Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esquivalience (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 2 July 2017 (→Questions for the candidate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:41, 2 July 2017 by Esquivalience (talk | contribs) (→Questions for the candidate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Anarchyte

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (80/1/0); Scheduled to end 12:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

Co-nomination by Dweller

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

Co-nomination by SoWhy

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

Co-nomination by Harry Mitchell

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

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

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to use the administrative tools primarily in areas such as CSD, AfD, RfD, and to a lesser extent, RM. I have a large amount of experience in closing discussions as a non-admin, some of these can be seen here: AfD, RM, and a mix of both AfD and RfD. I am also interested in lending a hand at both AIV and RfPP, and I think I could help there because of the timezone differences; there is usually a backlog whenever I have a look at it.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: Obviously I'm most proud of my one FA, which also happened to be my first GA, but alongside this I've enjoyed the times when I've worked with other people, primary on Rust, Fallout 4: Far Harbor and Regent Street. It's exciting to finally get the green dot at the top of an article, but it's even more fulfilling when you've collaborated with other people and made something together. I worked with HJ Mitchell to get Far Harbor through FAC and his continuous support throughout the process helped me immensely. I worked with MjolnirPants on Rust for a couple of months, and through his advice, he helped me with getting the article to where it is today. I've still got plans to bring that article to GA status, though I can't until the game gets fully released.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Although I've tried to stay away from conflict, I, like most others, have been in the middle of disputes. One of the more recent incidents was during a discussion at Talk:WannaCry ransomware attack where I incorrectly closed a merge discussion as a "snow do not merge", which was later closed as a "merge". I acknowledged my mistake both at the article's talk page and on the nominator's talk page. Alongside this, I've had a few conflicts further back in my past, notably the GamerGate and Ketchapp incidents, where I, in regards to the GamerGate incident, asked a non-policy and opinion-based question which resulted in quite the discussion, as can be seen on my talk page, and in the GG talk page archives. I accepted that I was in the wrong here and haven't edited in that area since, besides a few gnomish edits. For the Ketchapp issue, I added some poorly sourced content which resulted in legal threats and subsequently an ANI report. Having looked back on this issue I've noticed how poorly I acted, specifically in the sense that I didn't directly reference the claim and I didn't use a reliable source. I've learned from my mistakes here, and I haven't been to ANI since, besides a few times when I'm adding my opinion.

