Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Anthony Appleyard

Final: (49/7/8); ended 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) - Anthony Appleyard's been around Wikipedia for quite a long time, and I think he's learned greatly from his last RfA and is ready to take the plunge into RfA again. He's got more than enough edits (over 25k), He participates pretty much everywhere, and although he may make the occasional mistake, he learns from it and becomes a better Wikipedian from it. Really, anyone that takes criticism constructively and builds from it is an asset to the community. He appears to be an extremely calm user who will do what it takes to improve Wikipedia. Wizardman 05:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am retired and thus likelier to have time free in weekday daytime than someone who is still in work. Anthony Appleyard 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept the nomination. Anthony Appleyard 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

With thanks for help in getting this nomination in. Anthony Appleyard 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already had to warn and ban vandals on two minor Yahoo email groups (one of which I started, and another was started by another man who passed most of its management onto me). Anthony Appleyard 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Page moves that need admin intervention. Deleting {{db}}'ed pages (but if I felt even slightly doubtful about speedy-deleting a page, I would leave it to another admin). Due action at the end of the AfD process. Banning vandals (after any due discussion). Protecting and semiprotecting. Anything else that I could do. (I am not expert in all fields of knowledge, and I may have to ask for another opinion about deleting/etc articles on some subjects.) Perhaps discussions about possible improvements to Wikipedia software. (I realize that a very short new info page, whether or not someone else {{db}}'ed it, may merely be someone's first temporary safety save while editing and he may expand it later.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I will leave it to other people to say which articles that I have worked on have benefited from it. I have worked on or added matter to various pages related to scuba diving: Frogman, Anti-frogman techniques, some of the pages about each nation's frogman corps, Rebreather, Human torpedo, Diving hazards and precautions, Protei-5 Russian diver-rider, and various makes of underwater or industrial breathing set (Siebe Gorman CDBA, Siebe Gorman Salvus, Siebe Gorman Proto, SEFA, Blackett's Aerophor). I did a good amount of work on First War of Schleswig and Second War of Schleswig and some of their dependent pages, including having to translate text from Danish into English. Also Timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion & takeover of Britain including having to translate text from Anglo-Saxon. And List of settlements lost to floods in the Netherlands. I provided the stub template {{Diving-stub}} and its embedded image; previously diving stubs were lumped in with sport stubs such as about football. And work on History of the Arabic alphabet#Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions, and Raygun and Plasma rifle and some other energy-weapon-related pages.
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: I have had plenty of user talk interactions with other users about what to put on pages. The discussion text was sometimes on the page in question's talk page, sometimes in the other user's talk page, sometimes on my talk page; but they did not get acrimonious enough for me to class them as "conflict". (One example is User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Question about the page Hypospray.) On a few pages I have had to revert and warn anonymous users deleting the same text repeatedly without explanation. People searching my talk page should also look in my yearly talk backup files pointed to in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#MY OLD MESSAGES. Anthony Appleyard 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As regards stress: I have had the usual amount of trouble with vandals and people who edit without knowing the subject properly, but I treat it as the way of the world like the weather.
I realize that sometimes Wikipedia rules and guidelines contradict and that a middle course must sometimes be steered between them.

Optional question from Iridescenti

4. I notice from the AfD discussions page that in all of the recent AfD discussions in which you've !voted, you have either been the only person (or one of the few people) saying "keep" when the consensus is "delete" (eg [1], [2], [3]), or you have submitted articles for AfD within minutes of their creation without either tagging them or giving them time to improve, and without notifying the creator. While this isn't necessarily a criticism - I do realise AfD isn't a vote and people do have different views of what is appropriate - do you feel that there are any issues with someone whose attitude to what should & shouldn't be deleted appears at odds with the majority being given speedy-deletion powers, and if so how would you address them?
