Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheSandDoctor

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

TheSandDoctor

Final (163/18/9); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 23:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) – Members of the community, I am very pleased to present TheSandDoctor to you for consideration at RfA. TheSandDoctor registered his account in January 2017, and since then, he has consistently been a positive force on Wikipedia. I first met TheSandDoctor when he approached me more than a year ago with a question about MfD on my user talk page. I have always been impressed by his collaborative spirit, which has helped him adapt easily to new areas on Wikipedia. If there is something wrong, TheSandDoctor will work with you to make sure it gets resolved, and if TheSandDoctor is not sure about something, he will make sure he is certain by asking others for feedback before taking the action. Through this process of feedback, TheSandDoctor has sat at the center of 5 successful GA reviews, including ones to highly visible pages like The Rolling Stones.

Outside of his content work, TheSandDoctor regularly contributes to AfD, RfD, and MfD discussions. Reverting vandalism has sat at the core of his maintenance work here, and additionally, he is one of our active bot operators, running the bots DeprecatedFixerBot and TweetCiteBot. He is also a regular at AfC and is willing to devote the patience to thoroughly explain article concepts to new editors – a stroll through his talk page archives should make this evident. His long history of patient and reasoned discourse with new and experienced editors alike should provide sufficient evidence of how much of a pleasure it is to work with TheSandDoctor, and I hope that all of this together will show you how much of a pleasure it will be to work with TheSandDoctor as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Co-nom by SoWhy

I'll be honest. When TheSandDoctor (or TSD as he will likely soon be known on this project obsessed with abbreviations) first contacted me about my independent opinion regarding a suggested run for adminship (after being approached by There'sNoTime about it), he was not on my radar as a potential admin. And despite how that sounds at first, that was actually not a bad thing. Quite a lot of editors are on my radar and not all because I want them to be admins. When I looked at his contributions, I could not, for the life of me, figure out why I never thought about asking him to run for adminship. Because what I saw when I looked at a large random sample out of his last 5,000 edits was a friendly, helpful and clueful editor with plenty of good edits under his belt and entrusted with a slew of advanced permissions already. And, as Mz7 already pointed out, a prolific content creator (more so than me) with 5 GAs under his belt

I did encounter some mistakes he made in deletion related areas but those were few and he admitted his mistakes when confronted with them, which is a good trait for an admin to have. So I invite you to join Mz7 and me in supporting TSD’s request for adminship so that he can help out in more areas than he already does. Regards SoWhy 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I would like to thank both SoWhy and Mz7 for their nominations and There'sNoTime for originally reaching out to me late last year suggesting I run for adminship at some point in the near future. I would also like to thank the few who I reached out to for their input earlier this year. If the community wishes to have me as an administrator, then I accept the role. If not, then I will just continue to assist the community as much as possible and may or may not consider a future run. There are always more Stones' articles to work on after all . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Since this is winding to a close and going to most likely be successful in a few minutes, I would like to thank all of those who have commented and those who asked questions. Your feedback is valuable and will hopefully help me to become a better editor and administrator. Thank you. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I foresee myself easing into the administrative toolset along the way, helping where possible and asking for assistance/second opinions from other administrators when needed as I learn to use the toolset in a way to benefit the project. I anticipate helping with backlogs (giving each discussion its due attention), reviewing speedy deletion nominations, evaluating UAA and AIV reports, and closing XfD discussions (where appropriate) as a natural extension of my already existing work. I could also foresee myself also lending a hand at WP:PERM after a while, asking for assistance when I feel it is needed or I am unsure what action to take.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I normally do not tout my accomplishments as I know that others have far greater and that is just not who I am. With that said, it is the question.

While I do not currently have any featured articles (working on it), I am most proud of my work with The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger articles. I took them successfully through GA and plan to work them into a state in which I am comfortable nominating them for Featured Article status shortly. They were long articles about one of my favourite topics (“classic rock”) and related to one of my personal favourite bands. I have found researching about them and the hunt for references to be an enjoyable experience overall.

I was also excited for the opportunity to improve Tumbling Dice back up to GA, as it was delisted in 2010. With all of that said, I am also proud of my other GAs, including Video game walkthrough (which was my first Good Article and also the first I wrote from scratch).

I am also proud of my anti-vandalism work and the assistance I have given both new and experienced editors along the way.

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: While I have thankfully not been involved in any major disagreements, over the year and a bit that I have been an editor, I have certainly had disagreements with other editors from time to time. I am not afraid to admit fault and correct a mistake when I have made one. I avoid and ignore name-calling, preferring to work out disagreements in a polite and respectful manner, deescalating the situation and working to a compromise between all involved that leaves everyone happy. Although I have not encountered a disagreement that has escalated further, if I were to run into one which did, I would do my best to remain calm and collected. If I felt that that were not possible, I would take time to collect myself (probably work somewhere else while I ground myself – probably a Rolling Stones related area – before returning to the discussion and seeking assistance to resolve said dispute through the appropriate channels. I would ‘’not’’ take any administrative action in a dispute in which I am involved.

I consider all disputes I have been involved with to be in the past and prefer to move on from them.