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

Optional question from 78.26
4. In Misplaced Pages terms, what is the difference between consensus and voting? Bonus points for explaining where use of these concepts is appropriate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A: Hello 78.26. In regards to Misplaced Pages, consensus is based off the strength of an argument along with its affiliation to Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. What consensus isn't is a tally or headcount, which constitutes as a strawpoll or a vote. Consensus is what makes Misplaced Pages run smoothly, and is used primarily to solve debates or discussions. Voting on the other hand can be used to see how many people are in support or opposition of a certain idea, for example, when Misplaced Pages had the idea of a blackout for SOPA. A vote was conducted to see how many people were in support of such an action, and the consensus was that a blackout was a good idea, in one shape or another (which was decided by finding a consensus, again). Consensus plays a larger roll on Misplaced Pages than voting because we don't want to solve a complex situation by a simple and unenthusiastic "yes" or "no" tally. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Argento Surfer
5. What is your least favorite part of Misplaced Pages to work in, and why? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A: Hi Argento Surfer. I don't think I could give a definitive answer to this question (I don't have a "least favourite part"), but there are parts of Misplaced Pages that interest me much less than others, such as UAA and FfD, though I have respect for everyone who lends a hand there, admin or not. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Gerda
6. One of your co-noms recently protected the article Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher. Let's assume for a moment that you are already an experienced admin: would you have done the same, and why, or why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A: From looking at the history of the page, I've gathered that the protection stemmed from the addition of an infobox, which was reverted by another editor, but was then continuously re-added by an IP address (which changed 4 times). Although three editors attempted to reach out to the IP in an attempt to discuss the infobox both on the article's talk page and on the talk page of the final IP used, nothing ever came of it because the IP never responded. The IP broke the three-revert rule as they had reverted other users 5 times over a short period of time, which, although would warrant a block, I do not believe the article should have been protected as quickly as it was. I would have waited until the blocked IP had been unblocked to see if the disruption continued, or if they changed their IP address to continue reverting. 7 days for a low-edited page (last 50 edits go back to 2011) may have been overkill. I would have opted for a shorter length, such as 3 days, to see how that would play out first, and then if the disruptive edits continued after the article had become unprotected and the IP had become unblocked, then a longer protection would have been justifiable. A range block may have also been an option, but those normally have collateral and are used in more serious cases (from what I've seen, though correct me if I'm wrong). Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from George Ho
7. Wow! This is my first time participating in an RfA process. Anyway, you said in your previous RfA nomination that you want to refrain yourself from the Gamergate dispute. What other areas, topics, and anything else besides Gamergate do you want to refrain yourself from? George Ho (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A: @George Ho: Hi. Besides that area, I don't really wish to refrain myself from editing anywhere else. There are areas that don't interest me, such as UAA or FfD (mentioned above), so I'll probably end up not editing there, but that doesn't mean I want to completely refrain myself from those boards. There are other ArbCom sanctioned articles, and though chances are I'm not going to touch them simply because I have not interest in getting involved, I don't wish to rule those pages out entirely. Hope this answers your question. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from SwisterTwister
8. - What is your take on our current policies on promotionalism and paid contributing, and whether you agree with them? For example, that advertising can be removed regardless of WP:GNG if there's still either excessive promotional or unconfessed payment, which would be supported by WP:What Misplaced Pages is not? Relevant AfDs I mention this with are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rachel Syme, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hinge (app), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Prim (not promotional, but no cited guideline or policy basis; improvements can help an article but AfDs are still founded differently beyond that). I also ask this because of the coverage offered at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Outgrow.me in which one of the sources is claimed to be "possibly paid" along with the others have visible promotional intent as press releases. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A: Good evening SwisterTwister. I completely agree with WP:PAID in the sense that if someone is getting paid to edit articles, they must declare who is paying them and who the client is, alongside any other relevant information. With this said, I believe that people that are getting paid to edit articles should only use the talk page or edit requests so that their conflict of interest isn't directly inserted onto the page. When it comes to deletion discussions of these types of articles, I usually vote along the lines of "is this irremediable, and if not, are there any sources to get this back on its feet?" Usually, promotional articles are just that. Promotional. They only exist to promote an entity, and there are no reliable sources available. Those ones deserve deletion and if the subject ever became notable in the future, then an un-involved party should create it. I can remember one time when, following a couple of G11s, I created an the article in an neutral manner, which resulted in all of the promotional edits that happened to it to be reverted instead of deleted because we had a groundwork to revert to.
In regards to the "possibly paid" reference I linked at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Outgrow.me, I wasn't talking about it being promotional, I was saying that you may need to have paid to access it (which looking at it now, I've discovered that it is $15). All of the other references I and others had linked (besides the HighBeam one, which is pretty useless anyway) were free, any many were from reliable sources (CNet, The Economist, Time, etc). I hope this answers your question. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Linguist111
9. A registered editor PRODs an article with the rationale of "Fails GNG. A Google search came up with articles by unreliable tabloid newspapers, all of which gave trivial mentions to the subject", before an IP removes the PROD with no rationale. The PRODer leaves a message on the IP's talk page asking why they contested the PROD, but the IP never responds, so the PRODer opens an AfD with the same rationale. Nobody else votes in the AfD during the week, and by the time the AfD has been relisted a third time, there are still no votes. You come across this AfD and upon Google-ing the subject, you find the nom's statement to be true. What would you do as an administrator?
