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

Magioladitis[edit]

Final: (65/8/7); ended 19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Magioladitis (talk · contribs) - For my fiftieth nomination for adminship.. yes, 50.. I decided to do something different. Back in May, I stumbled upon a user by the name of Magioladitis, a very productive editor, one who does the little things well and handles what needs to be handled in the more tedious areaas of Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery and Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. However, looking through his contribs I did not have the best gut feeling, so I did something I don't do; change my mind. I figure I'll give him a few months and check up on his contribs later to see how he's improved. I can guarantee, I've went from thinking he's pretty qualified for adminship to saying that he's very qualified.

First off, he's a janitor. Dealing with articles of questionable notability, tagging ridiculous redirects for speedy deletion, this is all work that is tedious, and not very fun, but it needs to be done. The fact that he is willing to do it as a non-admin shows how well he would be as an admin. He has creating most of Members of the Greek Parliament, 2007-, among other similar lists, and the Treaty of Lisbon. He's also helped keep the Article issues template up to date. I know there were CSD concerns back in his first run for adminship, but a look through his deleted contribs shows proper use of both CSD and PROD, with no issues I can see. He does contribute to fiction which gave me pause at first (the issues there we all know), but he contributes there properly and takes no extreme positions, which is great for being both an editor and an admin in that area.

If you're still not convinced, remember that as I said earlier, I held off on this until I knew he was ready, and as a result I can really give you my word that he will be a fine admin who isn't going to go do something stupid. Wizardman 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


I accept the nomination. Thank you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am willing to keep deleting redirects caused by typos (for example redirects with quotes just because new editors are not familiar with creating new articles), closing some XfDs, especially TfDs (I have done a few non-admin closures). I can also block vandals.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I really enjoyed adding references to every single case in List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War. I also enjoyed creating articles for many Greek politicians and political parties. I improved articles for minor Greek parties adding images. There is much janitorial work I enjoy as well.
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 been in some conflicts in these 2 years. I always behave calmly trying to explain the rules and my point of view. Recently a user kept reverting an edit based on the new Manual of Style for dates. This caused me stress because the user ignored my messages to its page, which provided links to MOSNUM, used multiple IPs and kept reverting. After reverting 2 times I searched for other ways to solve the problem (report user, request article protection) and things wend fine. You can check Talk:Evangelos Venizelos for how I handled a case about a controversy of an active politician and here for the case with the editor who kept ignoring the Treaty of Lisbon article.
Optional questions from Aitias
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. In the most case... No. There are some exceptions:
  1. The hangon stays there for days and the user didn't reply my messages in its talk page. I 've been patient in many cases. Check Talk:List of Heroes characters with special abilities where I propose a merge, an anonymous IP asks 2 day to fix it, I reply that there is no rush, after a week I take the same message and I still don't touch the article.
  2. The article is an attack page or insulting for a person, alive or dead.
Followup Q. How about Article contents: "Joe Smith is a leading junior high school athlete at X school, and is certain to have a famous career in high school" -- and a hangon tag without any further explanation? DGG (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got your point. A page tagged with for speedy deletion and a hangon tag may still be deleted if it fulfills the criteria for speedy deletion and I would delete it. What I tried to say in my answer is that I would be more careful when a hangon tags is there and if an article just seems poor I would give the opportunity to its editor to improve it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. I would check if the editor had a satisfying number of edits, of the editor really needs to revert because his contributions involve a lot of page patrolling and vandalism counterediting, and if they were ok, any involvements to edit warring. If all above were ok, I would grand him the rollback.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. I haven't worked a lot with photographs and images. Until now I cared more on adding Fair Rationale templates to some images. I am not planning to deal with photographs in the short future.
7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A. If the vandalism was on an article I have contributed I would report the vandalism to WP:AIV. It's always better not to take the whole responsibility for blocking a user alone. In any other case I would block the IP after the final warning given.
What if the user vandalised pages you hadn't edited on but then vandalised your user page? Would you still report to AIV? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check what happened with User: Max Mux. I even left my talk page for some minutes without reverting (another editor reverted it after some minutes). The same I did with the Treaty of Lisbon. Since a vandal is under surveillance, its actions are limited. Administrators response time in WP:AIV is good in general. I can help in improving this more by participating there but it's always better to leave a third person to handle issues you are involved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Protonk (talk)
8: What, for you, constitutes an acceptable redirect from a typo and an unacceptable redirect from a typo? I know you mentioned quotes in Q1 but I'm looking for something more general. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I participated for some time in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and I also proposed an improvement to the R3 criterion. I think that redirects having quotes, apostrophes, brackets or parentheses around the name should not exist (unless, of course, the original title has them). Acceptable typos of course are these caused because of common spelling errors (for rxample Nicole Kidmann or alternative spelling. By working in the red link recovery project I have created hundreds of redirects. You can also check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages where I participate in the creation of this essay and I hope that one day becomes policy in Wikipedia.