---

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

Additional question from Javert2113

4. Thank you for applying. Just one question for now: are you open to recall, if this nomination is successful?

A: (edit conflict) Thank you for the question. I would certainly be open to recall and, if this succeeds, would definitely consider developing a policy similar to others that I have seen for it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. No follow-ups for the time being. I appreciate your prompt response. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Amakuru

5. I was asked this one during my own RFA, and I rather liked it: can you provide diffs for any edits that you are particularly proud of, which demonstrate your very best Wikipedia work, and which you would include on a resume?

A: Thank you for the question Amakuru. I agree that it is an interesting one and I do personally like it myself, though including Wikipedia edit diffs on a resume seems somewhat odd to me, though I am sure it has been done by someone somewhere. I am not sure if I could find any individual edits as I am happy with most that I have made and there are many to choose from. I see them as a collective of edits which, when put together, benefited whichever article we are talking about and value them as such. Picking individual edits is much harder, but I am ultimately proud of almost all edits I have made.

• I could look at Video game walkthroughs and select practically any one of my edits or the page creation itself (though that wouldn't be good for a resume as it was bare, but it does show what myself and others built it from).
• From The Rolling Stones, I would probably include this edit as an example of including academic sources and article expansion, the same goes with the majority of the edits during the GA review (here) as they all added to it or corrected something.
• Looking at Mick Jagger, I could include practically any edit from this page, but if selecting a specific one, it would be a toss-up between this edit (which added information about the Stones' first Hyde Park show in 1969 as is fairly well written; would be the best for a resume) and this one as it removed dependency on Daily Mail (or this one in its place, which rescued 78 sources from potentially going dead in the future).

Again, I apologize that I cannot be more specific very easily, but I am honestly more proud of the bigger picture and the pages that I have helped improve (see answer to question #2) than I am any particular/individual edit. Individually, the edits don't necessarily mean much, but as a collective (what I am proud of most) they speak volumes and paint a bigger picture. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Vexations

6. On May 2, 2018, you nominated Vigilius of Thapsus for deletion here, with the rationale: Only content is an external link. It was speedily deleted as A3. Can you reassure me that this was a mistake that you won't repeat and that if you had been an admin, you would have declined an A3, given that there are many sources for an article about Vigilius of Thapsus, such as an entry in BrillOnline, a Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, the Catholic encyclopedia etc., and that Wikipedia has a German, Spanish and Dutch article about the subject? Vexations (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Though I do not remember the contents, looking back on it, I should have indeed attempted to improve it before taking it to AfD. If I were the admin in that situation who came across such a speedy deletion nomination, I would look for sources. Assuming that said sources exist and are reliable, I would then attempt to improve the article at least into a stub or draftify it until that can be done. (In general) Only if sources did not exist and after checking its edit history to confirm that it was not blanked, would I even consider deletion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure of the propriety of posting in this section, but I just have to comment that there was nothing wrong with this A3 deletion. This is exactly the sort of thing the criterion is intended for – no content. It is irrelevant that the subject is notable; an article with no content is useless for our purposes. I would certainly have deleted, and another admin actually did delete it. If Vexations thinks otherwise, then I invite her to take it to DRV without offering to improve the page at the same time. Best of luck, but I doubt the request will fly. It is great that TheSandDoctor says he would improve the page if a similar situation arose (hint: it's not too late to do that) but there is no obligation on anyone to do any such thing. It's no different from the article just not existing – no one is obliged to create it. SpinningSpark 15:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree with the A3 deletion, you are mistaken about a notable topic page without content being useless for Wikipedia purposes. A topic page without content can trigger other editors into filling it with information for readers. And it is mistaken to say that there is no obligation to improve the page before trying to delete it. WP:DEL-REASON states, "Reasons for deletion... ((subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)". WP:ATD states, among other things, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". If I agree with the previous A3 deletion is because the topic is not evidently notable (although it looks like it was found to meet WP:GNG later on) so improving the page didn't seem practical, but if the topic had been evidently notable then adding some text to the page was called for instead of deleting it. Thinker78 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from AddWittyNameHere

7. What would you personally consider your weakest spot in regards to Wikipedia work? (This can be something highly specific, something really broad or anything in between—there isn't a particular answer I'm looking for)

A: Currently I would have to say that that would be getting articles through FA, though I am sure that will come with time. Broadly speaking though, I am not very strong when it comes to science related articles and, as such, prefer to avoid reviewing them at AfC (unless there is something obviously technically wrong with them, ie they are unsourced) as I know that other editors more familiar with a particular field of science could most likely do a better job. I have also dabbled in template editing, but would probably stay away from it (for the moment) as it is something that I am not very good at and do not know a lot about (hoping to learn eventually though). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation.

A: Ah, yes. I forgot to include that in my acceptance. I can confirm that I have never edited for any pay or compensation of any sort, broadly construed (exception being personal pride in work well done, but definitely nothing third party). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9. Have you edited under any other account before you started editing in Jan 2017 ?

