I was indeed aware of their work in dealing with copyvios. It's unfortunate that MER-C didn't pass RfA years ago. Bonus points for the excellent nomination statements. Acalamari 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, needs extra tools. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Obviously. Wizardman 14:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Well-qualified candidate, who wants to work where we need help. Miniapolis 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - The tools will be very useful to MER-C in the areas mentioned in the nomination statements. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – Good luck! Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I supported in the 2006 RfA and was surprised that it failed. There's even more reason to support now. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Rschen7754 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Amazing editor and helper! ///EuroCarGT 16:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - (edit conflict) Seems, everyone is voting for you. This should be regarded as a high-traffic RfA. MER-C deserves it, now atleast. With such great users like Wizardman, Mr. Stardivarius nominating you, you should get through this RfA without a hitch. --Ankit Maity (chatter)Contribs 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support even though probably overqualified... Peridon (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support The nominators include those that I have a great respect for there judgement. Looked through opposes from previous round and do not see anything that sway my vote at this time. PaleAqua (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Can't see any reason not to give him the mop. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - My encounters with MER-C across WP areas has always been positive. I agree with the nomination statements: MER-C is well-qualified to be an admin. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support (edit conflict) Why not? Great nominations, nice edit history, and an obvious net positive. buffbills7701 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Although he has two previous RfAs that didn't go too well, MER-C has definitely improved in several areas of editing that I feel qualify him for administrator rights. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Per nominators. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Common sense Secret account 19:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - No reason not to! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, good impressions--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support This fabulous candidate gets my full support. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support hell yeah. Legoktm (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Thought he already was! Excellent contributor, superstar at WP:CCI. Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support, as I had forgotten my co-nom statement didn't count as such. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Rzuwig► 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Hell yes -- Nothing more to say other than hell yes, this user is a great candidate. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I see no reason not to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Per nominators. Widr (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I've seen and been around MER-C's edits for many years now. A great candidate, good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No concerns benmoore 22:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per nominators. A very well-qualified candidate without any sign of weaknesses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per nom. --John (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support - How are they not an admin again? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support without any hesitation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I realize there's no need to pile on with yet another support, for someone who has this user's track record as well as nominations from three highly respected admins. But I couldn't resist adding another reason for support: the terrific sense of humor evident at MER-C's userpage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Everything looks good to me; the answers to the questions are satisfactory; and none of the concerns from the previous RFAs seem still applicable or would be a reason I would oppose. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - no doubt about it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Every once in a while one of these comes up that I don't have to research. Surprising that this longstanding copyright volunteer doesn't already have the gear. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Long-time contributor to some important administrative functions. Good record. Good interactions. Strong nomination statements. No concerns. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Pretty obvious support, per noms. Good luck with the tools, and thank you for your service thus far. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Overqualified Courcelles 07:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Seen him around for years, and thought he already was, no issues of concern. RfA2 seems to be for another person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support - User would make a great Administrator. I see no reason otherwise. United States Man (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Garion96 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per it being obvious. Graham87 09:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I've seen MER-C around in a few places. They seem to be sane, reasonable and productive. Combine that with a co-nomination from Moonriddengirl and there literally is no reason to not give them the damn mop already. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Should have been made an admin years ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I'm also involved at WP:CCI (and according to Mr. Stradivarius's link, the top non-admin contributor there after MER-C) so I'm intimately familiar with MER-C's work there. It's always amazed me that MER-C isn't an administrator already. Having the tools would definitely help them, so I wholeheartedly support the nomination. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Belated nom support. Glad I got back from my trip in time to actually support this! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Per the glowing nomination statements made by some of our most respected and experienced editors. Probably should have re-run years ago. Pedro :  Chat  11:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per the nominators. — sparklism hey! 11:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, good candidate where tools can only enhance their contribution to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Always wondered why he wasn't one... -- Mentifisto 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Absolutely no problems. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Per nomination. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I thought they were already ... - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Graham sums it up well. PhilKnight (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Enjoy the mop-n-bucket. Not a big deal, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support The noms said it all, little to add. Clueful, dedicated, no-nonsense but also no-drama editor. MLauba (Talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I normally like to see some good content creation from admin candidates, maybe a GA-class article, but given the wealth of other experience that the candidate has, I think he's more than ready.--Slon02 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Every reason to support, none to oppose. Dpmuk (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support – Per Moonriddengirl and WP:CCI work. Mojoworker (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per noms. No qualms here. LittleMountain5 22:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support – I am One of Many (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support – Baffling username, any chance he/she's with these people? Totally irrelevant. Anyway, the candidate is a clear asset to the community; I am seeing from personal experience just how much an administrative hand is needed in the copyright areas, where this user excels. Best of luck, MER-C! — MusikAnimal talk 23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Why not. We need admins with a good knowledge of copyright. MER-C certainly fits the bill.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support The candidate will be a great asset to the community. As stated above, we definitely need a good admin with a handle on copyright situations. There is absolutely no reason to oppose. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 00:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support For quite awhile, there has been a call that more editors and administrators are needed at CCI and other copyright areas. For Wizardman and Moonriddengirl not only to support, but to nominate a candidate with plans to work in that realm is more than enough to net my support. Go Phightins! 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support — And on a more serious note... everyone, I think it's time for us to say our final goodbyes to the current state of the CCI backlog. It will surely be missed by a select few (most of whom probably hate Wikipedia and want to see it burn before their eyes), but everything in this world must run its course. Kurtis (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support -- Great work at AfD and lots of content contributions as well.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support This trusted editor is an enormous asset in the crucial area of copyright, and can clearly use the admin toolkit productively. Knowing that the editor fights the spammers is a bonus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Holy co-nominators Batman! - No red flags, been around for a good while, solid credentials. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Trust, among other reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Per the excellent statement by Mr. Stradivarius. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support – Overqualified. APerson (talk!) 03:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong Support I have seen this Wikipedian around a lot. Would not hesitate to give them the tools and absolutely no concerns. Mkdwtalk 03:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Obvious support; that MER-C isn't already an admin is obviously an oversight we need to rectify posthaste. — Coren (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Moral oppose on the grounds that MER-C sets the bar too high for everyone else. :p (j/k of course). Technical 13 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Jamesx12345 09:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support No problems here :-) -- Marek.69 talk 09:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Have seen him around the building - can be trusted with the mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 12:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I really thought they were already an admin! --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong Support MER-C is one of the best. ThemFromSpace 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - TCN7JM 19:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  106. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Great candidate. I used to use that userpage as a tool for finding spam to delete in my admin days. INeverCry 21:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Dlohcierekim 21:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Stephen 23:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support, definitely. Hal peridol (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  111. -- John Reaves 09:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Waited to see answers to the added questions. Concise, spot on. Will to be an asset to the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 15:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support per WP:ABOUTTIMETOO. BencherliteTalk 16:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - I don't know the first thing about CCI, but I can say that the candidate's answers to the questions demonstrate an abundance of clue. WikiPuppies bark dig 16:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong support - I agree that this trusted editor is an enormous asset to the project. The nomination statements were superior and the candidate's edit history is strong. This seems like a totally different editor from the earlier RfAs. I was also waiting to see the candidate's answers to the added questions, which are good. Thanks for your contributions! - tucoxn\talk 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong support I do know the first thing about CCI, which is that MER-C does incredible work there. That alone is enough for support, but everything else adds to the support.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support As per everyone who came before me. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. At this point, there's not much for me to add, but I have a lot of respect for all three nominators. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support At this point, everything that needed to be said in this section has already been said, so I'm going to agree with Tryptofish. MJ94 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I haven't seen MER-C around as much lately, but I remember a lot of good work going way, way back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support without a doubt. -- Scray (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support per plenty of previous experience working with user. It's about time. upstateNYer 03:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I've only had positive interactions with MER-C, mainly at FPC. Has my full trust. SpencerT♦C 07:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Yeah. --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support I see no reason to oppose looks like he would make a fine admin.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Dedicated, trust-worthy, clueful, and willing to work in some of the most backlogged and unforgiving areas of Wikipedia? Hand MER-C a mop please!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. A six-year wait with intervening dedication to copyright reviewing and a good judge of consensus are great attributes I see in MER-C's nominations and responses. Their recent record at AfD is also quite strong. I honestly had one of the "MER-C isn't an admin?!" reactions when I saw the RfA come up. I have no reservations about supporting MER-C with a mop to make their work easier. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Me too. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support base on nomination and supporting comments. KTC (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support as per nom(s). Put me on the "thought they were already an admin" list. No concerns. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Strong Support: A great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  132. I've looked through the nominations, MER-C's talk page archives going back to last February, and some of his recent contributions (nice to see fellow space buff!). I've been impressed by everything. He's been around for nearly eight years and has experience and extensive knowledge to boot. A very qualified candidate who'd be an invaluable asset with the tools given his knowledge of copyright (excellent work thus far in that area, as well). I'm very pleased to strongly support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  133. – Steel 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Wholly unnecessary pile-on support Incredibly useful as a contributor, will be even more of an asset as an administrator. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - Seems to have abundant experience, thoughtful answers and a good understanding of content creation.- MrX 13:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  136. It's about time after nearly 8 years. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support per nominators and above. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Willing to work in needed areas, is helpful and has more than enough experience. Jed 20012 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support North8000 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support . About time - 7 years is more than long enough to have learned from the issues mentioned on his last RfA and is now fully qualified. My pile-on support won't really be needed here either - I'm very familiar with MER-C and I can't argue with the nom/conom statements from so many highly trusted and well known editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Glad that your respected co-nominators finally twisted your arm. Risker (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support MER-C has got to be more qualified for adminship than most current admins. Shame it took this long. Hut 8.5 07:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support I certainly don't always agree with MER-C but there is no doubt that he has proven that he has need and could help the project with the tools and I see no reason we shouldn't force them upon him. A great candidate ;) James of UR (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - no concerns at all. GiantSnowman 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - I went through MER-C's two previous RfA's and saw the concerns raised by the opposition at that time, and I can see is that they have already addressed most of them. Great work done over the past years and has tremendous experience. The support given by many trustworthy users and satisfactory answers to questions leaves no doubt that MER-C will do good job as an Administrator. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support No question about it, and thanks for your answer to mine above. (How did I not know about that discussion? Nobody tells me nothin'.) --BDD (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  148. I didn't get to comment on the last two nominations, but support now. I trust Moonriddengirl. We need more admins. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Does invaluable work on wikipedia, and will be able to do so even more effectively with the admin bit. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Kraxler (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support, another one to strike off my "what, he's not an admin already?" list. Also, Moonriddengirl is my top go-to person for difficult copyright cases; her recommendation on MER-C's work in that area has a lot of weight. Huon (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Excellent choice. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Why not? Armbrust The Homunculus 00:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support – Besides being a sensible person, MER-C will benefit from having the tools in his anti-spam and copyright work. I know him from the early days when he and I were both active at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Fully qualified candidate, we should have made you an admin years ago. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 11:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Alex discussion ★ 11:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Oppose Darshit Paramantharhamshankaran (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (Stricken as being an SPA. Only edit since December 2012.) Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Strikethrough removed, per evolving discussion, moved to talk page. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And your reasons are... or are you a disgruntled sock as suggested on your talk page?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MER-C 3 § Darshit Paramantharhamshankaran's oppose
-- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing bureaucrat note - Given that this user has very few contributions, shows no sign of understanding what RfA is, let alone responding to questions, I cannot be sure that this person actually intended to oppose this RfA. Accordingly, I have attributed no weight to this comment. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MER-C_3&oldid=1146517750"