Final (157/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Nomination
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.
Wizardman17:30, 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-C11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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: 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.
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-C04:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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-C05:22, 6 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-C14:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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-C06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
Acalamari14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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)Contribs16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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! —
MusikAnimaltalk23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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 (
tc)
00:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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. GoPhightins!00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Cullen328Let's discuss it01:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Strong Support I have seen this Wikipedian around a lot. Would not hesitate to give them the tools and absolutely no concerns.
Mkdwtalk03:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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\talk20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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, JethroBTdrop me a line19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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
Support - Seems to have abundant experience, thoughtful answers and a good understanding of content creation.-
MrX13:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Final (157/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Nomination
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.
Wizardman17:30, 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-C11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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: 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.
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-C04:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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-C05:22, 6 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-C14:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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-C06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
Acalamari14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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)Contribs16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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! —
MusikAnimaltalk23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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 (
tc)
00:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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. GoPhightins!00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Cullen328Let's discuss it01:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Strong Support I have seen this Wikipedian around a lot. Would not hesitate to give them the tools and absolutely no concerns.
Mkdwtalk03:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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\talk20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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, JethroBTdrop me a line19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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
Support - Seems to have abundant experience, thoughtful answers and a good understanding of content creation.-
MrX13:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.