A: As stated in the account disclosures on my user page, I edited (4 times) as "Sandspert" in 2015, but otherwise have never edited with any account (excluding occasional IP edit fixing typos or whatnot) prior to January 2017. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Espresso Addict

10. Would you care to comment on your proportion of edits in mainspace (34.6%)?

A: @Espresso Addict: I am not sure what there is to comment about? Assuming you mean why the number is only 34.6%, the answer would be that it is because my edits are fairly spread out around various namespaces. If the question is actually wondering why it is 34.6% and my user talk edits comprise 29.6% of my total edit count, then that would be because I tend to get asked a lot of questions or pitch in answers as a talk page stalker and help out on Oshwah's talk page when he is not around. The breakdown of user talk edits (by page) can be found here. The reason why there are over 200 to Mz7's talk page was because, early on in my time here, I had a lot of questions about how Wikipedia works and the various venues etc (that and, from time to time, I have been known to like to tweak my posts and grammar).

I hope that this answered your question. If none of my response answered what you were meaning, please do let me know and please clarify if possible? Thanks --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

11. Have you ever edited for remuneration of any kind, and would you pledge never to do so in the future?

A: No, I have never edited for remuneration (see #8). I assure you that I never will in the future and do pledge that. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for the repeat question, I didn't see #8. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You're welcome and not a problem! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Hhkohh

12. If you are an admin, how do you deal with WP:SPI and WP:RPP threads?

A:. Before I answer further, I have no experience with sock-puppet investigations and do not have an interest in working with that area at present. (My responses to this question from herein rely on the assumption that you mean evaluating the discussions/requests.) If I were to venture into that area, it would be after some time and once I was comfortable (with being an administrator) in the areas mentioned in my answer to question #1. I would start off by reading the instructions page and familiarizing myself with sock-puppet investigations. My first actions would most likely be minor and advance as I built both confidence and experience. As for requests for page protection, I would follow the steps indicated in the admin instructions page - see if protection/unprotection is warranted per policy, mark reviewed requests, and then carry out the warranted action(s) (if any). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

13. The account names Sandspert and TheSandDoctor seem to indicate some interest and expertise in sand but I'm not seeing this in the contribution history. Please explain.

A:. Hi Andrew. I am not really sure why I named my first account "Sandspert" other than for a cheap pun in highschool. As for "TheSandDoctor", when I created the account I had a feeling that I had used one once or twice before, but didn't remember the username at the time (2 years later), let alone the password. The fact the name also contains "sand" is most likely a fluke (it was a toss-up between it and my PlayStation ID) and the name was solely chosen as it popped into my head while trying to think of something unique. I thought it sounded interesting/different and kind of rolled off the tongue, so it became the username for this account. I assure you, I am no expert on sand, I know what it is and that's about it.(other than that it is great for sandcastles and always gets in my shoes at the beach and annoys me to no end, but that is besides the point vehicles and clothing, tending to be both loved and disliked by people, depending on circumstance and location.) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from wbm1058

13B.. I was wondering about this too. Before I noticed this Q. I was thinking a "sand doctor" might cook the Canadian tar sands, as that seems to be the part of the world you edit from. Just a comment, not really a question, so feel free to respond – or not.

A: It is indeed (at least within a couple thousand km) around the area that I edit from. That is not the inspiration for the username, though that is an interesting take/angle on it I have not previously considered. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Joe Roe

14. Could you please explain why, in your opinion, the following drafts did not meet WP:MINREF: Max Turner (musician), Jane Hart (artist), Johnny Jackson Jr.?

A: Hi Joe, thank you for the question. (Below, when I say "unsourced", I intend it as lacking inline citations sourcing it)

• For Max Turner (musician) it was due to the lack of sourcing in the early life, some lacking citation in the career section, and he considers himself to be a live performer and considers touring and stage life to be the foundation of his musical career beyond prospects of the music industry being unsourced (as it is his personal opinion). The discography was also (semi) unsourced, with the only source being to Discogs, which is not the most reliable of sources. Looking back on it, those probably could have been tagged and the draft improved as an article, but I believed it to be better done beforehand.
• For Draft:Jane Hart (artist), "Early life and education" was unsourced and, due to it being a BLP, I had concerns about the lack of sourcing for statements in other areas.
• For Johnny Jackson Jr. the "Early life and education" was mostly unsourced, as was the "Career" section. The largest of the three sections, "Jackson as councilman", was also entirely unsourced. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

15. In the context of XfD, what do you understand by the term "pile-on !vote", and how would you weigh such comments in closing a discussion?

A: Thank you for this question Joe, I understand pile-on votes to be votes which do not add new rationale (usually in the form of "per user X [sig]" or "per nom"). While they cannot be ignored in assessing a discussion's consensus as they are valid and there could simply be nothing left to say, the first thing to assess/weigh would be the policy based arguments (if any). After that is done, then the pile-on votes should be dealt with. I hope that that answers your question. If you were looking for more, please do let me know and I will try to elaborate further shortly. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

16 In a distinct vein to Q15, your AfD !votes are policy-based but in a strong majority of your recent AfDs you are either the last or penultimate editor to contribute, with the discussion usually decided. Is there a reason for this and do you think lacking "early/setting" contributions is a weakness? Nosebagbear (talk)

A: In most cases as the last vote, they were most likely discussions where I would have considered closing instead if possible (thinking of 'delete' or other technical administrative actions). As for being the last or penultimate vote most of the time, anyone could be the last or second last vote, it really just depends if others come along after. I tend to look at the older ones in the queue and try to help move things along as it were; in an administrative capacity, I would most likely perform closes in such situations. If you mean lacking "early/setting" contributions to discussions as a weakness, I can see where you are coming from but would consider it minor at most; I do not think that it would interfere with being able to read and enact consensus. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Esquivalience