Optional question from Balloonman:

9 I want to support, I really do. Wizardman's nom is very compelling and I have a lot of respect for his opinion when it comes to RfA's. That being said, I have some trouble you talk page. Namely, the talk page is not one that I would expect from an admin candidate. There are a number of people coming to your page with warnings or requests to stop---these are often related to your use of various bots. That being said, how can you satisfy my concern that the numerous warnings that you received as recently as a few months ago are a thing of the past?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving by bot all the time. Of course there always some bad moments (please ignore User:Badagnani's warnings because they were unfair and he got blocked after that). Recently my bot did some bad edits in working with articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. I cooperated with the team and corrected them immediately. I can ensure you that I am getting better in this area every day. I am reporting bugs (because is not always by bot's mistake) and make suggestions in AWB very often. Yes, I believe you won't see requests to stop in the future in my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dendodge (talk · contribs)

10 What is the difference between a block and a ban? Dendodge|TalkContribs 11:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I corrected the word in Q7. I make many mistakes when typing). Ban is a restriction to an editor's rights, a set of extra rules the editor has to follow. Block is a technical method to prevent an editor editing in Wikipedia. For example there was a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 which resulted in User:TTN ban. The editor wasn't blocked until he ignored his restrictions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Blooded Edge (talk · contribs)

11. As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
From my experience until now, I have realized that a message to the talk page really helps. The editor needs some time to read it and slows down a bit. Blocking someone only to coll down, IMO, it's not a good idea. The result would be a person doing Wikistalking to your contributions, vandalising your page for a long period, etc. The block would be a solution only in the case that the editor starts disrupting edits in many articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from DGG (talk · contribs)

12. You have frequently expressed a strong opinion on the deletion of articles on fiction. It often disagrees with my view , but I don't hold that against anyone at an AfD, any more than my view was held against me. But I refrain from closing afds in that subject. Not that I couldn't judge fairly, but i do not want people saying i might have not judged fairly. What is your view about that as applies to you? DGG (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to work with consensus and I always respect consensus. I am trying hard to cooperate with people. Check Talk:List of minor EastEnders characters (1988) for example. I proposed deletion, the result was keep indicating merge and I discussed it in the talk page. After the discussion I removed the merge tag. Check that for the List of games supporting force feedback I proposed deletion and since there was a consensus for keeping, I started improving the article. Moreover, I really take in account your comments and Pixelface's as well. I spent some time yesterday rereading the instructions about AfDs and I promise not to participate in heavily closing AfDs about fiction. In general, I will be very careful in anything I do until I get used with the tools and gain more experience. I think you are going to be supriced in how good I am in respecting the consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret "not heavily closing" meaning that you do not intend to close many, not that you promise to avoid closing evenly balanced ones in favor of your own viewpoint. DGG (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is my English or you understood wrong. "Heavily closing" = doing many. I won't close AfDs until I am sure I can do it right. I am sorry if the problem is my English, which is not my mother's tongue. -- Magioladitis (talk)
let me try again, then: Q You have a general opinion very frequently expressed that most fiction articles are not notable. Do you intend to close any AfDs on this subject? DGG (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the opinion that most spin-offs (episodes, plot devices, etc.) to main article of TV series are non notable, independently from the tv series itself. I agree with WP:FICTION that in this case a different article should not exist. I have the opinion that not all characters of a tv series are notable. Jericho TV series is a great example of my point of view. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Green for exactly how I see things. Separate articles for main characters and redirects and lists for the rest. I helped in the improvement of Robert Hawkins (Jericho character) and the cleanup of List of Jericho characters. O am quite confident that my point of view, won't affect my judgment. The opposite may happen. I tend to respect consensus. To answer your question: Right now I am don't feel confident in closing an AfD in Fiction. I won't do it in the short future. I don't want people to complain. Do you want me to promise that I won't close any AfD in the rest of my life even if there is a consensus for snowball keep, nomination withdrawn or something like this? I can't do that. -- Magioladitis (talk)