A: Of your three examples that I voted "keep" for, the third (the page "Mindfuck") was kept, and another user before me also voted "keep" for it. As regards other cases, if I had any doubt about whether a page should be deleted, I would AfD it, as ordinary users do, and let others discuss and decide about whether to delete it. As regards the two new pages which I AfD'ed today, others also have voted "delete" for How Rockets Work. (The other is OpenTable.) If I stand accused of a habit of AfD'ing new pages, please list the other claimed examples. Anthony Appleyard 06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S. The three pages involved further above were List of songs about famous people, Barry Dawson, Mindfuck. Anthony Appleyard 07:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Optional question from JoshuaZ

5 In regard to the oppositions below, especially the second one: a) please explain in more detail your logic behind voting to keep, b) explain what you think of WP:N and the primary notability criterion c)would you be willing to close *fDs in directions that you personally disagreed with if the community consensus was clear or if the policy basis was clear but you disagreed with the policy or guidelines that were relevant?
A (a): Google search for `"Barry Dawson" "Cougar Arts" -wikipedia' (the minus sign means "exclude".) gets 332 entries, and for `"Cougar Arts" -wikipedia' gets 686 entries (including a minor real martial arts organization [4]). That type of advertisement often tends to run for weeks, at least on UK TV, and it did not make it clear enough that Cougar Arts as described there does not exist in the real world; I felt that something needed to be done to tell users that it does not exist in the real world. After the advertisement has stopped running, the article could be deleted. OK, OK, as stated above, "I live and learn". Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A (b): I have read Wikipedia:Notability. It says about reliable sources, to make sure that available information is accurate; the matter here is a statement warning the readers that unreliable external source xxxx (here, an advertisement) is unreliable. Not all readers are as intelligent as those who are discussing this matter here. This sort of advertisement is one of the places where distinguishing fact from fiction is not always 100% obvious to all IQ ranges of viewers. Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have learned: warning readers about unreliable external sources does not seem to belong in Wikipedia. I live and learn. Anthony Appleyard 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A (c): If an *fD discussion in total pointed one way, but I tended to think the other way, I would follow the total discussion result. Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Naconkantari:

6. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The main case for invoking it seems to be when rules and/or policies clash and thus there is no way to avoid breaking one or the other. When situations arise which were not anticipated by whoever made the rules. E.g. in Nazi human experimentation I was having to apply Wikipedia's NPOV rule to describing an external situation where scientists being NPOV is treated as objectionable. And, in multi-disambigs, often inevitably some of the lines are dictdefs; but pushing those entries into Wiktionary would result in content forking between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The stated basis is "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.". Anthony Appleyard 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and its dependent pages in Wikipedia and Wikimedia, various times, and they are part of the "rules and/or guidelines" that I referred to hereinabove when answering Q6. I knew for a long time that Wikipedia:Consensus is needed, and accordingly if a talk page discussion over a point looks like getting too acrimonious I back out.
  • As regards majority vote, I know the rule against sockpuppeting; and that "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"; and the statements in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voting_is_evil.
  • As regards Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, I knew that advice; too often people put up with text that could be improved, treating the text-as-it-is as sacred, instead of improving it, a habit derived likely from reading ordinary books and web pages that they cannot edit.
  • I also knew of Wikipedia:Use common sense and Wikipedia:There is no common sense: often what is 100% obvious to one is not obvious to another who has a different personal background. Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Another aspect is Wikipedia:Snowball clause "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.". For example, this sometimes happens with an AfD which is terminated early. Anthony Appleyard 06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Another type of rule-ignoring is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) rules against external links in disambig page alternatives, but there are thousands of such disambig alternatives in practice, because the only likely other method would be to make the disambig alternative point to a short stub page whose only purpose is to carry the external link. Anthony Appleyard 08:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Jreferee:

7. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship states "Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your (RfA) request." In this post in this RfA, you write, "Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I will study it and its dependent pages well before I attempt any deletion handing from the administration side." My question, do you think that you were familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your RfA request? Please elaborate. -- Jreferee 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I went RfA when an administrator invited me to. After I was told where this information is, I have been studying it (including during the day, as I am retired), and I am quickly becoming familiar with it. Following my study of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and related pages, I have been making more goes at commenting in AfD's. Anthony Appleyard 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - seen this user around and believe he will do well with the tools, no doubt a very cautious admin. Good luck Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Another good choice by The Wizardman...--Cometstyles 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. The candidate is experienced and well-qualified to use the tools well for the benefit of the project. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, should be a fine admin. Jkelly 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, bingo, great editor. Gets my support, no question, good luck! The Rambling Man 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support as nom.