17. In your own words, explain consensus and how it relates to the philosophy of Wikipedia.

A: Consensus is a general agreement between editors achieved through discussion. It is core to Wikipedia's philosophy and to achieving the goals of the project. Put simply, consensus is how we make most decisions on Wikipedia, be it deletion discussions, Requests for Adminship/Comment, etc. Hopefully that answers your question satisfactorily, if you wish me to attempt to expand further, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:PCHS-NJROTC

18. What is your thoughts on {{schoolblock}}s and {{anonblock}}s? Some administrators put extended blocks on shared IPs (educational or otherwise) for long periods of time (a year or more) over one or two recent edits, would you do this if you were granted the tools? What is your thoughts on blocking entire /16 ranges representing entire U.S. states' department of education network for extended periods of time (more than one year) for no other reason than to prevent "school vandalism"? Do you think this practice is appropriate in an encyclopedia that bills itself as a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?

A: Range blocks are, unfortunately, occasionally warranted/needed in order to prevent vandalism from (usually static, in the case of schools) IP addresses, when the level of vandalous activity becomes too burdenous for editors reverting. Range blocking is something that I would not take lightly and is something I would probably defer to others, especially for blocks lasting an extended period of time - at least at first, until I gain more experience. If I had to act though (ie no one else able to), then I would attempt to block the smallest effective range until I could consult with others on what further action (if any) is required (ie adjusting the block settings/duration etc). As for blocking after one or two problematic edits, I do not believe that just one or two edits would be sufficient for any block under usual circumstances. While one or two edits from an IP with a long history could be an indication of a re-emerging problematic trend, one or two would not be sufficient for an immediate reblock, rather, it would be best to monitor the contributions from the address closely and see if "one or two" turns into a pattern warranting a (re)block. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

19 You are an administrator, the current date is May 23, 2016, and someone is asking you to help with a backlog at WP:AIV. Someone has reported this IP address for a vandalism spree. The report has been there for four hours, and no edits have been made from the IP since the last edit, which was someone claiming to be from the IT department to say that the person vandalizing was disciplined for it. How do you respond?

A. At present (May 23, 2016, at moment in time of the snapshot), I could see a warning (at most) necessary, but would prefer to (and would regardless) recheck the IP's contributions at a later time to ensure that they remain problem-free and move from there. Assuming that they do remain problem-free, I would probably leave a personalized note on the IP's talk page suggesting account creation and thanking them for their recent (positive/good) recent changes patrolling (hopefully the person from the IP who did the RC work, assuming them different from the problematic edits, would see it and create an account, but of course that could be entirely wishful thinking). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:1233

20 . What are your thoughts if someone tells that rollback is useless and Twinkle can replace it?

A: While rollback and Twinkle do basically the same thing (with the same result), rollback is faster and also allows for the use of Huggle, which can allow for faster detection and reversion of vandalism. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

21 . How would you react if WMF removes one of the following rights: Bureaucrat, Checkuser or Oversight ? Why?

A: My initial reaction if this was unexpected would be surprise and to seek out the reasoning behind it. Ultimately though, I trust that the WMF would only do this in situations where deemed necessary. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OT discussion regarding questions over limit
@1233: Questions above the 2-questions limit removed. Multi-part questions disguised as one question are also disallowed. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @QEDK:Then I would change the second question then.--1233Talk 08:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Your call. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Lee Vilenski

22 . You are an active member of the Articles for creation WikiProject (as am I.) How would the extra admin tools help you with this work, and would you still spend the same length of time working on the Project? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Thank you for the question. The administrative tool set would allow for the removal of attack pages and copyright infringing material in a quicker manner than currently allowable (and other things of that nature, including moves to SALTed names, as was required per an MfD discussion I saw a while back). I would probably remain about as active as I currently am within the WikiProject. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

23 . Your AfC Review history, shows a lot of declines (71% of 625), with quite a few being later created. Are you of the opinion that a draft article (or any article for that matter) should show that it is notable, before it is promoted to mainspace, rather than promoting notable subjects with poorer sourcing? for example Drone Racing League. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Hi there Lee Vilenski, I believe that an article or draft should demonstrate its notability verifiably before being promoted to the mainspace. With that said, that does not mean articles I come across without adequate sourcing would be immediately CSDd or nominated at XfD, I would do a BEFORE check (or two) and probably nominate them for an extra check/balance - strictly talking of sourcing concerns; G10s I would obviously deal with quickly, using revdel if possible (ie vandal added G10, but history has a perfectly fine version) and deleting outright otherwise (ie it started out as a G10). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

24. What is your view of Process is important?

A: Hello DESiegel, thank you for the question and I apologize for the delay in my response. I believe that process is important and should be followed if possible. Processes keep things consistent and discussions etc (more or less) uniform. The vast majority of Wikipedia's policies and processes have allowed the site to run mostly smooth for years because they were followed in most cases. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

25. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?