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Magioladitis before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 19:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Solid long time contributor. Hard working. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support Has been contributing forever, works like a slave, all around great contribs in multiple areas. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: We need more hard working admins like this who know how to -and want to- use the mop where few of us ever venture. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. User with a good reputation. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not too dramatic. Answers to questions meet my criteria on maximum words. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support I trust a janitor candidate to handle a mop - he wouldn't be a full janitor without a mop (and a certain crazyness ;-) I trust the nominator and the contributions I reviewed confirmed it. SoWhy 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC) changing to weak support in light of the oppose by Pixelface. Those AfDs are concerning and I expect the candidate to read up on the relevant policies and guidelines before making a single AfD closure.[reply]
    Also per this CSD tagging, which shows a mistake that is easy to make (made it myself some times) but while I still support, I strongly advise you to re-read the policies and guidelines regarding deletion. SoWhy 13:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Solid Wikipedian and a workhorse to boot. CSD concerns from last RFA have been addressed. There is nothing to oppose and a lot to support. Dr.K. (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as per your first RfA, I have no reason to alter my opinion. RMHED (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Has been around since July 2006 and has over 20000 mainspace edits and over 33000 overall further as per track see no concerns of misuse of tools and concerns of earlier RFA overcome .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support; why the hell not, and net positive. RockManQ (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, passes my criteria. Happy Editing and Good Luck! :P RockManQ (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Quite a large amount of experience, fills a needed admin job, and overall I trust the nom and them. --Banime (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support — No concerns. Best of luck! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Per nom by Wizardman (talk · contribs), per answers to the first three questions, and some great positive contributions to the project. Nice work on List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War, by the way. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I see no issues. America69 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - yep.   jj137 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, has shown a remarkable dedication to wikipedia. Would certainly make a constructive admin. --Soman (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The nominations haven't gotten any more flattering. Garden. 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. meets my standards. no reason not to. Dlohcierekim 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support — Realist2 23:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support. Many contributions, helps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece by tagging articles and assessing them. He has improved Wikipedia articles in a number of ways, always with attention to detail. He is hard-working and rightly deserves to be admin. nips (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support LittleMountain5 review! 23:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Hello, I'm Diana Ross -- you can call me "Miss Ross" -- and I'm here to be worshipped by my millions of fans...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for a savvy and dedicated editor for whom we don't need to ask "do you know where you're going to?" Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has taken the standards of RfA comments to the stratosphere. From now on any possible comment in an RfA would seem dull by comparison. Dr.K. (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SOlid work. Glad your work payed off, aren't ya'? —Ceranthor(Sing) 01:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I particularly and very strongly support the nominee's position that it is always better to let another admin handle issues in which one is involved (see answer to question 7): every admin should take that position. — Athaenara ✉ 02:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support seems like a great candidate; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support over 30,000 edits and no blocks. I'm happy to support, esp as per answers to Qs. ϢereSpielChequers 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support High number of edits, good decision maker, happy to support :D cf38talk 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SupoortII MusLiM HyBRiD II 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Net positive. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Changed from Neutral, leaning towards support to Support: Would make a great admin, and is willing to do the tasks no-one else wants to do. Dendodge|TalkContribs 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Why not? macy 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good, honest, and concise answers to questions... and per Balloonman's question, candidate openly admits when they screw up without trying to over-context it. I trust this candidate and believe they will use the tools responsibly. Townlake (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Seen Magioladitis at WP:DEP quite a bit over the last couple of years, and no worries about mop abuse. Janitors can definitely make good use of mops.