A: Hello Linguist111. If I were to come across an AfD that after four weeks had no input, I would not close it. I'd instead search online to see what I could find myself, and if I couldn't find anything (as the example states) I'd vote delete (assuming there are no alternatives). Admins aren't required to close anything, and in these cases (unless it's a copyvio or attack page), I would simply leave a vote instead of closing it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Linguist111
10. You come across an unreferenced two-hour-old article which in its entirety reads, "Disappeared in 1970 body found a couple weeks ago got international media attention". What do you do?
A: Assuming that the title of the page is the name of the person, I would search for possible references both online and using Google Books/other print repositories to see whether I could find anything about them/their life. If I am able to find some sources, I would clean it up so that it would be a decent stub with the {{bio-stub}} tag and possibly inform the author about WP:RS for next time they make an article. If there are no sources available, then I would first add a PROD tag to see how that would go, and if it is removed, I would take another look around online to see if I missed anything, and if I am still unable to find anything, I'd nominate it at AFD. With this said, the article has only existed for a couple of hours and I do not want to interrupt any possible on-going editing by the author, so I may wait a bit longer before I tag it. In my opinion, saying "it got international media attention" is enough to be a credible claim of significance, so I would not add an A7 tag. A1 would also not apply because the name of the article would allow an editor to search for references: A1 is not appropriate if any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it. Hope this answers your question. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Wee Curry Monster
11. Have you ever edited using another username?
A: No, this is the only account I have edited from. I have occasionally edited through IPs when I have forgotten to log in or when it wasn't safe to (i.e. public wifi). When editing through an IP I have always followed the rules set out at WP:LOGOUT and have never edited in a way that could be seen as disruptive. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional (and genuinely optional) question from Steven Crossin
12 It's been a little over a year since your first RFA. What would you say you learned from that experience, and how do you feel you have addressed the concerns of those who opposed you since then? (If this question is unclear, please do feel free to ask for clarification).
A: Hello Steven Crossin. My first RfA was a very good learning experience, and as I told Dweller a few months ago, I believe the primary focus of the opposition was, overall, my lack of experience. Having only one year under my belt at the time of running was in and of itself a bad idea, and in hindsight, I should've expected people to comment on my account's age. I was too eager at the time. My inexperience also meant I didn't have a complete grasp of the Misplaced Pages policies, notably WP:CONSENSUS, and how it plays a role. My content creation was also lacklustre at this point in time with my best work being Rust (video game). I had no GAs and very few DYKs. Since then I've written (or helped write) eight GAs, one FA, and I have 14 DYKs (though one was not nominated by me). Alongside these achievements, I've found myself putting a lot more effort into my actions and not rushing to get things done. Hope this adequately answers your question. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Esquivalience
13. You said in your previous RfA (question 4) that you made intentional IP edits before you registered, yet in question 11 you did not mention such past IP editing. Did you make such IP edits before registering, or did you gave such answer to the question in the past RfA by mistake?
A: @Esquivalience: I believe there was a bit of a misunderstanding in question 11. I interpreted "another username" as meaning another account and whether I had edited using different accounts before or after I made this one. This is the only account I have ever used, but I did edit as an IP before registering, as noted in Q4 of RfA1: "Yes, I dabbled in editing for a while using IP addresses. My edits on those were minor gnome-like edits such as fixing typos, adding wikilinks and fixing punctuation". I apologise for any confusion this may have caused, and I hope this clears it up. If not, feel free to respond. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: What prompted you register an account (e.g., not being able to edit autoconfirmed articles)? Esquivalience (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Support as co-nominator. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!
  2. Support . I'm glad to see this new RfA from Anarchyte. On the previous RfA I was so torn I just could not make my mind up so I left an extremely cautious, non-committal neutral vote. I'm happy to say that I give my full support this time round, and to be one of the first to vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Full support, zero concerns. Have worked with him on many articles over time. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - If Kudpung says support. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support - A well qualified candidate who shows clue and competence, with both the aptitude to know how to use the tools correctly, and the sensibility to know when to leave them in the box -- There'sNoTime 13:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. I supported last time, and the noms say the candidate is even better this time. —Kusma (t·c) 13:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support - Seen him around. No issues. Jupitus Smart 13:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support as nominator Ritchie333 13:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support An awesome contributor to Misplaced Pages. Cheers! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support I supported last time and the case for support is much stronger this time. --I am One of Many (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  11. Support. I'm excited to see another RfD regular step up and request adminship, especially since this area has had a sharp decline in the amount of admin activity recently. I've done a bit of coaching with Anarchyte over there, and I've been impressed with their thoughfulness and strong self-reflection. I'd be happy to continue to do so if this is successful. Good luck! -- Tavix 13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  12. Support passes my two RfA criteria: has the right temperament and has a clue. I'm sure you'll have at least one oppose, but based on those two factors alone it means that any mistakes you make you'll be likely to own up to. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  13. Support - I could justifiably, unto myself, support this RFA on strength of nomination alone; and would have. But I have also seen Anarchyte around the project, myself, many times, and therefore could of as easily joined those before me in nominating this candidacy.