A: Hello DESiegel and thank you for the question. A claim of significance is something that separates a subject from all the other people/companies/events that exist in the world, but it doesn't necessarily make them notable. Claims of significance are a lower bar to meet than notability as, unlike notability, they do not require sourcing (although it might certainly help verify said claims)

Assuming for these examples that the following text is the only text in said article (one article per bullet point):

• "Joe has won 15 Grammy awards so far in his musical career" would be an example of a claim of significance, and something that I would look to source quickly.
• "JJ, an album by my garage band, was recently released in the neighbourhood." would not be a claim of significance
• "Joe is a person" would not be a credible claim of significance.
• "Jim the president-elect of country X" (assuming X to be a valid country) - is a definite claim of significance, and probably notable if sources could be found.
• "Jim is a person who likes to travel and play video games" is an instance of another one that would not be a claim of significance.

• "Tim is the best player of X game in the world" (assuming X game is a real game; its individual notability does not matter for the purpose of this statement) would be a credible claim of significance, though its notability would depend on the existenceof reliable sources to back this up. If I were to encounter something like this, it would require further digging to determine if it could be sourced reliably and, if not, nominate it for deletion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from TonyBallioni

26. I originally brought up the AfD votes because I thought they merited discussion, I’m now in support, but I would like to give you the opportunity to address the concerns people have with them. Do you understand why people might be concerned with the pattern here and how would you adddess them going forward?

A: Hello Tony and thank you for your question. I recognize the concerns that have been raised and agree that, upon reflection, they have merit. While "padding" wasn't something I intended, I realize that it could be perceived as such. I have a tendency to become active in various areas in bursts and, prior to final exams in April, that happened to be AfD participation and technical MfD closures. I thought at the time that commenting in clear-cut discussions at AfD would be the best way to help discussions along. I recognize that this was incorrect and that this has unintentionally caused (merited) concern and I do apologize for that. If I could have done things differently, I would have contributed more so to the discussions, adding more substance where possible, while focusing more time on discussions where consensus had yet to be reached, helping those discussions along instead of wasting time elsewhere. I was trying to help, but it has become clear to me that I was not doing as I had intended.

As for examples of independent thinking you were requesting further below, my AfD nominations are examples. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

27. What have you learned from this RfA that will change the way you edit or will impact the way you approach adminship if this passes?

A: I have been made aware of some of my faults, namely (but not limited to) a lack of significant contribution to (most) AfD discussions that I have been a part of. As an administrator (or editor, where technically possible), I would close discussions in which (at least rough) consensus has been reached (after their 7 days are up, with the exception of valid speedies), rather than "piling on" and contributing needlessly to further solidify already gathered consensus. I will work to include feedback received from all sections in order to better myself as an editor (and administrator, should this pass), regardless of the outcome of this RfA. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Thinker78

28. If an anonymous IP changes "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" in an article (for example changing a section titled "History of the Czech Republic" to "History of Czechia"), would you issue a warning template and if so, which?

A: After a brief Google search, I discovered that the Czech Republic has effectively been renamed its common moniker to Czech Czechia. I would revert in good faith with an edit summary indicating that either the name should match the title (depending on context and assuming it to be the Czech Republic article) or that its formal name should be referred to instead (in most other situations). If they continued the change, I would leave them a personal talk page message attempting to explain further. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC); fixed typo, @Wumbolo: --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Feminist

29. Comment on the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo Yiannopoulos (2nd nomination), and explain whether you would have closed it differently. question amended per request feminist (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Hello Feminist, I would have most likely waited until the seven days had passed rather than close it after a little more than 24 hours. That said, the close does not seem inappropriate since SNOW closes (which this was) are done to prevent bureaucratic delays. Thank you for the question! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Wumbolo

30. Does your answer to question 28 apply (and how much) to the scenario described in the parantheses (changing a section titled "History of the Czech Republic" to "History of Czechia")?

Hello Wumbolo. I have reason to believe that this question may have been spawned off of a typo in my answer to #28. Could you please check? If that is not the case, please do let me know and I will provide an answer here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My question still stands on the table as it was asked. I did not ask because of a typo. Thanks for requesting a clarification. wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Thinker78

31. If a user challenges your findings and tries to engage in a debate with you about an issue, would you answer him, when would you stop answering him, to what extent would you try to convince him—if at all—and would you admit you were wrong if he is able to prove it, even after a protracted discussion? (Note: substitute "him" with the custom pronoun.)

A: Hello Thinker78, thank you for the question. If an editor challenged my findings on a matter and engaged me in a debate about an issue, my answer(s) would be polite and respectful regardless of the user's comments and would depend partly on context (ie a new user, experienced, etc) as well. The best answer I could give as to when I would stop would be that it depends, though I would prefer to continue (if possible/feasible) until there is consensus and the concerns are resolved (ie the conversation ends). When it comes to convincing the other party, that is what generally happens in discussions and "extent" is hard to put a figure on. The thing I can say is that I would be context-aware and respectful throughout any discussion.