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Everything about this candidate screams "trustworthy and competent". Punish him with the tools I say! Support X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. When I joined Wikipedia, Magioladitis was one of the first editors whose example inspired me to get involved, learn policy, and contribute. This is a great editor, and I support wholeheartedly, but suggest that he address some of the issues brought up by Caspian Blue below, including the answer to Q6. SunDragon34 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support The oppose raised (#1) below gives me a bit of concern, but I believe it would be a net positive to Wikipedia if this editor were given to mop. --Strikerforce (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Solid editor, can always use those that do the non-glamorous 'janitorial' aspects of the 'job' SkierRMH (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I have had only one interaction with Magio, but that was positive. He showed me that it was incorrect to use a specific category on articles in a kind and helpful fashion. Articlebuilding is weak, though. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, I see no reason not to. The issue brought up by Caspian Blue is perhaps borderline but not totally out of line, and most of us have found ourselves in similar situations from time to time. I also see nothing wrong with the answer to Q6, and in fact am quite glad to see an admin candidate who's not afraid to answer "I don't know" when that's the truth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Looks like a good editor and is honest. What's not to like? DiverseMentality(Boo!) 06:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Good contributions and answers. Magioladitis has a broadened his experience since the last RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I've interacted with Magioladitis at ((articleissues)), where we've cooperated to maintain the template (or did, until it was fully protected). I think we have a slightly different views on which templates can be included in articleissues, but otherwise I've found him a fair editor, willing to cooperate.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per 30,000 edits. There's nothing wrong with janitorial work; someone's got to do it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - good contributions, not overly eager to become an adminstrator, as intermittence length would indicate. Support as last time (#7). Caulde 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Everyme 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support as for the same reasons I already nominated him once :-) --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Giving this candidate the mop would free up admins to help in other areas. I see no obvious reason for concern. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Absolutely. Excellent work all around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Does good work in the X part of XfD (as in, things other than articles). Protonk (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per good work at AfD. HiDrNick! 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per all of the above Charles Edward 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support good contributor. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Experienced contributor that also participated substantially in admin-related areas. VG ☎ 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Excellent contributor. AniMate 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Per the Wiz. MBisanz talk 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Why the hell not? --Flewis(talk) 08:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Sensible enough to stay out of the wiki fiction drama despite his strong views on fiction, which is admirable. No other possible red flags. – sgeureka t•c 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--intraining Jack In 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - trustworthy and much needed in XfDs. -- Biruitorul Talk 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: Adminship is a natural progression for hardworking and solid contributors like the candidate. -- Tinu Cherian - 15:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Will be fine. Acalamari 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per Q3, Q6, Q9, especially per WP:AN3#Badagnani reported by Magioladitis. The candidate was edit warring with Badagnani and reported him to not ANI but AN3. I watched the whole show at that time of edit warring. There was no 3RR violation, and the user barely used talk pages with him. That is not only an evidence that the candidate lacks of understanding of policies but also I think he would use his admin tool to block somebody in dispute instead of resolving the matter with a discussion. I also have had hard time with the mentioned user and agreed with his insistence wrong. However, the report was gaming a system from bad faith to block the disputed editor. As for Q 6, that is not even an answer. You have to say about the question since you are asked to do so. Admin with specialty is okay, but at least you have to show willingness to answer the question as searching for the image policies.--Caspian blue 15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose due to spotty success rate with nominations (see here) of fictional characters and television episodes, which means I do not trust the candidate's judgment regarding the worthiness of these articles, and he seems to only "vote" one way (see these examples) in these discussions as well, which means I do not trust his neutrality. If the candidate vowed to never close discussions on television characters or episodes, just as you won't see me do, I might feel otherwise, but as of right now I am concerned with the obious bias concerning these particular topics. --A Nobody 21:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the examples you demonstrate where i didn't vote for deletion. In this one I didn't vote. I just categorized the Afd. Moreover, 20 of the links are not AfDs. Also notice that the vast majority of the articles finally kept are not for fictional characters but for real persons. I sent for AfD many article tagged as failing notability since June 2007 as part of a cleanup process. In many cases, after references were given I have withdrawn my nominations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, I could not trust this user to close any AFDs whatsoever. As of October 16, 2008, this user was still referring to WP:FICTION in deletion nominations [1], but WP:FICTION has not been a guideline since July. As of October 19, 2008, this user was saying "Fails notability for fiction" [2] in deletion nominations, but Wikipedia does not currently have a notability guideline for fiction. Only 18% of the articles this user nominates for deletion end up being deleted.[3] Nominations like this are simply embarassing. If this user can't take the time to read WP:ATD or WP:BEFORE, how does anyone expect this user to read WP:DGFA? --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This counting you did is completely unfair. If you check 11 out of 70 (~16%) articles which are marked as Kept are active now. 8 (11,43%) that were recreated, at most cases were recreated with completely different subject (example [4]), 13 are now redirects, 1 is about to be merged and then redirected (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginyuu Meika, 7 which kept, were nominated together and kept wit no consensus since there was no list of characters article to host them. The rest are articles I nominated because they were tagged for notability for 13 months and have nothing to do with fiction. -- Magioladitis (talk)
  4. Oppose subject to possible change depending on the answer to Q12 above, all the more so because of the evasive answer to Q 12 above. DGG (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) . Looking at AfDs placed just during this discussion, I see he nominates on the basis of having no citations to prove notability, without making any demonstrated attempt to find them, not realising that the requirement is verifiable, not verified. Just above, in his answer to several editors, he confirms that, saying that for an article to have been tagged for notability and not improved for 13 months is grounds for deletion. That's nonsense, of course, it's grounds for examination and looking for sources, and then, if not found, nominating for deletion. I suppose the candidate will be confirmed. I do not dislike him, and I would never oppose just for being a deletionist, or having a different opinion about fiction. I doubt everyone saying keep above has actually examined his record at AfD. I hope he learns more about deletion policy before he starts closing AfDs, or there will be a good deal of activity at deletion review, and not just about fiction. I now regret having waited so long to comment, but I hoped to not have to oppose. DGG (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    additional current AfD, to show that the problem in judging deletion is still present: the nomination for [5], giving as one reason for deletion "orphan" -- a matter easily enugh solved by putting in a link. Other reasons there may be for deletion, but that is not one of them. DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I do not trust this user to close AFDs in a competent manner. Constant, very brief deletion votes that carry zero weight, exampes of "It's listcraft", "fails notability", "speedy delete". Way too many "per WP:FICTION"s, as well. Even some of the longer votes are still weightless, as it's just policies written as a sentence to make it look like a 'real' opinion. "Delete. It is unencyclopedic, unreferenced (thus maybe inaccurate). Wikipedia is not a directory." --Translation: "Delete. WP:UNENCYC, WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:VAGUEWAVE" The whole mindset for even nominating articles for deletion is also completely out of whack, as DGG demonstrates. It's just way too much of a risk for you to have the tools right now. SashaNein (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansing Family, nominated by the candidate on the 18th, asserts that the user is still far too inexperienced to be given the authority to delete articles. SashaNein (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sasha, your argument might have more merit if you did something other than link to the same essay 5 or 6 times---and on all but one occasion to the same section. Links showing what you allege carry more weight---instead, you gave one link that is almost a year old and another one that, IMHO, doesn't show a clear and obvious problem. Even if the one did, one instance is not enough to convince me there is a problem. Now if you could substantiate some of your claims...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a sample from September 1st - October 1X of votes by the user that I consider completely unhelpful.
    [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
    There were a few AFDs the candidate nominated in the past two weeks that he had to withdraw because he did not even do a simple google search to look for references. I have issues with users that rush into nominating AFDs without at least doing a moment of research to make sure the article doesn't just need cleanup, which AFD is certainly not the place to ask for that.[25][26]
    There were a few other votes that had (somewhat) valid rationales, but then threw in irrelevant padding like "the article is an orphan" and "This is listcraft".
    It is likely that this RFA will still pass, despite the candidate asserting that he will have poor judgment on the closure of AFDs.