--Wizardman 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Experience gained since the previous RfA shows that the admin tools won't be abused by this candidate. (aeropagitica) 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Also, things have moved on since the last RFA. Everything looks good here - Alison☺ 18:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - It all looks good--$UIT 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support - No reason to oppose. Goodnightmush 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to Neutral GoodnightmushTalk 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Support My oppose comments in the last RfA was probably the main reason for the unsuccessful RfA. I think Anthony has definitely improved since then, and I am comfortable with the tools in Anthony's hands. By the way, can you explain what this [5] was about? Nishkid64 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to oppose. Nishkid64 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per Nishkid and last time. Addhoc 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support the edit-summary usage issue has been addressed. Good candidate. —Anas talk? 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support User looks like someone who would be a good admin. Captain panda 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Last time, I said "Seems like he'd be a productive and reasonable administrator." I still think this is true. Coemgenus 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. --HappyCamper 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strengthened support per Kelly Martin's neutral. I do not care whether a user is in a WikiProject or not; WikiProjects do not determine whether someone should be an administrator or not: experience, community trust, and civility matter far more than WikiProjects. While I agree that WikiProjects are important, they should not be used as a requirement for adminship. WikiProjects do not determine whether someone is qualified for adminship or not. Anthony Appleyard has 22186 edits to the mainspace. Kelly Martin's reasoning for neutral gives me more reason to support this user. Anthony Appleyard does plenty of mainspace edits; he does not need to join a WikiProject if he doesn't want to, and no one should force him. Most of the community wants to see experience and civility in a user who is running for adminship...not the amount of WikiProjects the user is involved in. I too, want to see those qualities; which Anthony Appleyard seems to have. Acalamari 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support A competent and experienced wikipedian. The first oppose vote should be deleted as nonsense, the second reates to a single incident which is, in my view, trivial.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    The fact that he did it before (set a precedent) indicates that it's not really trivial. Nishkid64 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support per Bradbury Alex Bakharev 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support per Bradbury. semper fictilis 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support More than enough experience. I don't think his application of deletion policy is anything to worry about. YechielMan 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Experienced, unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - Obviously this user will help the community as an administrator, constructive edit history and good general involvement. - Bennyboyz3000 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Excellent editor, works hard to improve the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. As founder and member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo, I endorse this candidate. >Radiant< 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. On further review of contributions, I will support this candidate. He is also courteous, polite and sensitive to his fellow users, something we could all learn from him. Over and over, his presence has a positive influence on the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. --Zamkudi 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support per User:Acalamari, looks like a good user.-- danntm T C 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support as someone else said, there's no reason no to. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - seems like a good candidate. VK35 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. I see no problems, either. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with this user. I realise that 'not a teenager' probably isn't a good reason to support, but it's certainly a positive for me. AKAF 06:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Terence 10:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I supported before, and see no reason to change my mind. Agent 86 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Very experienced and level-headed editor. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Good editor, shows knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. Responses to questions manage to be polite, matter of fact, and authoritative at the same time. PeteShanosky 00:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support We need more cranky old guys, who write articles. Seriously, will be fine, I'm sure Johnbod 02:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Yes I support Anthony - has enough wiki edits all around to give adminship a good go and it's damn fine to see a potential admin that also writes articles.--VS talk 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Sysop is nothing big. --Masterbobo 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support good candidate, no reason to oppose. --rogerd 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support He's a good editor!!! Also contributes images. --Defender 911 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Anthony appears to be a good fellow who has dedicated lots of his valuable time helping improve our encyclopedia. I think his having some extra buttons can only enhance both his own volunteer experience and the project at-large. Good luck! gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Switch from oppose, which I likely would have withdrawn anyway, but responsiveness and matter-of-fact responses earned my support. El_C 10:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per multiple endorsements above. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. AfD concerns are not sufficiently strong to withhold support, -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, experienced, approachable and highly capable contributor, have no doubt the tools would be used with all due care.--cjllw | TALK 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, valuable content editor and no chance of tool abuse. --Irpen 10:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Genuine concern raised by Nishkid, but I still think this candidate is trustworthy – and I see no real worry of tool abuse. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support do not believe he will misuse the tools. Davewild 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support I share Nishkid's concern, and worry that our collective threshold of tolerance for non-encyclopedic material is much too lenient, but we all have our flaws and I support those with editorial experience taking on these chores. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - Most of the opposition seems to boil down to, 'he is an inclusionist'. Philosophical differences on where to draw the 'notability line' are hardly a reason to deny someone the mop. Good user with plenty of experience. --CBD 11:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I think this editor is too quick to delete articles. Chronic The Wedgehog 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Please note that this is the users second contribution— Chronic The Wedgehog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    At present Anthony Appleyard isn't an administrator so can't delete articles. What leads you to believe that he would? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. My concerns in the previous RfA were in regards to an AfD vote that the user made. I found this which just occurred six days ago. Of course, you can be an inclusionist, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The reasoning that the user provided for his choice to keep the article has nothing to do with the article. I question this user's judgment and I am worried what he would do as an administrator in such situations. If he saw prodded article, would he choose to keep it just in case someone wants to look up the information? At the moment, I cannot trust this user with the tools. Nishkid64 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know about this specific article, but "is there a reasonable chance that people would want to be able to find more information about this person or entity" is really a very good precis of what a lot of our notability guidelines do or should boil down to. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I checked out the article, and I did my own research on this guy. Anthony's had a good deal of experience in AfDs, and he should be able to conduct his own research before deciding on an article. Through my research, I did not see any reason to have an article on this guy. This guy is an obscure character who you would not find in Wikipedia. In conclusion, I highly doubt anyone would actually look this guy up on Wikipedia. By the way, there are flaws in your idea about notability (see WP:NEO). Nishkid64 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    The google cached version of the page is here in case anyone wanted to see what Anthony wanted to keep. Thedreamdied 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I voted to delete that article at AfD, but I do not consider the Keep vote to have been unreasonable. DGG 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Of course, you wouldn't. AfDs are not supposed to be perceived as a place for "voting" where the administrator simply counts the number of votes and then deletes or keeps the articles. As far as I can see, the reasoning Mr. Appleyard provided was nowhere within the purview of the Wikipedia's policies. That someone looks in Wikipedia to find who Barry Dawson is. (sic) - is hardly any argument for the inclusion of the article. It is apparent though, Mr. Appleyard was unaware of the policies when he made the comment, and he has accepted that in his reply to Josh. I see no reason why he would abuse the tools from his past comportment; or even mishandle them, if he would sit back for sometime and watched other administrators function. I am leaning towards neutral on this one. --Zamkudi 09:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I was intending already to watch what the other administrators did for a while before I ventured to do anything serious myself. Anthony Appleyard 09:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose AfD concerns were raised last RfA, and yet there are still !vote reasons against or neglecting policy. Answer to 5b is either a misunderstanding of the question, or a misunderstanding of notability. Wikipedia is not Snopes. –Pomte 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Although trustworthy, I do not think that Anthony has demonstrated enough applied understanding of process to be an administrator at this time. For example, in this April 12, 2007 post made today, Anthony asks whether the subject was "notable to the world in general." Wikipedia:Notability states that is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" There is no world geographic requirement for Wikipedia Notability. As for what is Wikipedia Notability, it says right in the text of Wikipedia:Notability that "a topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." Anthony's answer in Q5.B does not seem to express this. I have reviewed Anthony's Wikipedia space posts since his December 2006 RfA#1 and they generally do not demonstrate that Anthony has formulated an applied understanding of Wikipedia process. Anthony's answer in Q5.C -- "If an *fD discussion in total pointed one way, but I tended to think the other way, I would follow the total discussion result." -- has me concerned as well. The rough consensus portion of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators talks about the need to determine rough consensus, not "total discussion result." In addition to administrators, experienced editors should understand rough consensus as it is important at deletion review. I do not see Anthony as being ready to determine rough consensus in an XfD. In general, the language Anthony uses in his Wikipedia space posts, including his AfD posts, and his posts in this RfA leaves me with the impression that Anthony has not actually reviewed written process to the point where he is able to apply that written process. -- Jreferee 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I will study it and its dependent pages well before I attempt any deletion handing from the administration side. Anthony Appleyard 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose When I asked Q4 above, I was neutral veering towards 'accept'. However his answer to this and to Joshua's related question, and the examples raised by other editors above and on his previous RfA, seem to indicate that he considers WP:IDONTLIKEIT valid grounds for deletion (eg [6]) and he has recently repeatedly used WP:WAX as a reason for keeping. Consequently I don't feel it's appropriate for him to be in a position to close *fD debates. I am also extremely put off by the arrogance of "distinguishing fact from fiction is not always 100% obvious to all IQ ranges of viewers" in his answer to Q5. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I will study it. Anthony Appleyard 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    in light of this recent post and the similar post mentioned above about Canadian basketball, escalating to strongly oppose at this stage, although I've no doubt that even should he fail this time he will pass in a few months and will make an excellent sysop then. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I was going by how I had seen various other people putting messages in AfD's. Now that I know pointers to official guide files, I can go by them. I will hold fire on closing AfD's until I have seen it being done for a while.
    Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
    Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
    Wikipedia:Deletion process
    Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
    Anthony Appleyard 05:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    That last one is only an essay, but it does have good points. –Pomte 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Still oppose, but much more weakly than before in light of your replies. As Pomte says, don't take WP:ATA too seriously; it's a personal view & not any kind of policy. Personally, I think "it's useful" is an extremely valid argument, and the Google Test might not be an argument in and of itself (plenty of crap passes it with flying colours - see this AfD for a prime albeit bitchy example) but "0 Ghits" is generally a pretty good indicator that something's not right. In the unlikely event you don't pass this RfA (looks pretty certain you will), assuming you address the problems with deletions I'd certainly support on the next one, as that seems to be the only concern. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Willing to reconsider, but I'm concerned that this user is seemingly unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.(diff) El_C 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Switch to support. El_C 10:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    I know of Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, but so many pages have Trivia sections that it seems that practicality often commands otherwise, and that "Trivia" sections are really "Miscellaneous". At the edit complained about at the link above, I used the edit-comment "rv deletion, or please discuss", inviting the deleter to discuss the matter; if he had stated a good reason for the deletion, I would have understood him. This case seems to be a section for "fictional occurrence of a real process", of which there are thousands on Wikipedia pages. Perhaps this ==Trivia== section could be renamed ==Decompression sickness in fiction==. Someone has again deleted it, and I will let it stay deleted. Anthony Appleyard 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Did you read the section before restoring it? If so, did you find it to have been encyclopedic? El_C 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I read it; It said in effect: Decompression sickness was used in a fiction story, and the scriptwriter got the symptoms wrong. That sort of thing on a popular TV program tends to result in wrong instruction to the public about diving diseases. In Britain at least, scuba diving organizations down the years have had enough battles to correct wrong ideas spread by unknowledgeable people such as non-diving newspaper reporters and fiction writers. Anthony Appleyard 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I reiterate the question: did you find that section to have been encyclopedic? El_C 21:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    It seemed worth including to active scuba divers. I realise that what is encyclopedic to one reader may not be encyclopedic to another reader. (I am sorry about the delay, but the server suspended while its slave caught up.) Anthony Appleyard 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Let me be more blunt: how is Even though it was used as the plot, most of the illnesses [symptoms?] shown were unrealistic in any way encyclopedic? Which illnesses is the passage refering to? Should we take the anonymous editor's word for it? El_C 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, Anthony's in the right here, at least in my opinion. I think El C deleted the section more because it was labeled as trivia rahter than what information it contained, since the information is useful. (But yes, labeling it as "...in popular culture" or "...in fiction" would've been better.--Wizardman 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am attempting to discuss the actual information contained in it, see above. El_C 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    The course of the fictional illness and its attempted fictional treatment are described in Airborne (House episode). The real-world effect is that via that episode real people got (de facto although unintended) wrong instruction about decompression sickness effects. See Faction (literature) for effects of mixing fact and fiction. Anthony Appleyard 06:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry for neglecting to respond. Sounds good in theory, but in practice, Airborne (House episode) only discusses the fictional illness, but there is no mention in either article in which way it was in/accurate. Regardless, it's certainly not a matter worth opposing over and I find myself impressed by your answers (more by the tone than the answers themselves). Thanks for your time. El_C 10:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Some concern over deletion activity Dinojerm 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please: which of my deletion-associated actions do you have concern with? Anthony Appleyard 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I was referring to some of the AfDs posted above. Dinojerm 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Based on the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, I'm afraid his actions will require too much monitoring. He does seem to be quick to admit mistakes and to educate himself on policies, but it is only after the fact. Administrators should be able to act unilaterally in many cases with the implication that they are making the right choices, and I'm not confident that the candidate has the knowledge to act according to that standard. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Appears to be a suitable candidate, but the lack of a WikiProject endorsement forces me to withhold support. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    How do you expect a wiki-project to endorse a candidate? And how do you expect this to happen without it being seen as canvassing? I'm sorry, I've explained on your talk page but there's no mechanism in place, and their will likely never be a mechanism in place because it's not possible to get endorsement from a whole wiki project without serious questions being asked Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think what Kelly means to say is that Anthony has no affiliations with any WikiProjects. Nishkid64 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    No shes not, shes not supporting any candidate unless a wikiproject specifically comes and supports a candidate, read her talk page (it's all there) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oh jeez. That's ridiculous. Ignore my previous comment. Nishkid64 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    But wait! He is endorsed by "a WikiProject"! Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements. --W.marsh 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    OH, Ho Ho Ho... seemply hilarious Mr. Marsh. Full marks! --Zamkudi 23:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'll let Kelly know. =) Nishkid64 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per link provided by Nishkid64. Isn't 'somebody might come looking for it sometime' the rationale provided by people who get their band/company/VSCA articles deleted, all the time? An experienced user should have supplied an argument more firmly based in policy. Might sit on the fence with this one for a little while. – Riana ऋ 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Isnt it about time that an editor doesnt get judged on 1 or 2 mistakes he or she may had made but be judged as a whole...So what is he isnt affiliated with any Wikiprojects, he shouldnt be judged on that basis..--Cometstyles 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Uh, did you put this comment on the wrong neutral comet?--Wizardman 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I said nothing about PJs, you may mean the one above. – Riana ऋ 02:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral seems to be very good at editing, but some edit summaries aren't so good and some strange decisions, both inclusionist and deletionist. Thedreamdied 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral leaning to Oppose Looks a goody, but I have concerns about user interaction (extremely low number of user talk interactions for someone with so many edits) but also for including in answer to Q1 actions that non admins can and do perform, such as warning vandals and discussing changes to Wikipedia. And your Q2 answer made me query your judgement... RfA is not the place to be shy about your contributions. There are only four set questions; you really do need to answer them to the best of your ability. Shame, because I wanted to support someone who learns from mistakes and is so dedicated. --Dweller 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have extended my answers to question 2 and 3: see above. Anthony Appleyard 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, changed from support per this AfD vote and per Nishkid's arguments above. GoodnightmushTalk 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. I don't believe the candidate understands the reasoning behind IAR. It's not about conflicting rules and policies, it's (at least, to me) about making decisions that are in the best interest of the project, even if the rules say differently. However, since this is my first time asking this question, I'm not going to oppose anyone for responding to it. Naconkantari 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    See extended answer to Q6 above. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - I found it a minor annoyance that the candidate would submit this AfD without doing the ten seconds of due diligence involved in clicking through to the press page to discover that yes, this site has a pretty strong case for notability. On the other hand, the article was in a pretty dire state at the point of his AfD, and to my knowledge there's no policy requiring any "extra" research of the type I mentioned, so it would seem unfair for me to oppose on those grounds. JavaTenor 08:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Great temperament, very approachable, but I am bothered by some of the answers. In particular I am unhappy with the broad interpretation of IAR and the comments about WP:MOS-DAB. If there is a problem in the guideline, work with other editors to change it; if there is consensus that your favored method is not beneficial, systematically ignoring guidelines is not the way to go about using IAR. I also hope that the nominee will take to heart that WP:SNOW, in and of itself, is not a reason to close a discussion; the lines of thought in the comments themselves are the reasons. I really want to avoid seeing "closed per WP:SNOW" at the top of more archived discussions. Dekimasuよ! 09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am aware of the rules in WP:SNOW and I was not going to use it casually continually. Anthony Appleyard 11:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.