In the event that said editor proved me wrong, the length of time the discussion was ongoing would not be of any consequence. I would accept the fact that I am wrong, apologize, do my best to resolve whatever the issue(s) may be and to learn from the experience so that I can hopefully avoid a similar incident in the future and to better myself as an editor and administrator. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Ahecht

32. What is the difference between a "SNOW" close at AfD and a "Speedy Keep"/"Speedy Delete" close?

A: Hello Ahecht, I believe your question comes from my response to question #29, where I described the Speedy Keep close as one that is a SNOW close. Per WP:SK#NOT, the two closes are clearly different. In my interpretation, a snow close has its philosophy rooted in common-sense, to quote specifically from the snowball clause page, "Use common sense and don't follow a process for the s­ake of it; but, if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place." While the above AfD was closed as a Speedy Keep, the fact is that there are only two relevant Speedy Keep !votes out of 12 total !votes and comments, with the third Speedy Keep !vote is based on an earlier assessment of the article being on the main page. Thus, in my opinion, the consensus for a Speedy Keep close is/was doubtable; and on pure technical reading of the !votes, this AfD should not have been closed as a Speedy Keep, instead being allowed to run its full course. With that said, the result of the discussion seems inevitably trending towards keep. If an editor was to have closed the AfD earlier than its full run, I would have expected something like "The result was SNOW close. Two relevant Speedy Keep !votes and 4 Keep !votes seem to be enough said" to be written. Therefore, without discrediting the technically incorrect Speedy Keep reasoning of the closer, I've labelled the same as a SNOW close. I hope this clarifies my position with respect to the AfD and my understanding of the difference between an (in)correct Speedy Keep close and a Snow close. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Jetstreamer

33. How would you act as an admin in List of Boeing 767 operators, where an IP keeps making changes that are not in agreement with the supporting source, even after being told not to continue doing so at their talk page?

A: @Jetstreamer: If it was just on that article and they were making beneficial edits elsewhere, I would consider protecting it and explaining on their talk page that changes need to be discussed (linking to talk page) to see if that would solve the problem and get them talking. Given that it is continuing to add unsourced material across multiple articles after several warnings and a block, I would probably follow Ronhjones' example and block them for slightly longer than 31 hours (couple days?) as they appear to be keeping up the same activity. I might revisit this IP if this RfA passes and look further (gather input from an administrator or two), so thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for TheSandDoctor: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TheSandDoctor can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support Brilliant matching of consensus on AfDs, no concerns. Has clue, give him a mop. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

   On the other hand, of the six times he didn't match with consensus, four of those times were votes for deletion or merging when consensus went with keep, including an article he nominated for deletion which went speedy keep. That's far from being enough for me to oppose though. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I was reluctant to comment here because I definitely don't want to be seen as harassing !voters, and everyone is entitled to use whatever criteria they want, but I must say the 'Brilliant matching of consensus' thing as an argument really bothers me for two reasons. 1 - 'matching consensus' at AfD is the easiest thing in the world to achieve if a user waits until consensus is clear before !voting, or only !votes on very straightforward AfDs, so it's pretty meaningless. 2 - Idolising people who 'match consensus' also serves to penalise editors who take the time to engage with contentious or edge-case AfDs, politely making strong arguments that enhance the discussion and help to establish consensus, and yet as a result will inevitably sometimes have taken the 'wrong' position. I'd argue such editors are far more of a net positive to WP.--Korruski^Talk 11:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Support - Looks to be a fine candidate, if a bit on the new side. But perhaps a fresh viewpoint is a good thing. Thanks for standing for the mop, as well as your good work to date! Jusdafax (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Vermont (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Support. Seems to be a great contributor, a kind person (which I think is important for admins - sadly, many admins are not like this), and knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policies. I see no reason why they shouldn't be an admin. The more I look into their contributions - their editing skills, temperament, and how involved they are with admin-related tasks... I'm honestly surprised they're not an admin already.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

   It's nice that you are enthusiastic, but the candidate has only been registered under this account for about one and a half years, so that's kind of an exaggeration don't you think? Had this RfA been posted a mere six or seven months ago, there would already be a pile of opposes on the premise of WP:NOTNOW. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

6. Support. Two Million Awards! Good luck at getting the articles to FA! wumbolo ^^^ 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Support. Absolute net positive. If his account age turns some people off that's a shame because he looks to be a consistent helper to the wiki, has a solid showing in AfC, and can really use the admin privvys to help with cases of vandalism, which he seems quite involved with. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Support SD has an eerily high AfD match rate. So high that I suspected he might be !voting on about-to-expire AfDs to massage his rate higher. However, on closer examination, that is clearly not the case. Further, he has done very respectable content creation work, has a clean block log, and shows no overt signs of being insane, which are all the qualifications I look for in an Admin. Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Support - looks like a keeper to me! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
10. Support. I first encountered this editor on Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!, a month after he had joined. I draftified what was, at the time, a copy-and-paste from another article, and given how new the article creator was, I expected the standard pushback and complaining that NPPers are used to. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised when TheSandDoctor responded civilly, took that draft on an obscure video game, and expanded it into a well written, well sourced article. He takes feedback well, is willing to admit when he's made a mistake, and now that he has more time under his belt it looks like he would be a net positive to the project as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 23:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Support After examining this user's editing statistics, they seem undoubtedly qualified for this important role. A 97% afd match rate is very, very impressive. Very happy to support. Zingarese (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Support: the candidate is very amiable and polite, active in AfC, technically adept / a bot operator, involved in deletion areas and has worked on plenty of content creation. The AfD match rate is of no importance to me whatsoever, but the other reasons those above me have given are thoroughly convincing that TheSandDoctor will make a great admin. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
13. Support - While I've just returned from hiatus, I can't recall any interaction with TheSandDoctor before this message. I reviewed their contributions and paid careful attention to their work in AfC, AfD, and the AIV reports they've made. I'm not a numbers person and I believe the intent and impact of each action outweighs any numbers/figures game. After review, I believe TheSandDoctor would not only make an excellent admin, but would continue the fine track record they have already established as well as motivate other editors to join the task at hand. I believe a mop would result in an overall positive for the community. Operator873^CONNECT 01:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
14. Support: Candidate has several major strengths (many of which—such as his deletion-work, his amiability, his understanding of and ability to operate bots, his willingness to learn and adapt to feedback and his AfC-work—are already mentioned, as well as a near-perfect edit summary rate and a good mix of content and other Wikipedia work) and per his answer to my question (Q7) also appears to be sensible in regards to recognizing and handling his weaker points. As he appears to have a good understanding of policy in the areas he wishes to work on and a willingness to learn and ask for help in areas he's not as familiar with, I see no reason to deny him the mop. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
15. Support am confident based on looking at this editor's contributions and calm demeanor that they can hold a mop. Would be a net positive as an admin. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
16. Support A solid editor with an impressive record to prove it, lots of clue and no red or yellow flags. I look forward to their joining the team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
17. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
18. Support per SoWhy. I trust his evaluation.--v/r - TP 02:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
19. Support per Mz7 and SoWhy. This appears to be an 'about time' RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
20. Support. A read-through of his talk page reveals him to be thoughtful and courteous, which is about all one needs to be a good admin. The rest can be learned on the job with minimal fuss. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
21. Support, the more admins like TSD, the better. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
22. Support - usually I'd like to see a candidate spend more time before being handed the mop but in this case they've demonstrated a good solid understanding across many areas of Wikipedia and I suspect strong ability to perform the admin role without a problem. -- Longhair\^talk 03:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
23. Support: Good editing all-around, from what I see so far (and what I see doesn't include disruption, system-gaming, vitriolic behavior, or other red-flags, either). I did read TonyBallioni's comment in the neutral section, and it's a potentially valid observation, but not a big deal to me. Lots of us go through XfD and other process pages (RM, etc.) and do a bunch of !votes to help speed the processes along; we often don't need long-winded analyses to do it if we weren't first on the scene. Even if some of the AfD activity were "padding" for RfA, it's to be expected. RfA respondents often do want to see a good AfD track record, and may even tell an iffy candidate that we need to see more such activity. We can't have it both ways. PS: The amount of deleted edits this editor has strongly suggests frequent and successful CSD tagging. Combined with the vandal fighting, this indicates an administration-minded, maintenance-oriented, and protective approach, so this candidate seems like a good fit for me, despite being barely within my usual time-since-joining minimum to consider a candidate suitable yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Fair point. I was between sitting it out and !voting neutral. The thing that made me comment was that the AfD rate had been mentioned as a positive. I personally don’t like RfA padding at AfD and know it’s a turn off for some, so thought it worth pointing out. At the end of the day, I don’t think they will be a negative to the encyclopedia, which is my standard for opposing. I do, however want to bring it up: acting independently and being able to speak up even in a potential SNOW situation is important, and at the very least I hope my comment will make them think about the critique if they get the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, a quick look at his 300 most recent deleted contributions don't suggest anything different — mostly PRODs and CSDs, as well as some declined AfC drafts that were speedied by someone else. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