--John Cline (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  14. Support This is someone who learned a lot from their failed RfA, took what was said to heart and worked on it. I've crossed path with Anarchyte a few times, and they've always been a pleasure to work with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  15. Support - Per my comments last time around -- haven't seen any reason to oppose since then. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  16. Support - I supported last time, and my support is strengthened this time around. Candidate is helpful, CLUEful, and is easy to work with. Candidate has clearly demonstrated resilience and not only has the ability to take criticism well, but is able to effect positive change from positive contructive criticism. The nominations are excellent. Anarchyte has excellent contributions in both content and maintenance areas. I am entirely comfortable with giving them access to additional tools. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  17. Support I'll be interested to see if he's still "willing to admit fallibility" upon becoming infallible. I've been disappointed before, but then again, I've also disappointed others myself. Seems reasonable to support. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  18. Support as co-nominator. Regards SoWhy 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  19. Support based on User:Tavix's support. I trust his judgment in RfD areas. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  20. Support, per Joefromrandb, and in spite of the four nominations. — fortunavelut luna 15:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  21. Support per my former oppose !vote, which stated because of recent CSD misdeeds. The recent CSD log is clean, and the worse AfD I could find was this (withdrawing a nomination when someone else !voted delete), but it can pass as a justified WP:IAR move. Q3 also eases worries I had (rightly or wrongly) about the candidate's ability to interact with others when under pressure. Tigraan 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  22. Support, as the first round, + a good answer to my question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  23. Support - aside from the userpage font, there is no reason to oppose. RileyBugz投稿記録 16:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  24. Support - Having opposed last year for a rather pointless reason I'm delighted to support this year! - AFD looks good, CSD looks good, They've edited for a year and seem to have a good grasp of policies etc, Easy support. –Davey2010 16:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  25. Support per noms. --Joshualouie711 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  26. Support A good candidate for the mop, I see no concerns. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  27. Support I supported this candidate last time and don't see a reason that would change my mind. OhanaUnited 18:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  28. Support This candidate wasn't quite ready last time, but they definitely are now. ~ Rob13 18:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  29. Support - Per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, RickinBaltimore, and There'sNoTime. A good candidate, no major problems found! Will be a net positive. SophisticatedSwampert 18:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  30. Support very good content creation and improvement, solid work at AFD and csd, no problems Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  31. Support, has matured since last time and based on review, I don't see issues to not give them a mop. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  32. Support The nominators have done a lot of prep work for this second RfA, and I'm inclined to take them at their word that the candidate has grown from criticism and is ready for the mop. I also see Anarchyte pop up occasionally, always expressing a reasoned opinion courteously. Pleased to support. Having expressed disinterest in UAA in the answer to Q5, I hope he will ignore or refuse to answer the UAA question if it shows up. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  33. Support per noms. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Just because the user has a 100% track record and 4 nominators. I can't let that happen.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  35. Support. Can't find anything wrong with Anarchyte, on the contrary, and with 4 (FOUR!) nominators I respect, I can only say "Go mop!" Yintan  19:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  36. Support: No issues overall, and good luck with the mop! KGirlTrucker81 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  37. Support Absolutely. Katie 19:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  38. Support Has taken on board what sunk the last RfA and worked on the deficiencies in a textbook-style manner. Well done; the mop is fully deserved this time round. Schwede66 19:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  39. Support - Sure. Jauerback/dude. 20:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  40. Support – If Dweller is nominating him, I have confidence that he must be a good candidate. Harrias 21:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  41. Support, why not? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  42. Cautiously, because of one reason: the candidate prominently displays their user rights on their user page, as in spending a paragraph on it. But I trust that the candidate's contributions show a need for adminship and that the candidate is experienced enough in the areas they want to work in. Esquivalience (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  43. Support for the same reasons I supported before. kennethaw88 • talk 21:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  44. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  45. Support he shows a good understanding of the tasks involved and clearly knows his way around most of the wikibureaucracy. Fbergo (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  46. Support - Well experienced and qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  47. Support I have seen him around. Familiar with his activity. I cant think of anything that might present a problem if he is given the toolbox. Goodluck mate. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  48. Support Beyond being nominated by 4 admins whose judgment I would trust, user has made good contributions to Misplaced Pages and definetly seems to have a good attitude towards improving themselves and learning different ways to improve. WikiVirusC (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  49. Support: No red flags and the four co-noms show the user is ready. —MRD2014 00:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  50. Support Trustworthy to use deletion correctly. I also closed one of the RMs, Talk:Lost in Your Love (Redlight song)#Requested move 15 June 2017, relisted by the candidate. Good content creation as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  51. Support Initially, I was going to support based solely on the noms. I decided I would feel lazy doing that, and that it was a bad idea. So I took the time with the intent of finding something to change my vote, but did not find anything. Equineducklings (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  52. Support: I like the questions a lot and I like the answers even more. Seeing this candidate today, I have trouble believing that they could have ever been considered a controversial choice for adminship. Then again, many of us have had great journeys with our graph of personal improvement here. To top that off, I know that some of the co-nominators are hard eggs, so with their privileged words of support, I inherently have added confidence. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  53. Support: 'nuff said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  54. Support Nominators I respect, seems to have a fair amount of clue at AfD, and has a FA on the board to show they know what is required to create content. Good answers to questions too. Been around more than long enough. Hand him a mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  55. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  56. Tentative support: Seems qualified, the answers to questions so far are okay to me, I trust the judgement of at least one co-nom, and no smoking guns have been diffed. Under 5K non-automated mainspace edits doesn't make my usual threshold, but I'm making an exception since the user has been active for 2+ years, and demonstrates competence from what I can tell. Good (and improving) AfD and CSD track record. Reasonable article creation level. I have not pored over the candidate's history in great detail, and am not yet aware how they handle tense conflict situations. Would prefer to see a better edit summary usage; "minor edit" does not mean "no need to briefly explain what I'm doing".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  05:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  57. Support One of the very few editors without a single splotch here. Has demonstrated proficiency.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  58. Support well qualified. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  59. Support Does not claim infallibility, looks like an excellent candidate overall. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  60. Support as co-nominator. - Prinsipe Ybarro 09:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Prinsipe Ybarro: Are you a hidden co-nominator?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    no. - Prinsipe Ybarro 23:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  61. Support A good editor and a sound candidate.  FITINDIA  09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  62. Support - Candidate looks good.CAPTAIN RAJU 09:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  63. Support Will be a valuable asset. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  64. Support - I was satisfied with the candidate's contributions and experience before they answered my question, but that the candidate is able to identify how they've grown in the past year shows, to me, a lot of reflection, and good character. Easy support for me. Best of luck. Steven Crossin 12:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  65. Support: Having opposed in last request, in this one, I am confident Anarchyte is now qualified and has gained clue lacking before. Temperament seems balanced and positive. Too, I trust the co-nominators. I am pleased that this time a mop will be placed in trusted, knowledgable hands. Thank you for running again. Fylbecatulous talk 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  66. Support - fully qualified candidate. Dschslavaparlez moi 13:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  67. Yes, happy to support again. feminist 14:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  68. Fuck, that's some super serious paranoia from Wee Curry Monster. I would have put their first edit down to the user copying the syntax from another page, changing it, and then saving the edit, not just jumping to the conclusion that the candidate is being deceptive and hiding a dark past. Anyway, as others say, fully qualified (and even if they are a previous user reincarnated, who gives a shit*, they're doing nothing wrong and lots right * Subject to the user exclusions for banned users). Nick (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    If they are a previous user reincarnated, I would care. Why? Because they said they aren't. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    My first edit was to a talk page, my second was because I forgot to sign my post. I had been editing sporadically as an IP for about 18 months prior to December 2005 when I got my account, and by that point I'd already set up two MediaWiki installations for corporate wikis in my professional career, and to be honest once you've programmed in C++ and Scheme, MediaWiki syntax is a walk in the park. Ritchie333 15:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    To be clear, I wasn't saying that I share Wee Curry Monster's suspicions. I was simply saying that it would be an issue if the candidate was lying about prior accounts. I don't believe that they are, however. Lepricavark (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  69. Support no issues. Jianhui67 15:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  70. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  71. Support - Seems like a good candidate, even if they are an obvious abusive sockpuppet as described below!! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  72. Support - pillar 2's bell is ringing! Linguist1 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  73. Support - While I would have liked to see Anarchyte mention WP:BLPPROD in his answer to Q10, I don't think this small oversight is enough to oppose an otherwise acceptable candidacy. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    Um, "body found a couple weeks ago" kind of implies this is not a biography of a living person, right? Ritchie333 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    Per WP:BDP it might be justifiable. Plus, such "victim" articles usually "cover other BLP subjects" (perp, family, etc.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    Nah. There were multiple times in college where I disappeared for a few weeks and my body was later found. TimothyJosephWood 20:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  74. Support Why not? -FASTILY 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  75. Support: Looks good...thanks for persisting! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  76. As co-(co-co-)nom. Though re: question 2, you did all the work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  77. Support of course, this editor is a net gain to the project and allowing them to help purge some of the toxic heart of it with new blood in the damaged admin corps is beneficial to everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  78. Support I recall one of the oppose voters last year saying "Come back in a year with a little bit of polish." this editor has certainly done that, in fine style. Minima© (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  79. Support. I've seen Anarchyte around doing some admin work in a non-admin capactiy, and his work so far seems excellent. He has good knowledge of policy, and has also more than answered the challenge (from the last RfA) to write a bit more content, with some excellent GA work in the past year. Will make a fine admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  80. Deserving editor who will be wise with the mop. A definite no-brainer.  Paine Ellsworth    02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose

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

So, to my understanding, you are opposing because they did a bit of reading and maybe followed the style of others? What kind of bullshit is that? And even if he were a sock, so what? He contributed well enough to Misplaced Pages, and all we need is a crat to demote him. The risk of him being a sockpuppet is significantly outweighed by the likelihood that he is a good editor. RileyBugz投稿記録 17:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
One of my first edits was to award another editor a barnstar regarding a dispute that I followed before my registration. It's certainly possible to accumulate a good amount of knowledge on Misplaced Pages's processes before starting to edit. GAB 17:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
GeneralizationsAreBad You awarded a barnstar after being here a couple of months. It is certainly possible to accumulate a good amount of knowledge, I certainly did whilst editing as an IP before I registered an account. However, the candidate didn't say anything of the sort, so not being happy with their answer I felt I had to oppose. I may still change my mind if he chooses to amplify his answer to my satisfaction. WCMemail 18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I must be a terrible admin, because my 3rd edit, which I made exactly 6 years ago on this day, I made was to ask for the confirmed permission to edit through protection, understanding what protection is.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
In response to the question "Have you ever edited using another username", the candidate responded with that this was the only account they had used ever. That doesn't mean they hadn't edited as an IP before. From the candidate's first rfA they were asked if they had edited before registering with their account, and the response was yes they had edited as an IP for a while before creating the account. So there definitely was a familiarity and some experience before creating the account. I think perhaps maybe the way your questions phrase specifically asking if they used another username, didn't get you all the information you needed. Or Maybe I'm mistaken and the answer(s) still don't satisfy you. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No that pretty much sorted it for me, thanks for pointing that out. Was there any need for the final comment? WCMemail 22:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you knew about the question from the first rfA or not. If you already did know then my reply wouldn't really help if you already opposed knowing about it. I see now that that wasn't the case, but I guess the last sentence still wasn't needed as it would be clarified if you knew in any response either way. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
That probably means he edited as an IP, or he did some reading beforehand. Where's the problem? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose couldn´t find anything interesting in his history that other users don´t make also. Shall everybody nominated admin, therefore? So there´ll be 500,000 admins and no normal users anymore. b.rgds I'm so tired (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC) User:Tonton Bernardo
    May I appeal for you to reconsider? This candidate has written featured content, participated actively in administrative areas such as the deletion process with civility and cluefulness, and had significant experience overall. Surely not all members of the Misplaced Pages community have the same qualifications. Keep in mind also that while it is important to use the admin toolset appropriately, merely being an administrator is not intended to be a "big deal". In other words, there should not be a huge distinction between "administrators" and "normal users". Admins are (or rather should be) just normal users with more tools at their disposal. Jimbo Wales once wrote that "It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." Whether this applies today is, of course, debatable, but I think it is unfair to oppose this candidate on the basis that there is nothing interesting about him. Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Tonton Bernardo: Congratulations. In all my time on Misplaced Pages, that is quite possibly the most inane comment I have seen. Are you editing under the influence? Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments