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

Salvidrim[edit]

Final (107/33/6); ended 22:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) - Bureaucrat discussion was unanimous that a consensus for approval exists. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Nomination by User:Sergecross73

Salvidrim (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I would like to introduce Salvidrim. We first started working together around October 2011, as we were both taking on similar goals; I was cleaning up and maintaining articles related to Sonic (series), while he was doing the same with the Mario (franchise). Ever since taking on these similar projects, we've worked together extensively at WikiProject Video Games in regards to solving problems and interpreting policy. He's always really impressed me in how he always caries himself in discussions, always remaining calm, interpreting the situation accurately and without personal bias, and handling things according to policy. Seeing his participation at WP:AFD, WP:RFCs, and WP:ANI shows that he has a firm grasp on policy and determining consensus, and equally important, whenever he makes a rare, minor error, he's always been quick to own up to it, and fix it, without any or attitude or hard feelings. We tend to follow each others edits and talk pages pretty closely, so I can say with relative certainty that this editor doesn't have any skeletons hiding away. He's got a clean history, strong admin knowledge, and a sort of humbleness that makes me certain we'd never regret giving him the mop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from User:TParis

I would like to nominate Salvidrim for adminship. He doesn't have 700 billion edits, but he has clue and I'd like to demonstrate that. Now, you'll notice that his recent activity hasn't been as strong as this time a year ago, but I think the graphs are misleading. You'll notice that during that period, he is an experienced content writer having brought Dr. Mario from this to Good article and A-class status. He also shows that he has clue as seen here where he offers advice to an experienced admin on how to close a discussion on WP:AN. He doesn't have extensive administrative experience, but he has shown clue at WP:UAA with [1][2][3] ect and clue at WP:RFPP here [4] [5][6]. A check of CSD tags shows not a whole lot of WP:CSD experience, but they do show accurate uses of A1, G12, and A7. He has participated in 84 AfD discussions with a 95% accuracy showing insightful arguments such as here, here, and here. You can say this candidate lacks edit count, but you cannot say they lack clue. I ask that before anyone oppose this candidate over edit count, they offer the candidate a question first. v/r - TP 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to do so. As TParis has aptly stated, I may not have the large amounts of experience that some other editors have, but I have faith that being granted the tools will enable me to help improve the encyclopedia in my own way even more. I am well-aware a number of you may consider it to be "early", however I've recently seen many lament the shortage of admins, or rather the fact there are much less additions than losses... I feel I could help, I want to help, and hopefully the community will trust me to do so. I may not be as frenetically active as others might, but I believe every bit helps. As can be seen in my editing history, I may spend a week with passively minimal contributions, then spend an entire evening clearing a whole months-old backlog; the rhythm of the contributions, in my opinion, do not diminish their worth. Salvidrim! 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I believe that for the moment, it is preferable for me to help in areas in which I have experience -- namely XfD, RMs, UAA and potentially PRODs. I also plan on taking on a more active learning role at RFPP and AIV, and slowly phase in clerking these areas. I will continue engaging in discussions at AN & AN/I, and will learn from them, but will likely refrain from performing more disputed actions until I feel it is appropriate. I will also start monitoring CSD more actively to grow more intimate with the process; access to deleted contributions is definitely a good way to learn. I will continue doing some predominantly non-administrative work which could benefit from the tools, such as Recent Changes Patrol, taking care of Edit Requests, and occasionally helping out at the Help Desk. In any case, I have had offers for mentoring which I intend to use to their fullest before doing anything I am not entirely confident about. I want to help, not to create more trouble through eager inexperience. Salvidrim!
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: That's a toughie, because I evidently tend to be more gnomish, so my contributions hardly stand out enough to be considered "best". As mentioned above, it is obvious that my large improvements on Dr. Mario probably constitute my best content contributions. However, while I believe content improvement are the most crucial way to contribute to building Wikipedia, I would have to say the work that I've done that I believe was the most helpful was all the help I've provided over the months at WP:VG. While I'm far from alone in this WikiProject, I have done more there than anywhere else. Salvidrim!
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 am not someone who gets stressed. The last time I was stressed was in 1998, just before my first kiss... all joking aside, if there is one thing that I take for certain, it is my own ability to remain cool and collected in any situation, be it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I believe being calm and frank can sort out practically any conflict, unless there is a desire for the conflict not to be solved. Perhaps it is for that reason that I can honestly say I do not recall being involved in anything I'd call a conflict. I've dealt with a handful of disruptive editors, some more... tenacious than others, but even there, I am having a hard time calling it a "conflict", at least in the way conflict generally happens on Wikipedia. I have not been in any content dispute that wasn't resolved peacefully. I have been reading AN & AN/I for a while now (although contributing for a shorter while), and nothing I have been involved in comes even close to some of the recent drama. As for the future, I do not anticipate that my behavior will change drastically, thus I do not expect that I will be involved in such conflicts -- however, if I do, I will make sure to do two things: remain calm and honest. Salvidrim!
Additional question from Theopolisme
4. While above you said that you doubt you will interact on pages like AN/I, your highest number of Wikipedia-space edits is ironically to that very page. Is this simply due to a lack of project-space work, or perhaps something else?
A: I am a tad confused -- in my reply to Question 1, I specifically mentioned I planned on actively interacting on AN & AN/I and learning from it (as a lot of different things certainly happen there!). What I meant was that I would refrain from taking administrative decisions in cases where the needed action isn't evident, and that I would wait before exercising administrative judgement on AN & AN/I threads that were more disputed until I felt I had enough experience to correctly analyze community consensus. I have to be part of the community before fully understanding it. :) Salvidrim!
Sorry for the misunderstanding; I was thrown off by your "thus I do not expect that I will be involved in such conflicts" in question 3. —theopolisme (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Although it may sometimes be a tad idealistic, I firmly believe it is possible to actively engage in discussions at AN & AN/I without devolving into intense conflicts. :) Salvidrim! 03:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from ΛΧΣ21
5. This is an inevitable situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
A: Obviously, no block is to be handled lightly. A common mistake that I've witnessed is punitive blocks. Blocks are meant to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption, not punish human beings. A user who had been blocked may not perceive it as such, for obvious reasons, and will probably be angered by what they see as an expression of distrust against them. This runs the risk that a contributor who, outside of the situation leading up to the block, helped improve Wikipedia, could become so angry and frustrated that instead of accepting the block and moving on to continue their work after its expiration, would continue the incident and escalate, feeling they have been treated unfairly. This is one of the reasons why clear and calm explanations are needed for every block, to ensure the user understand exactly the reasons why they're blocked; it may also be helpful to provide suggestions as to how to avoid repeating the situation. Personally I think a block should only be used when not blocking has the potential of having worse consequences; judging that, however, requires a great deal of wisdom, and no man is perfect. Cases of obvious vandalism, spam, or other evident cases where the user is not here to improve the encyclopedia at all tend to be more uncontroversial, however. But no matter the case, I would be disappointed to see any editor who has shown some measure of constructive editing blocked without the blocking admin attempting to engage him in a discussion about the incident at hand, unless it is evident from other recent discussions the editor has no intention to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Salvidrim!
6. Which is, for you, the main difference between CSD and AFD?
A: CSD constitutes a set of criteria for deletion for which community consensus has already established that if an article meets these, they indubitably fail all criteria for inclusion; as such, any article meeting one of the criteria can be immediately deleted without further discussion, since the community has already demonstrated they believe an article of this kind doesn't have its place on Wikipedia. AfD is a process where community consensus is being sought and assessed as to whether an article should be included on Wikipedia, because the nominator believes the article doesn't fall in a category of articles for which consensus is already established, but that it could still fail criteria for inclusion. Salvidrim!
7. You said that you have experience in UAA. So, what do you think of this username: MichaeltheScript?
A: It evidently falls under the category of inappropriately misleading usernames which could seem to imply semi-automated or fully automated editing, which is not allowed unless specifically approved. Unless it is evident the user is, in fact, using a script to automate edition without previous approval, I would approach the user about the username, explaining why it may be confusing or misleading to others and asking if he intends to indeed run a script; if not, I would make sure they understand why it is important that they modify their usernames so as to avoid any misunderstanding of their edits. Salvidrim!
It seems that Salvidrim would need more information about the user in question in order to most appropriately answer this question. —theopolisme (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a lot of UAA cases are judged precisely when very little information about the user is available. :) Salvidrim! 03:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he did provide the type of answer I was waiting for :) — ΛΧΣ21 06:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Bbb23
8. Your edit count dropped dramatically in the last 6 months of 2012. Could you please explain why (I read TP's comments), and also give us a sense of what you expect your activity level to be in the future if this nomination is successful.
A: The short answer -- I started working fulltime (overtime even!), so the time window where I could edit was reduced dramatically; as you can see from Wikichecker, weekday/daytime edits are scarce, while 2AM on Saturdays is a busy period. However, I've recently been promoted to a middle management position that gives me more free time, and I feel that while my editing rhythm will continue to be slower compared to others, it is more than sufficient for my help to make a noticeably positive impact. As my userpage states, there may be a week or minimal contributions followed by a day of intense backlog clearing, and as such committing myself to any kind of consistency would be irresponsible. However I believe that even when doing little, what matters is doing it well, and that anything that's not unhelpful ultimately improves the project. I also do not believe my activity level in the future to be dependent on the result of this RfA -- adminship is no big deal; my interest on the project definitely will not be diminished if I can only contribute as a simple editor. It would allow some of my work to be even more helpful, and I might do work I might not do otherwise, but I don't expect that the volume of my contributions will be significantly less or more; I expect the nature of the contributions will be different, however: whether I spend eight hours straight clearing the RM backlog, or dabsolving everything on Wikipedia, does depend on the result of this nomination, obviously. Salvidrim!
Additional question from Webclient101
9. Hello Salvidrim. If the following usernames showed up at UAA, what would you do? Note that they have all been created in the last few days, and nobody has communicated with the users yet.
  • User:CensorWebclient101, who has not made any edits.
An interesting case -- "WebClient" raises concerns that the account could be shared or automated; however since Webclient101 is an existing user, this account's name implies an intention to disrupt Webclient101's editing. While not expressly a personal attack, it raises doubts that the user is here to improve Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing dispute involving Webclient101 it might be wise to check if this is a sock; however, the lack of edits would be unusual. Webclient101 is a pretty specific username, and even while assuming good faith, it is difficult to accept this as a coincidence. I would wait until the user edits, but closely monitor.
  • User:MarinInc, who has promoted "MarinInc" on the their user page.
Evidently promotional username; Block.
  • User:TROLL101, who has has not made any edits.
No edits, but username could imply intention to disrupt; contact on userpage and monitor first edits.
  • User:Trollolol, who has 1 vandalistic contribution.
The username coupled with the vandalism implies lack of intentions to improve Wikipedia; Block.
  • User:Testicle, who has edited constructively.
No issue. It is not profanity, nor is it likely to offend. It is an interesting choice of name and further down the road, the user may decide to change it if/when it hampers discussion, but it is not a violation of the username policy.
  • User:JasonProductionCompany, who hasn't edited yet.
Contact on userpage with questions about shared use -- is there a single user editing from this account ("Jason")? In that case, instruct user to read our policies and take the advice at WP:BPCOI; if there are many, block the account while requesting that the name be changed to reflect a single user, and that other accounts be created for other users if needed, in accordance to our policy on shared use. If there is no reply within a reasonable delay, I would preventively block but add explanations as to how the user should proceed, should he wish to edit Wikipedia.
  • User:JadeBot, who has made edits to several articles.
Contact on userpage, explaining why the username can be cause for concern -- if the user is indeed running a bot, warn him to stop immediately and seek bot approval before resuming the automatic edits, as per our policy on Bots.
  • User:TheSockIsBack!, who has has not made any edits.
A touchy case -- to us Wikipedia editors is seems rather ducky and implies intention to disrupt, but from an outside perspective is could be a totally legitimate account name; "The Sock" could be someone's nickname. It is uncommon for a socking editor not to edit. I would question the user and explain why the name may appear confusing to us, and suggest that a change of name may avoid further problems. If the answers indicate the user is a returning editor, I would either take it to WP:SPI if the master is readily identifiable or post on AN/I for further opinions. If there are no edits within a reasonable period, leave as is; it's rare for active sockpuppets to not do harm, and if he becomes active in the future, action can be taken then.
  • User:Poop, who has has not made any edits.
While I am having a hard time calling poop "profanity", I seriously doubt it is going to enable constructive contributions -- block with clear instructions on how to request a rename.
  • User:Rick&Ann, who has edited constructively.
Contact on talk page, questioning if the account is shared. If it is, request that this account be renamed and that a second account be created by the second user, explaining our policy on shared use.
A: I have inserted my answers in-line for clarity's sake. Salvidrim!
Additionally, could you tell me which accounts you would hard block or soft block? Webclient101talk 03:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always assuming no other problematic edits were made: Of the users I explained I could block, I would only hard block User:Trollolol and User:MarinInc, as only they have shown that they are not here to edit constructively. User:Poop, User:JadeBot and User:JasonProductionCompany could be soft blocked because while their current username is not appropriate, nothing indicates their edits would be unhelpful; coming back under a different name and editing constructively is encouraged. Salvidrim! ✉
Additional questions from Trevj
10. Hi. Would you please care to shed a little light on the user talk discussions which have taken place on fr-wp? Merci d'avance. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: These were casual discussions with a problem editor on en.wiki; I saw no harm in engaging in discussions on fr.wiki while he was range-blocked/banned here as I believed he could be mentored into a constructive editor... time proved me wrong, unfortunately, which is why you'll no doubt notice his later messages went unanswered. He's now formally banned on en.wiki, so I doubt there'll be much further discussion to be had. If anything, you may accuse me of having a soft heart for people who aren't explicitly destructive, but rather simply unable to contribute constructively, as I prefer seeing the potential in everyone and trying to guide them towards being a positive contributor. Anyone who edits Wikipedia more than a handful of times, especially over a period, implicitly shows that they have some interest in the project -- even the most persistent of vandals shows dedication. I try to channel that energy into constructive work instead of shutting it off altogether whenever I can, although success is hardly guaranteed. Salvidrim! ✉
11. About a year ago, you closed an RfC dab page discussion for a topic on which you had previously expressed an opinion. While this specific case isn't necessarily a cause for concern (closed against your stated preference, but apparently after only a couple of weeks' discussion) would you retrospectively consider yourself to have been INVOLVED in that case? -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Two things -- first of all, it WAS closed relatively quickly (at the time I believed a 7 day period was standard for RfCs, as it was with AfDs, whereas I now know it is generally closer to 30 days). I could've given it more time. Secondly, while I specifically did not participate in the RfC about where Eidos should redirect (or be a DAB), I did participate in the related RM of Eidos Interactive, which directly led to the RfC. As stated on WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include (...) disputes on topics", and as such I now realize I was indeed involved enough that I should've abstained from closing. That being said, I still believe the close was non-controversial and that any uninvolved editor would've closed the discussion the same way, and that I notified all other parties regardless of their previously stated opinion. If there is any concern that my involvement may have affected or biased the outcome I'd be perfectly fine with another RfC being held without my involvement to ascertain I did not influence the community's consensus on that issue. Salvidrim! ✉
Addition question from Adjwilley
12. Have you read at least the Lead sections of most of the "Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines" listed here?
A: I've read practically all of the pages on this template at least once or twice (I tend to open one, then click on various wikilinks and end up reading for hours...) and have definitely read at least the leads multiple times. I study the relevant policies and guidelines more in depth whenever the need arises and before taking action on them, however. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Vacation9
13. When would you block a promotional username vs. just warning them?
A: As is clearly laid out in Wikipedia's username policy, if the user's edits are also promotional, he should be blocked; if the edits are otherwise constructive, they should be warned and encouraged to change their username. Salvidrim! ✉
14. What do you think are the proper conditions under which to block a user with the "Vandalism only account" criteria?
A: I would actually be very cautious with these kinds of warningless blocks. Unless it is an editor who has done nothing but vandalism, on a number of pages, and it is ongoing (no sign of stopping until blocked), so much that not blocking would result in further immediate damage, I would strongly support warning the editor at least once. If they ignore the warning and continue vandalizing, then the course of action is clear. Salvidrim! ✉
15. (optional) What is your position on non-admin closures?
A: Even though I did a few NACs, I haven't personally taken much time to reflect on the process. In the close of the NAC RfC I was able to see the community's support for them, but also their concerns. However, I think it would be irresponsible for me to take a position when I haven't had the chance of fully analyzing a situation. Salvidrim! ✉
Additional question from Trevj
16. What explanation can you offer for the occurrences raised in Jebus989's oppose, please? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't believe that blatant mistake can be justified by an explanation; only excuses, and I won't make an ever bigger fool of myself by trying to "explain". It was a gross lack of attention. Had I realized what I had done, I would've gladly reverted myself, however I didn't and it's too late to "fix". At the moment, there is unfortunately little I can do, apart from offering my sincerest apologies and blaming distractions for that isolated incident. Salvidrim! ✉
Thank you for the swift response. I can't finish looking into this just now, so will stay neutral until I have the time to reconsider. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Completely coincidental, I assure you. However, activity does help getting as broad a range of opinions as possible, so I guess it's all good. :) Salvidrim! 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, although I am speaking more about the concern with the low level of activity at RfA, compared to years past. Hopefully, the trend will not continue this year (congrats on being the first candidate to start an RfA in 2013)! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom.--v/r - TP 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - as nominator Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support. I was hoping to give a strong support, but I feel that he is not sufficiently active; I haven't seen him do much anti-vandalism work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. He will make a good administrator based on his work in different content areas. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support The low edit count does not concern me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support - I would like to see more contributions in administrative areas like RfPP and UAA, however the work he has done is fine for me. Would be a net positive with the tools. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link to WP:NETPOS -- I debated linking to it in my opening statement, but I worried that doing so could look slightly arrogant. I do strongly agree with the spirit of the essay, however. :) Salvidrim! 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Rather low edit count, but not a concern to me. Pretty good worker over at WikiProject Video games. ZappaOMati 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The user seems to be trustworthy. TBrandley (what's up) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Excellent work at WikiProject Video Games; definitely has the maturity required for adminship. Satellizer talk contribs 04:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Made over 6,000 edits. CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 04:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not much of a reason to support. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Don't see how he'd be likely to start breaking things. Good point on the UAA thing, and we need gnomes as admins as well as bigtime writers of content — most admin duties are much more similar to what gnomes tend to do. I'd only ask that you make a single change to your userpage: please correct the spelling of "Philosphy" :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done.... *facepalm* Salvidrim! 04:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Very good answers; thank you for taking the time to answer them. From this standpoint, you demonstrate to be a very well-prepared candidate who will surely become a great admin. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 06:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Salvidrim's editing shows an appealing amount of elegance and clue. I'm impressed by their ability to dispassionately examine a situation and arrive at a sensible conclusion. Salvidrim seems to communicate well with other editors on talkpages and they meet my criteria. I'm confident Salvidrim's breadth of experience is enough for them to wield the mop and anything that is missing can be learned in situ. Pol430 talk to me 10:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support 'Only' seven articles? More than me. OK, the primary job here is content. As I've done before, I'll compare to a school. The primary job there is 'teaching'. But if the teachers have to mop the floors, fix the windows, sort the day-to-day finances, answer the telephones, cook the dinners, come in out of hours when the alarm goes off, the standard of teaching is going to drop. I've not seen Salvidrim around much, as we work in different areas. What I have recently seen looks fine to me. I think the answers here are good, and I detect a willingness to learn about unfamiliar areas. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The signature seems vaguely familiar, Salvidrim is apparently a pretty well-rounded contributor with some solid content work under his belt, and I trust the judgment of both Sergecross73 and TParis. Why not? Kurtis (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - My interactions with Benoit have been limited. However, I have always found his editing sound and I don't see any trouble in trusting him with few extra rights. Though his activity has reduced of late, I don't actually see this as a big issue here. I'd oppose if he had any bad track record which I don't find. — Yash [talk] 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - meets my requirements. --Nouniquenames 15:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per nom and co-nom. INeverCry 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - He may not contribute as much as some would like, but to the discussions he attends to, his presence is invaluable. Given the admin tools, he would be able to do great good. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems qualified to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - looks great to me. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support (cautiously). In general I usually prefer to see a few more edits (9-10k these days), and to some extent I like to see a little diversity. (more than just Mario Brothers video games). What I do see however is very very good, and I don't like to be bound by "countitis". The tipping point for me, (to be honest), is the TParis nomination. TP has a known history of exhaustive research before jumping into anything, and his support carries a lot of weight in my mind. Best of luck Salvidrim. — Ched :  ?  21:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I hate opposing, in particular because I think so very highly of both noms. In all honesty, I know he wouldn't intentionally break anything, it is just the unintentional things that worry me. I don't "count" once you get passed "some", but "almost none" is still a low number when looking at experience in key areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I have to respectfully disagree with Dennis regarding the concerns of inactivity. While he (he?) has hardly been making a couple hundred edits per month consistently, he's made at least 45, and averaged 380 edits per month discounting this month since September 2011 and I have to agree with TParis, he has a clue and I agree with Ched that if TP is willing to support, let alone nominate, a user for the tools, that that in and of itself is probably a decent reason to support. Go Phightins! 21:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - looks like a good candidate for adminship based on questions and contribs. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 23:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support – I trust him, based on his interactions working with WP:VG. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support – I like the answers to the questions. Airplaneman ✈ 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - AfD record seems fine, a spot check of the edit history reveals no concerns. The concern that they're inexperienced seems unfounded - one or two slightly problematic AfD(s) from over a year ago, just after they started editing. WilyD 08:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support...no evidence that they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 08:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Good answers to the questions, and everything else looks good to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I'm happy with the answers and I trust he would use the tools well. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 10:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. A good contributions split, clue shown in the answers, and a generally good attitude. Opposing based on Salvidrim's relatively low edit count is justifiable (though 2500 contributions to our encyclopedia including featured content is, in fact, a massive undertaking); opposing based on properly-rationalised comments on marginal AfDs is much less so (though inevitable in RfA). I'm not inclined to think Salvidrim will go rouge on us, which is all that should really matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good contributions. Enough experience at AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Lots of experience, easily passes any reasonable time and editcount bars. I see no evidence that this user will cause problems as an admin. —Kusma (t·c) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. - filelakeshoe 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per this in particular and other answers in general. Oculi (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I've been his work at the Video Games Wikiproject and I can safely say that I trust him with a mop. GamerPro64 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No reason to oppose - give the man a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 16:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Looking at the candidate's edits, I see nothing whatsoever that would lead me to question their ability to serve as a quality admin. Experience will come in time, but reasonableness is already present and evident. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per this. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Support: I agree and also admire the candidate for throwing his hat into this arena. I would not wish the RfA process on ANYONE. You look like a really good person but I just don't see the time, experience, and variety of work needed to be an admin. You are very clearly on your way there, perhaps in six months? Again you are braver (see my user page) than I. Thanks for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Although some of the opposers bring up a good point, Till's oppose is a good example of why you should have the tools. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. It now appears fairly certain that Jimbo will be imposing some radical change on the RfA process very soon, for better or worse. I'd prefer you had a bit more experience, Salvidrim, but it feels a bit like the end of an era, and I have no stomach for being picky. Be careful, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Most of the oppose reasons are silly at best and none of them were convincing --Guerillero | My Talk 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I find the rationals provided by those opposing to be unpersuasive. Monty845 20:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Mindful of the revert mentioned in the opposes, I'd rather have an admin who errs now and again and add value such as the diff Oculi pointed out than the other way around. See also answer to Q16. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No real negatives. We disagree on UAA but that is no reason to oppose. —Soap— 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take the opportunity to go ahead and ask for your thoughts on the UAA question; perhaps I can learn from your experience? I'd be very happy to consider any input you may have. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 03:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support No issues for me. Intothatdarkness 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support The oppose votes have me convinced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Decent candidate overall. Yes, a little more experience would be nice but Salvidrim has a clue and it's not like adminship is this absurdly complex task. I think the diff pointed out by Collect (and which apparently was also decisive for John) is a non-issue. It's an easy mistake to make and it's not even that damaging to keep the silly sentence since it's a least pointing to the official website. When did we start asking for perfection from RfA candidates? Hmm. Well maybe it was a while ago but it's still ridiculous. Net positive. Pichpich (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No problem. --DHeyward (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per Hawkeye7. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Tiggerjay (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Back to (Moved to Neutral, pending further info) Support Answers to questions indicate a thoughtful and communicative editor, willing to admit past errors as part of the learning process. Should make a great admin. Bon courage! -- Trevj (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I going to spend my Sunday evening and Monday morning agonising over this and checking, rechecking the candidate's contributions? No. Do I think it was a genuine error and is a small error of judgement? Yes. Could the candidate have avoided editing during this RfA, passed, and then still made the error? Is he able to learn from this experience? Yes. If this RfA fails, am I likely to support a 2nd run? Almost certainly. Do we really want to subject ourselves to a re-run in n months' time? I don't. -- Trevj (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - that's the exact kind of faith RFA reform needs.--v/r - TP 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, on the basis of the intelligent and well-reasoned answers. Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Weak Support longterm editor with a clean block log and plenty of contributions - well over two thousand edits to mainspace alone. Weak because for a candidate who wants to get involved in deletion there has not been a lot of recent deletion tagging, and what there was included this overly hasty A1 tag that was actually deleted A7. I won't oppose over one mistake, but I will take the opportunity to remind you that A1 tags like A3 should not be set in the first few minutes after an article is created. If A1 had been the correct tag then two minutes was far too quick. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment! While it's impossible for me to view this particular situation, I will agree that my experience with CSD is limited, and that's why I will watch and learn for a good while before jumping in and start clerking CSD; I also intend to get particular mentoring. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hopefully you will be able to view that one as soon as the RFA is over:). As for learning more about CSD, you might find some of the material here worth reading. ϢereSpielChequers 04:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - good answers and no red flags. Not a candidate who deserves to fail. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. His PROD nominations from the last six months all look good; they all follow the PROD policy and have valid rationales (although admittedly there aren't that many of them). Overall I find Salvidrim to be a trustworthy editor who shows a lot of clue, and I think he will do a fine job with the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little concerned by the recent 3RR violation pointed out by Jebus989 and Bbb23, but I don't think it would be reasonable to oppose over it. Salvidrim has admitted his mistake, and I doubt he will be repeating it any time soon after this experience. On the other hand, AniMate's oppose doesn't have me worried at all, as the incident occurred 9 months ago, and was relatively early in Salvidrim's editing history. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I don't see any convincing reasons not to support Salvidrim. James086Talk 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral per Jebus989. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, hopefully I will have time before this closes. James086Talk 11:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support excellent answers to the questions, and if the oppose votes represent the most problematic aspects of this editor's candidacy then I don't see any red flags. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak support - Would have preferred to see this RfA a bit later into the candidate's time here, but I don't think it's enough for me to oppose, and I see no signs that the candidate will do any harm as an admin. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Clueful editor, with good answers to questions (I was waiting for their answer to #10, which demonstrated good faith). Relatively low edit count and limited experience (until now) don't prevent me from thinking the candidate will be a net positive. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 23:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. If you'd asked me yesterday if I'd support an RfA for someone who had made only around 2,500 article edits, and whose activity over the past six months was low, I'd pretty much have said no. But that would have been before I'd had a look at Salvidrim and seen how calm and very clueful he is, how good his answers to questions are, and that he had TP as a nom (meaning no disrespect to Sergecross73 - I just don't really know him). And the diff quoted by Till to oppose was the icing on the cake - an excellent close, which really made me smile. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad I could put a little bit of sunshine in your day. I've appreciated your work whenever I happened across it, and whether you return to adminship after your break or not, I am glad to know you'll continue being of help with the project. If you have any specific tips you believe may help avoiding, as you put it, "being dragged far too deep in admnistrative work", I'd be happy to listen to what wisdom you may have. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, if I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't be on an admin break now :-) But I'm sure I could come up with a few thoughts, and my Talk page is always open for any help I can offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Whenever maintenance people run, they always get blasted for not writing articles all the time. Now we actually have an article writer running and he's being bashed for not doing maintenance work enough. You guys know you can't have it both ways right? Wizardman 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I'm moving to support per WereSpielChequers. I trust Salv to use proper judgement/caution and think the user will be a net positive with the mop. MJ94 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Weak support: While I would've liked to see more content contributions, I do believe the candidate would be a net positive with the tools. SpencerT♦C 05:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - I like his attitude on his talk page; his responses to suggestions he consider an RFA. I like the fact that he seems to genuinely understand that the mop is no big deal and would continue to contribute if he fails here. I'm not sure that's likely but it shows the right attitude regardless. Stalwart111 08:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support seems no things to consider for opposing. Mediran (t • c) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Well. Same as Mediran. And I seen him at the WP:HD. He was helpful. So I find nothing to oppose.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support I understand concerns that experience is possibly a bit light, but from what I've seen of Salvidrim, the user will make a good admin. KTC (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Struck KTC (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I think they will be a net positive to the project. I was on the fence after reading the oppose section (concerns with lack of experience in important areas), but was pushed over to support by their response to my question. If they read Wikipedia policy for fun and consult it before taking action, they're unlikely to make very many big mistakes. I hope that if the candidate passes, they will continue to be cautious when approaching areas where they lack experience. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support —stay (sic)! 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - No concerns. AlexiusHoratius 00:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - The ridiculously nit-picky opposes do nothing to make me thing this editor will be anything but a net positive. Apparently he only created a mere seven articles, though... how ever will the encyclopedia survive with such substandard help? Trusilver 02:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I really do think a lot of the opposes are too stringent. Over 2k edits to article space is plenty to know how not to mess things up. RayTalk 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Needs more experience? Salvi can get more as a sysop. Answers above and his history to date are sufficient to earn my trust that he won't abuse tools. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 05:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per WP:DEAL. There's enough here to see that he probably wouldn't delete the Main page (if that were still possible) or VfD (if such a thing still existed). Answer to Q.5 shows a clue about blocking. All other admin actions are easy enough to undo. He seems civil, level-headed, and falls into the sweet spot between "experienced enough to have a clue" and "not experienced enough to be totally jaded with Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious: what do you refer to as VfD? :) Salvidrim! ✉ 06:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Votes for deletion, the precursor to AFD. It was deleted some years back (Signpost coverage). See WP:STOCKS for some more comedies of errors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks! History's always good knowledge. The best I got to was WP:VFD and I couldn't see how that made sense in context. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    VfD was a single page, it wasn't a set of transclusions like AfD. When you nominated a page for deletion, you simply edited the VfD page and added your nom. (Actually RFA used to work that way as well). As a result, it had an immense page history. I seem to remember it was more than "a few minutes" that you couldn't log on - I seem to remember it (effectively) crashing Wikipedia - making it uneditable - for a fair while. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A single page, eh? Before my time too (at least, before I touched deletion debates) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It changed right around the time I started editing. See this for example. (Though honestly, since it was page-move archived, as many things were in those days, I don't know whether Ed's deletion would have simply been of the "current" article, or whether it also included the subpages. Or whether it would have mattered, given the volume of edits being made even to the transcluded version of the page). Guettarda (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I'd like to see a little more content creation, but more importantly this user obviously has clue as proved by some of the discussions in the oppose section. Yes. Black Kite (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Per Black Kite. Secret account 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. No real negatives. Seems to be a reliable user. --High Contrast (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - looks like a competent candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, looks good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Seems clueful enough to be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per noms.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Appears competent. Oppose comments regarding lack of article creation appear to me to fail to understand the functions of an administrator.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Partly per noms, partly per Anthony just above me, and partly because I like him. He seems honest, gracious, a fast learner, and an excellent communicator. I don't see any harm in doing this now, so why should we subject him (and us) to another RfA six months from now?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unhappily striking my support vote based on my comment to Jebus989's oppose. I stand by my earlier comments, except that I now see some harm in doing this now. I have a lot of respect for the nominators and many of the support votes, but, all things considered, I think Salvidrim should wait, learn from his mistakes, and grow into this a bit more. My assumption is this will pass anyway, but I have to do what I think is right.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Good all-around contributor with a cool head and a good understanding of policy. - MrX 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support per User:Till. Normally, I wouldn't support based on a single edit, but that one nicely demonstrates that the candidate has good judgment in the intended areas of work. --Carnildo (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. No concerns and seems like a clueful editor. Best of luck! --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Good work. Widr (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Having seen his actions in this RFA, including his neverending politeness, I'm willing to take a chance with him. It would be nice for you to get more experience outside of video games and AN/I, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Clueful, trustworthy, no fear that he will become bold beyond his ability. An asset to the project, room to grow notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated reverting of unexplained removal of material is poor, but not so bad as to cause a change in my support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Whilst a low(er) edit count - or "involvement", in the project does somewhat concern me, I believe if their current edits are what we are to expect from them in the future, provided that there is more, and in more areas - Salvidrim will make a great admin. Their courteousness is definately a plus! — MST☆R (Chat Me!) 12:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Seems like a solid, thoughtful candidate with good judgment and communication skills. CaSJer (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - As an un-affiliated editor who spends a lot of time on the fringes of WP:VG, I've had plenty of opportunity to observe the nominee's behavior from arms length. He has repeatedly demonstrated the kind of thoughtful reasonableness in applying Wikipolicy that I consider the hallmarks of adminship. I'm very confident that adminship is warranted here. -Thibbs (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support because I see no reason not to. The opposes to this RfA do not concern me, as I see no evidence that Salvidrim will be a poor administrator. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. After a full review (this was really long), I feel comfortable supporting. I did have to get over the low-ish edit count, but I've come to see that having this user as a mop-wielder will be a positive for the community. The issues raised in the oppose section just don't seem right to me in some way or another, i.e. I don't feel I can oppose in good faith here for any reason. Also, let me congratulate you on your WP:100... Or coming close to it. The count at the top of the page says 99 supports before mine, but I'm sure someone else will support. Close enough :) gwickwiretalkedits 05:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support As much as I would like this user to have done more work in RPP, AIV and UAA, I still think this user is capable to take the mop and be a net positive for Wikipedia. --Webclient101talk 07:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support - This user has experience with both writing articles and anti-vandal areas. The reason for the weak support is that the anti-vandal experience is pretty small. However, I think this user would do well with the tools. I do think this user would be a positive to the encyclopedia. Vacation9 16:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Back to neutral for me. Good luck with your RfA! Vacation9 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I'm supporting rather cautiously, because I think the oppose arguments are frequently quite reasonable, and in particular, I think that AniMate raises a serious point. However, there is enough of a track record that I really do not see evidence that the candidate is going to break anything, and we should not be looking for perfection here. The answers to questions are articulate and clueful, so I think this is someone who is intelligent enough that I don't have to worry about the limitations in editing experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - per MelbourneStar.--В и к и T 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support We shouldn't expect any Administrator to be to be perfect. If they do good and reasonable work in the administrative areas, they are trusted enough to have the mop even if they do not have major article/content contributions. We need people who are capable and good enough to use the mop tools wisely and carefully for the betterment of the project. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - Saw good work (and clue) with the Talisman67 situation. Doc talk 05:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Good editor--Nnnnkkkk (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Struck. Blocked sock puppet. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Move to Support - Answers to questions look excellent, I'm pretty sure he'll fly. FishBarking? 14:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Experience seems adequate, I like his attitude as expressed here, and I don't have any fear that he will misuse the tools. Also, not a reason by itself to support or oppose, but IMO we really need more admins here on the English Wiki who are fluent in a second language. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, Opposers didn't convinced me. mabdul 15:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Very glad to receive another admin.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support The oppose from NorthAmerica100 gave me pause, but I see plenty of good qualities, the fact you got into minor conflict over an article you built up ought to help you empathize with content writers, and I dont see much risk of you misusing the tools FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Either you trust him or you don't. On balance, and keeping in mind the incidents mentioned by the opposes, I do. No one bats a thousand, and he'll do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support A bit late, but I think he'll be a net benefit to the project. Legoktm (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - I am very very very sorry. I admire the candidate for throwing his hat into this horrible, horrible arena. I would not wish the RfA process on ANYONE. I feel doubly terrible writing the first oppose opinion. You look like a really good person, I just don't see the time, experience, and variety of work needed to be an admin. You are very clearly on your way there, perhaps in a year, or even six months? I'm sorry to have to oppose. You are braver than I to go through this. :) Be well.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of people keep telling me how brutally torturing RfA can be, but I personally take every bit of criticism as an opportunity to learn and grow. :) Salvidrim! 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)f[reply]
    It looks to me like you are going to make it. Since I was the very first to oppose, please let me be the very first to say CONGRATULATIONS, I am very very very certain that your performance will put my concerns to rest, and I look forward to working with you. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - In part because this editor does have not enough experience and background in many areas of Wikipedia. For example, regarding content creation, Salvidrim has only created 7 articles (see [7]). A significant amount of Salvidrim's editing consists of minor edits, routine edits such as tagging talk pages with project templates and automated edits, using Dab solver, for example. While Salvidrim has some experience at AfD, contributing to a total of 60 84 discussions (see [8]) as opposed to 84 as stated in the co-nomination at top, more experience here would be preferred, especially since he states that this is an area he plans to focus upon with the tools. This editor also may not have a firm grasp of the various pages of Wikipedia policies and guidelines relative to deletion on Wikipedia. For example, at this AfD discussion, which I also contributed to, Salvidrim's "strong delete" rationale was based upon COI issues regarding the article rather than WP:BIO, and he was unclear about deletion procedures in his question there, "As a side note, why is this at AfD with a current PROD?" At this Afd discussion, Salvidrim's rationale for deletion was based upon a lack of sources in the article, rather than the availability of sources, and Salvidrim stated that he would change his !vote if sources were added to the article, all of which significantly goes against the grain of WP:NRVE. Also of significant concern is that on Salvidrim's user page (see [9]), it is stated " I am not in favor of allowing IPs to edit but I understand the current consensus." While I respect that the person has posted their philosophy regarding IP contributions there, which appears to be within the context of vandalism on Wikipedia, the philosophy itself may conflict with administrative duties relative to matters that occur with IP editors, since he would prefer that they not be allowed to contribute. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the page you linked: "Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Salvidrim: 84". You've added up the number that the script has successfully parsed and that have already closed, not the total participation pages. My number is correct.--v/r - TP 14:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've revised my comment above. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I strongly agree with you that both AfD !votes you mentionned aren't correctly based in policy; they were done in my first few months of editing, over a year ago, and I was still early in my learning process. Luckily, it did not appear to have influenced the decisions of either closing admin, who obviously knew better. As for the last bit, I feel compelled to clarify that I am not biased against IP-editors, but I personally believe the benefits to the project of mandatory accounts would outweigh the downsides. :) Salvidrim! 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they're as bad as all that: the biography still has atrocious tone, COI and referencing problems and I've no idea why the admin who closed it is using his tools within a million miles of a contentious BLP nom, and the game article's was marginal at best (there's evidence that the game exists, but not very much from reliable sources to indicate that anyone noticed). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Lack of experience with editing articles outside of video games.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is relevant how...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We have too many administrators who misunderstand and misapply policy. Experience in writing articles on traditional encyclopedia content using reliable sources is one way of demonstrating sufficient intellect to be an administrator. As others have suggested, more writing will enable the candidate to succeed in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "Traditional encyclopedic content"? Sure, a broad range of experience is nice to have (and if xhe is reverting vandalism then there should be more edits to non-video game articles). But what's with the hang-up on "traditional encyclopedic content"? Writing Sudirman was actually a bit easier than writing Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI, from my own experience. Doing video game articles correctly likewise takes a good bit of intelligence and understanding of those specific guidelines. I understand you may want a variety of topics, but editing traditional stuff is certainly not a sign of guaranteed intelligence or maturity — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose An average of 110 edits per month over the last 8 months. Also, in "admin areas" his #6 most edited page is this RfA with 10 edits, showing a lack of experience in the WP: space. I didn't look too deeply after seeing this but he looked like a nice enough chap from what I saw, but nice only takes you so far. I would be happy to reconsider in the future after another 6+ months of steady (and ample) contribs, and some work doing actual admin like things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you oppose someone who quotes you on their userpage? =D --v/r - TP 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now I feel like an ass and will just sit this one out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose I definitely agree with Dennis above; a look at your edits show very little maintenance edits. Most of your work has been focused on article writing, which while is most certainly a great benefit for admins, should not be the primary focus. I'd like to see some more work in admin areas, such as maybe some non-admin AfD closures and some more CSD work. This user is headed in the right direction, but personally I would like to see a bit more experience in key areas. Vacationnine 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Moved to Neutral Vacationnine 12:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most of your work has been focused on article writing, which [...] for admins, should not be the primary focus." Please expand. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. I don't believe this user has a great amount of experience in technical areas of Wikipedia, and that's what adminship is needed for. The only reason article writing is needed for adminship is to get an idea of the work needed to create articles and to understand what other users are going through. Obviously, you don't need adminship to create amazing articles. The reason you would need adminship is if you were involved deeply and feel you can contribute significantly to admin areas like CSD, AFD, ANI, anti-vandalism, etc. Vacationnine 21:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people oppose adminship because there's not enough article writing. It seems admins need to be masters in every single field now. There is experience in admin areas, just not a tonne of it. Remember the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and content creation is an important part of that and demonstates knowledge of policies. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "It seems admins need to be masters in every single field": Seems to persons (like many administrators) who do not understand "every" in English or who write in anguished, off-topic cliches without sufficient discipline, etc. Video games and other pop-culture phenomena not worth knowing are covered in Wikia, a curiously named commercial enterprise of Wikipedia's spokesman against SOPA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't comment regarding the type of content he was creating. I was opposing the argument that most of your work has been focused on article writing, which [...] for admins, should not be the primary focus. I don't think that's right. Out of pure curiosity and completely off-topic, what's wrong with using "every" like that? Do I really need to go back to high school? Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 04:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To gain fluency with "several" or "many" and "every", try reading and doing exercises in a book on logic that covers universal quantification: Hodges's logic should do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    KW, that's a bit of bashing. You are surely aware of the implications that a) language is dynamic and b) the connection between the reference and referent is not fixed. If we were debating logic I'd agree with you, but in an RFA? Logic stops at the door. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer a question is not "bashing". (Tarski's Dover textbook is also good for universal and existential quantification.) RfAs are not improved by the hyperbolic confusion of "every" with e.g. "a couple more, important". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor are they improved by a steadfast determination to force one to redact or modify something that most understood as hyperbole. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for." "For he who freely magnifies what hath been nobly done, and fears not to declare as freely what might be done better, gives ye the best covenant of his fidelity."

    — John Milton, Areopagitica
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. While the editor shows maturity, I do not feel he has enough experience with content building, per very limited article creation (only one of his 5 personal creations is above a stub), <2500 edits in article space, few of which are substantive, and almost total focus on a very restricted content area. Also per concerns raised by AniMate, below. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Sorry but I am a bit skeptical about this user, only 2,500 of his edits have took place on article the rest have been elsewhere. Also with his recent contributions have been low. I think you just need to wait awhile. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just wondering, how long is "awhile", and what's the (arbitrary) edit count cutoff needed to wield the mop? Airplaneman ✈ 03:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't really a edit cutoff for admins, anyone can nominate themselves. Also, what I mean by in awhile is maybe in a couple months. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Lack of experience Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 06:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Blocked Indefinitely as a Sockpuppet (see [10]) ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - This would seem to be a NOTYET situation here. Keep up the good work in your area of expertise, no need to seek validation here. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. You've done some solid work, and I like what I see at Dr. Mario, but a little bit more experience would be nice. Perhaps, as Kiefer says above, branch out a bit, or show us that you can stick with an article for a while. Perhaps explore the different parts of Wikipedia, be they featured content processes, internal commentary processes, or so on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Moving to support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per this. Till 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you expand on this some? There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus supporting his NAC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a joke, right? You're making a joke? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was the obvious outcome of the discussion. The fact that it went against your wishes is irrelevant to the candidate's suitability as an admin. I look forward to the ironic situation if this request is successful! -- Trevj (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never !voted at RfA before, and wasn't planning on starting any time soon, but I think Till makes a very good point... for supporting Salvidrim. That diff shows the type of decisive but even-handed action we should demand of any admin. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for piling on, but yes, this was a good close. Excellent, I would say.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not whether the close was good or not (obviously it was), but whether a Non-Administrative Closure should have been executed to close an RFC that was to ban Non-Administrative Closures. This foreshadows a poor understanding of executing actions while involved. I find the decision-making problematic, the decision obvious. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If the close had been incorrect, it could have been reverted by an admin in accordance with WP:NACD. Even if there'd been consensus support for the proposal, a non-admin could still have legitimately closed that discussion IMHO (closing in support of the discontinuation of NACs) because the new consensus (of discontinuing NACs) wouldn't technically be determined until the close were made. (As for the decision itself, both admins and non-admins wcould be considered equally WP:INVOVLED in relation to the decision-making.) -- Trevj (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You identify the problem as being involved. Salvidrim had no contributions to the RfC, so wasn't involved in that sense of the word. If you mean involved because it dealt with whether closures could be performed by non-admins or admins, and Salvidrim is a non-admin, I'll just note that by that reasoning, an admin is also involved. Further, acting in an administrative capacity is specifically noted as not qualifying as being involved. And, while not stated, involved is usually construed to mean personally involved, as opposed to being a member of a class which might have a particular POV. Finally, to the extent that anyone views a possible COI because of position, that position was stated clearly, so there was no chance it would be missed. The "involved" article is an interesting one, and I see your point, but I don't think it applies.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I checked out his edits at David Copperfield (illusionist) and found thenm to be gnomish at best ("Person" to "person" and adding a "www" to a URL). But heck -- then I looked at [11] which is a very substandard edit for Wikipedia: To find out more, you can go to beaconstreetgirls.com. is something anyone reverting a blanking darn well should have caught. When reverting, one well ought to read the result. Alas -- this seems a pattern - gnome edits and reverts - without actually reading the edit. Oh - and creation of Legasista 4 months ago. Under 2400 actual article edits including all the gnome edits and reverts. Sorry - not convincing. Collect (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you couldn't be bothered to simply remove the offending sentence from that article either. And what is wrong with Legasista? - filelakeshoe 15:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect, a couple of comments about the blanking revert. First, the revert was obviously justified, and I think all of us could easily miss the problematic sentence at the end of the lead. Second, the revert coincides with when this RfA went live, so it's possible that Salvidrim was just a wee bit distracted. If anything, he should be cited for bravery or foolhardiness for editing articles concurrent with his RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Coulda been worse. I edited AFDs and did CSD tagging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Collect. --John (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose per recent evidence of breaches of WP:3RR and WP:OUTING. --John (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - While I thank the user for being willing to serve as an administrator here, I want more experience across-the-board. Not raw edit counts, but just plain experience. The NAC is interesting (I can see it both ways) and an indicator of a bold approach, but as it stands now at Rfa, we are considering a lifetime post. What I found an additional concern was the answer that he didn't find "Testicle" a user name that concerned him. I find it childish, disruptive and inappropriate for an encyclopedia project, myself. I'd say try again later this next summer or fall. Jusdafax 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see childish, but is it really much of a problem beyond that? It's neither profanity, nor a commonly used personal attack. (I can't remember the last time someone had an outburst and called someone else a "testicle".) I'd feel like the only issue would be that the User might have a hard time being taken seriously, which strikes me as something that falls more under the User's responsibility to fix/change. Anyways, you're free to your opinion, and I realize your concerns were more than just that, but I just thought I'd throw that out there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose User:Mkdw/RfA Standards: >3000 article edits. Also, only 84 !votes in AfD -- the vast majority of which are fictional video game characters. I applaud your current body of work, but articles about BLP and other non-fiction work will open you up to a much wider range of policies that you would not be exposed to in fictional characters. Mkdwtalk 08:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not enough experience with serious content creation, in particular as exemplified by only seven articles created. Also per Kiefer and Collect.Volunteer Marek 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Crisco basically sums up what I was going to say. Judging by a couple clicks back through your contributions, I see mostly gnomish tool edits, vandalism reversions, and welcomes to new users. While I love that you're doing all that, I don't see much branching out. Your most edited page in the Wikipedia namespace is AN/I, for example. I don't see many reports or edits to AIV, at least not recently. Try to drop the tools and explore a bit. Remember, it's not the edit count that matters, it's the experience. Best wishes. MJ94 (talk) 7:55 pm, Today (UTC−5) Moved to support. MJ94 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh-oh -- an (edit conflict) of mine removed your oppose. Deepest apologies! :) Salvidrim! ✉ 01:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Concerns with breadth of experience. wctaiwan (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    17 months being active having 6.5k edits in all important namespaces. What is missing to get a 'breadth of experience'? mabdul 09:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more of a feeling I get than something that I can point to with a three letter abbreviation, and my opposition is not nearly so strong that I find it necessary to try to convince others. I think the closing 'crat will be able to assign due weight to my opinion based on this statement and the "vote" itself. wctaiwan (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I am sorry but only 7 created articles, of which one is a (imho) badly formatted, short game list and another is an insufficiently sourced BLP do not show experience in content creation and knowledge of some key policies for an encyclopedia and so does not incline me to support. --Mark91it's my world 17:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, List of Mario racing games was split from another list and Richard Morgan (cricketer) was copied over from the talk page (it had been posted by an IP user). But, yes, Salvidrim still technically created both of the articles and is still responsible for their content. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm afraid I find this candidate insufficiently experienced with work in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nothing against this editor as an editor, but I'm with S Marshall, and a bunch of others on this one. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, as per most of the above. Youreallycan 05:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I have severe reservations about Salvidrim's suitability for adminship. Last March I had to delete User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. The reason for deletion was extensive identifying information about a minor who is also a rather persistent vandal/time sink. It included the minors home town, birthday, high school, and links to accounts on other websites believed to belong to the minor. The next time I encountered Salvidrim, he was attempting to create a doppelgänger account in case someone impersonated him. There had been no problems with impersonation mind you. My impression was that Salvidrim was playing the Wikipedia MMORPG and that it was part of a preemptive battle strategy in regards to the aforementioned vandal. Overall I was left with the impression that this wasn't a very mature editor. I do not think he should be trusted with the tools. AniMate 05:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to clarify the only information that was on the page was information the user had, himself, offered up, as well as geolocation information about his range of IP addresses. However after discussion with AniMate I came to the conclusion that any information not directly pertaining to Wikipedia (such as Wikia or Youtube accounts) was indeed not relevant to the case, and I have removed it. The geolocation information is still available to anyone running a WHOIS on the IPs. No birthday was ever mentioned and the High School was only mentioned as IPs resolving to that institution were used and extensive abuse of multiple IPs is involved. I understand the privacy concerns AniMate had and the information has indeed been removed from the page after AniMate contacted me, even though it is still accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. As for the doppelgänger issue, as I've replied in the thread you linked to, I agree with your sentiment that such preventative measures are uneeded (even though other don't). I again thank you for the advice you provided at that moment. :) I also fixed one of your links to my archives. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, a quick note for transparency's sake -- that particular (now-banned) user was also the topic of Question 10, above. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As an uninvolved admin, I can confirm that the deleted material appears to include birthday and age. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, pardon my memomry -- I seem to remember adding that bit after the user proclaimed it was his birthday. I've struck out a part of my earlier comment accordingly. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. The incidents mentioned by AniMate leaves me a bad taste. I also tend to agree with S Marshall and others on the level of experience in mainspace editing. Salih (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Too inexperienced. Warden (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose In addition to the experience concerns, the candidate appears to fall foul of WP:OWN on the Dr. Mario article which he claims to have taken from start class to GA. He has since made 20 reverts, and does so by telling others to discuss or warns against imposing their personal opinion [12] (on a change later repeated by other editors [13]), also quotes BRD on another change -- overall the picture from this article is an OWN issue, often with accompanying unduly authoritative summaries. Also, I haven't trawled through the contributions to look for issues, this is the only substantial article contribution I am aware of from the candidate; as an aside, a number of the 84 edits are extemely minor ([14],[15]). This (in my opinion) breach of a basic conduct policy shows that this RfA may be too hasty for this candidate, so I must oppose Jebus989✰ 01:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfA is about to close, and I'm reluctant to change my vote at the 11th hour, but if you look at the most recent reverts (January 10, during the RfA), Salvidrim violated WP:3RR, which, although not unheard of as anyone can get carried away, is troublesome. My guess is he's lucky he wasn't reported, probably because he was reverting an IP. He also warned the IP of edit-warring, which, of course, the IP was doing, but it's a bit nervy. Two other editors also reverted the IP, but I still see no justification for Salvidrim's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? I looked at his contributions and couldn't find where he violated 3RR. Nevermind. I did. It happened Here — ΛΧΣ21 04:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate screwed up, he admits it. It was a silly mistake. One might even have considered it vandalism, and been wrong, but that could've been the mistake that caused it. "Let he who hath not erred cast the 29th oppose."--v/r - TP 08:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I missed the 3RR violation; I find it difficult to imagine an editor attributing those edits as "obvious vandalism". Also, when you said it was admitted I thought you meant the candidate presented the incident some time earlier — but instead you mean that after it was irrefutably pointed out, it was then admitted as a mistake. As we are all aware, had someone picked up on this the candidate would likely have been served a short block during his own RfA. I hope to not overstep the mark in saying so, but I respectfully mirror the below request for the candidate to withdraw Jebus989✰ 14:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how maintaining the quality of a GA is considered bad, keeping the consensus from the talkpage. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is supposed to be a bright-line test to curb edit warring, Blake. There's nothing special about the 3 revert limit except that it was chosen as a magic number by which to identify edit warring. But it's one of the rare examples on Wikipedia where the letter of the rule can trump the spirit. In this case Salvidrim was reverting (originally as under BRD) in order to maintain consensus on a GA while encouraging (pleading for?) discussion. In so doing he violated the letter of the rule, but I don't think its spirit. Had this been a case where the IP editor had been interested in discussing the matter and then I'd consider changing my !vote, but it's apparent that the IP was not interested in discussion and that Salvidrim made repeated attempt to get him to discuss the matter. What I see here is an untimely proof that Salvidrim is human just when others are looking to hold him to superhuman standards. -Thibbs (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point about a bright line is that it is equally bright to everyone. Editors are not excepted, Admins are not excepted and candidates are not excepted. There is no excuse and violating it shows a gross lack of judgement. Leaky Caldron 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I explained to Blake above. You'll notice I italicized the term "bright-line". It doesn't demonstrate to me that if granted adminship, the nominee will make a habit of it and it's quite clear that the intentions were good despite the poor execution. So for me it's not a deal-breaker. But I think we're in close agreement on the fact that he violated the letter of the rule and if that's sufficient to bar grant of adminship for you then you're certainly entitled to maintain your opposition. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right to describe 3RR as a bright line but that in essence means there is no "spirit of the rule", it's just something you don't cross, no superhuman powers required Jebus989✰ 17:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bright line" means that there is only one interpretation possible. Did the nominee violate 3RR? The answer is clearly in the affirmative. But the interpretation-nullifying aspects of 3RR don't apply to RfAs except insofar as the bare definition of 3RR is concerned. In my view, all policies have an underlying spirit and although I aknowlege that he broke 3RR, I wouldn't say that he engaged in "edit warring" (i.e. "repeatedly overrid[ing] contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (emphasis added)) except under a technical proxy definition (i.e. 3RR). It wasn't great behavior, but it's not determinative of the issue for me. -Thibbs (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be saying "Bright line == one interpretation possible" ... "Here's another interpretation where it's not a problem", but that's not especially important. Saying he wasn't edit warring, did you notice the IP's talkpage? An obvious concern is how would he have behaved if he had been an admin at this point? The Dr. Mario talkpage shows another user (Trevj) demonstrating how such situations should be handled. Remember this is the only substantial article contribution from the candidate, and is touted in the questions as his best work. Further the candidate had no hesitation acting this way during his own RfA, a time you'd expect anyone to be especially cautious. I realise you are a firm supporter, and that's fine of course, but I sincerely think there are significant problems with Salvidrim's handling of this affair, and per NOBIGDEAL working both ways, another attempt after a few months more learning would be a good outcome IMO Jebus989✰ 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically I'm saying that it's appropriate to take context into account for the purposes of the RfA even if context has no bearing on whether or not 3RR was violated. I understand and respect your position although I disagree with the amount of weight you give this incident. -Thibbs (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Pr. Sue Rangell and others. I am sorry to oppose, but a bit too inexperienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iselilja (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Moved from neutral to here per Bbb23's comment and other 11th hour conduct which has moved me to oppose. --My76Strat (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - moved from support. I am not particularly happy about that edit warring incident, and I have concerns about experience, especially with vandalism fighting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - The edit warring is enough to oppose. GB fan 04:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Weak experience is not enough to oppose with good Q's, but ew tips. Glrx (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - per Till, as a native speaker of English, the close didn't make sense to me. The over/under on grammatical errors in the close would be in the range of 3-4. How are we to understand the administrative decisions if this is the level of discourse? - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Till has been pretty roundly criticized for opposing over his own RFC which was appropriately closed. And even Till doesn't oppose over grammar. As an native English speaker myself, I can read it just fine and I anticipate so can everyone else. Oppose if you like, but Till's oppose comes off as vindictive.--v/r - TP 08:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Precisely why those that oppose RfA in it's present format are completely wrong. Community scrutiny identifying blatant recent rule breach makes candidate wholly unsuitable at this point and really, to preserve any self-respect for a future RfA the candidate should withdraw. Leaky Caldron 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Too many concerns about experience and competence, sorry.  Sandstein  12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Sue Rangell, sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose looks promising but the with the incidents above .... a tad more experience would be handy. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose I'd like a little more experience in Wikipedia:-space. David1217 What I've done 16:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose narrow experience, concerns raised re "edit warring" aren't a deal breaker but point to a need for a few more months learning the ropes. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. This user is a good contributor, but I don't know if he would make a good admin and show signs of improvement. Cmach7 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would support him in a couple months. I think he'd pass then, and I'm comfortable supporting him now but I just need to see a little bit more patience & less eagerness for the tools at the moment. Tomato expert1 (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Moving once again. The edit warring concerns and inexperience arguments have bothered me. Salvidrim has admitted his mistake and said he won't do them again, but there are some serious problems here. I think he is a good candidate but I can't support. Vacation9 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Not yet. Initially I was concerned that this request for adminship seemed like hat collecting, but upon combing through Salvidrim's contributions, I've come to believe that he intends to make positive contributions and that he could someday be a welcome addition to the ranks of admins. Salvidrim's edits include lots of gnomish tasks such as disambiguating using dabsolver and adding Wikiproject templates to talk pages. In itself, this is fine, but these edits make up a large portion of an edit history that is already on the small side. Additionally, very few of his edits are outside of WP:VG topics. While Salvidrim has demonstrated a degree of clue that I like to see in administrators, the lack of breadth and depth in his editing leave me at a loss for what to expect when he edits and performs administrative tasks outside of his primary topic area. Gobōnobō + c 21:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose --My76Strat (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Moved from Support ) Neutral pending time for me to reconsider answer to q16, or explanation offered elsewhere regarding recent occurrences highlighted by Jebus989. This looks at best careless, possibly complacent, hopefully nothing worse. -- Trevj (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to support. -- Trevj (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I did support but I don't have time to fully read the Dr Mario and possible ownership situation right now. I'll hopefully have time before this RFA closes to decide one way or the other. James086Talk 11:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sticking with neutral. While I do like what I've seen of the candidate (apart from the Dr. Mario thing) he should have known better than to violate 3RR. It doesn't appear to be a bad edit war but it is a violation nonetheless. Not enough for me to oppose but I don't want to support any more either. James086Talk 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support – here I am, changing again, but the recent EW is an issue. Moral support because I know what it's like to (almost, hopefully) sink your RFA... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2013 (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