    I'm just looking for a responsible administrator, not one that's possibly on a mission to destroy all perceived 'cruft' on an imaginary battleground. There is the chance he will not do this, but the erratic copy and paste cookie cutter voting and nominating on many fictional subject articles for deletion tell me otherwise. SashaNein (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll take a look at these this evening. Links to the differences have more meaning than links to the policy/guideline. Most of us are familiar with the policy/guideline or know how to find it. Links to the policy simply show that it exists, Having links that support the concern validate that it is a concern.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Soft oppose per all the above re: AfD closure, in particular DGG's comment about the answer to Q12. Give it another 3 months, maybe. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretful Oppose per statements in response to DGG and questions 12, above. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 'oppose per concern over AfD. I've supported editors who are highly deletionist in the past but I see no evidence that Magio's deletionism is well-thought or that it will be reasonably laid aside when judging community consensus. This person is simply not someone I would trust with the delete button at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral — Answers to questions seem very short, immediately makes me wary. But I have absolutely no reason not to support, I just want to see some other answers to 'optional' questions first. Switch to support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let his contribs speak for themselves. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronise me, please. I have reviewed his contributions, they're good. I simply want to view some answers to more questions first. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you felt patronized. I didn't intend to insult you at all. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I just didn't really need a link to find the user's contributions, nor do I need the reminder. Kind regards, —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Regretfully I can't support based on answers to questions. Firstly the answer to Q1 is not very satisfying. Secondly the answer to Q3 does not really provide evidence of being able to solve conflicts. Furthermore the answers to Q4 and Q6 indicate that the user does not have sufficient policy knowledge. All in all it's not enough to support. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more information in Q3 hoping that this helps. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning towards support: Would make a fine admin one day, but the answer to question 4 makes me slightly uneasy. Definitely not worthy of an oppose, but I'm not ready to support. Dendodge|TalkContribs 11:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Note: I might support pending an answer to my question. Dendodge|TalkContribs 11:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support - I'm willing to ignore the slightly wobbly answer to Q4. Dendodge|TalkContribs 13:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'd like to support as I think the user is generally a good candidate who would not abuse the tools. Unfortunately the answer to question 4 leaves me with some concerns over their knowledge of policy in an area where I think it is likely that they may work. Guest9999 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Seems like a good contributor, I'm a little wary over Q4 though. — neuro(talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, according to policy, a page tagged with for speedy deletion and a hangon tag may still be deleted. When I tried to say is that I would be more careful when a hangon tags was there. I would not only rely on the reason given but I would like to contact the person who added the tag. Some people are not making do use of the tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I have concerns about his reliance on tools that are bringing people to his talk page because of issues with the tools and/or his execution with the tools. Tools also make it difficult to see how he would respond... and unfortunately, the answers to some of the questions were a little weak. In this case, it's not enough to make me oppose, but I can't support at this time.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Leaning Oppose per some of the opposes above... won't change without first confirming myself.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I finally unraveled the July threads with Badagnani and MarnetteD enough to see that you _were_ trying to apply the policy correctly. But you should not forget people may need more explanation/description to understand what you, or rather your bot, is doing. We've had problems with minimal explanations from bot owners before. Hesitation in stopping a bot or explaining it further is what is stopping me now. I could be enthused with your interactions in June regarding the talk-page-of-redirect-blank-except-for-project-template issue. You got people's attention and a good resolution at MFD. Problem-> talk-> resolution - that's the right way. Shenme (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral for now. Seems like an excellent contributor for the most part, and I suspect giving Magioladitis the tools will be a net benefit. Despite all this, the answer to question 4 is very concerning. Guest9999 said it all. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Past interactions brushing with 3RR and questionable bot activities, iffy communication skills, and some worrying concerns over strength of deletionism per DGG. I revisit RfAs often, and may change my stance here. GlassCobra 11:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category