24. Support another precious candidate. Please talk to people (real people, not trolls and vandals) before you block them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
25. support net positive.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
26. Support per nominators and SMcCandlish. Yintan  08:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
27. Support. I set out my RFA criteria after the last RFA, and this candidate passes easily. Iffy★Chat -- 09:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
28. Strong support. TheSandDoctor portrays the hallmarks of what we should be looking for in our administrators - clue, civility and trust. They show the ability to know when to act based on their demonstrated knowledge of policy, when not to act and when to ask for help. TonyBallioni points out a good point about "padding" at AfD in preparation for RfA, but as SMcCandlish correctly points out, it is par for the course, and if this is the only "negative" point in this candidate, then they'll already be a better administrator than I. TheSandDoctor is keen to take on the workload, and keen to learn - I wholeheartedly support this candidate - TNT^❤ 09:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
29. Support. I don't recall encountering TheSandDoctor before, but the answers they give here are good and I haven't found any problems when looking through a selection of their contributions. Indeed they seem a well balanced user, who is happy to admit when they don't know something and wont go charging in before finding out the answer. We need more admins like that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
30. Support per SoWhy. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
31. Support - a tad of a 'newbie' for me, but I see no major concerns. GiantSnowman 10:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
32. Support Seem him around. Seems to fairly stable, rational, commutative, diplomatic and communicative with a couple of GA-Class articles to boot. scope_creep (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
33. per SoWhy Mahveotm (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
34. Support, I smiled a little when I saw it was TSD's name in the RfA list. I had a positive experience with him during one of his GAs last year, where he was very engaged and receptive. That alone isn't grounds to support an RfA, but the character and committment shown towards the project through those GAs and other involvements noted in the nomination is reason enough. Will be a valuable addition. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
35. Support per nomination by SoWhy. I'm going to add that questions about username are best asked on the candidate's user talk page, not in the optional questions section. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
36. Support - They seem almost "too" perfect. Solid experience all around and an excellent track record in a variety of activities. I can forgive padding at AfD/CSD as their closures are good. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
37. Support Somebody has to be the last voter on an AFD, and there is no line in the sand on where to stop. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
38. Support SpinningSpark 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
39. Support per Serial Number 54129. I'm actually so unconvinced by their opposition that it's moved me to support. An editor choosing to move into new areas is not a reason to oppose. Their CSD tagging looked fine before they moved into new areas, so no issues with their competence in that arena (even though they do not appear to want to contribute there). Contributing to reduce a G13 backlog (which, at the time, was quite significant) is also not a reason to oppose. Choosing to ascribe some hat-collecting sinister motivation to those completely normal actions is exactly the sort of nastiness that made me seriously consider walking away from the project entirely during my RfA, even though it was on its way to being successful. Whether or not this is the intent of the opposition, it comes across as an assumption of bad faith. The oppose talks about biting newcomers, yet it's the most biting thing I've seen on the project in recent memory – experienced editors can become disheartened and give up too. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
40. Support. Good candidate with excellent background "winning" the mop hands down, and that seems no surprise!  Painius  ^put'r there  15:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
41. Support Seems capable. Also agree with Rob13's comment. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
42. Support great work all round Orphan Wiki 16:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
43. Support Let's get over the notion that candidates with unpadded resumes are welcomed by the community with ease. From telling them to go get nominators to advising them to get wider experience or to repair their performance in one particular area (e.g. increase their hit rate in AfD/CSD etc), it's us the community that has skewed the requirements towards padding – so it's no wonder that this candidate evidently has done the same to great effect. We've seen enough opposition to candidates like Pbsouthwood who focus less on padding and more on being specific about their narrow contribution areas. So I applaud TSD to have the sense to pad up their experience just like I did, after failing my first RfA. TSD is balanced, mature and I expect them to be quite amenable to learning from their experiences and mistakes in their admin journey. Lourdes 16:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
44. Support If there were any indication TSD would harm the project, I’d change my vote but I’m not seeing any reason to think that’s the case. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
45. Support Nice contributor. Good history of editing. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
46. Support Clueful and excellent candidate. With the Co-nom by Sowhy, I would be very surprised if there were any terrible skeletons hiding in the closet. Happy mopping mate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    So would I, skeletons are scary. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

47. Support Seen around. I don't see any problems with this one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
48. Support good content creation/improvement and hard work at AFC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
49. Support I have no recollection at all of having encountered the candidate before, so I felt the need to do a little digging. It raises a red flag for me when a candidate answers Q3 (the one about past conflicts) by just saying in a general way that they always try to do the right thing and there has been nothing major. If you've had enough experience to be an admin, you've had someone, somewhere, get pissed off at you, so I much prefer seeing specific examples cited in the answer to Q3. Therefore, I went through the entire 2017 history of the user talk page, to see if there had been any examples of someone showing up looking for a fight, and to see how it was handled. I'm pleased by what I saw: very few complaint messages (basically just newbies asking why didn't you accept my AfC, along with a couple of friendly pointers from experienced users about mistakes made), and every single time the candidate responded politely, cluefully, and with a willingness to accept correction after making a mistake. No defensiveness. Where that leaves me is with the impression that this is someone who, on becoming an admin, is soon going to start getting some much nastier stuff sent their way, but I also have a reasonable amount of confidence that he will be able to handle it. (Just be forewarned!) I much prefer someone who can admit mistakes over someone who cannot, and there is clearly a track record with new content creation and the notability issues that accompany it. So I hope you, um, get some satisfaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
50. Support Trustworthy candidate, happy to support. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
51. Weak Support Post response to Q17 by TheSandDoctor - In response to his comments I would say that I do find a lack of taking the plunge in AfDs a weakness - the first 2/3 !votes set out two things: demonstrable evidence that you know policy on your own and a willingness to make decisions that others may disagree with.

    That said, that might be a weakness that TSD has but it is a small one even when applied to other actions (block discussions etc) - it reduces several positives but by it's nature is unlikely to be a major negative. Far more importantly, my AfD basis is a net positive: TSD doesn't seem likely to bring any negatives as an admin and both in "regular" duties and with bot expertise there are significant positives to be gained.Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

52. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
53. Support - from what I have read and looked into, I consider this candidate worthy of adminship. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 20:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
54. Support Though I would like a tad more than 9% "keep" votes at AfD, the 96% "match" is excellent. Seems a credible person for admin. Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
55. Support Their AFC related work looks good. Regarding AfD: AFD needs more people who will put in !vote 3-5 in favor of a given outcome. As long as those votes are based in policy, I'm not in the least bit concerned that they're pile-on votes or convinced by the opposes based on that. If any of the oppose voters feel that their votes are piling on incorrect outcomes, they should present evidence to that effect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
56. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms, good answers to questions. Miniapolis 22:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
57. Support Your bot has racked up 100,000 mainspace edits without stirring up any drama. That's impressive. wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Please excuse me as my jaw drops, wbm1058! Wow. I'll finish reviewing things and vote at the end, but you're right, that is impressive! I just want to thank you for bringing that up! Geekdiva (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

58. Support - clear net positive and strong nomination statements, clue evident. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 00:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
59. Support - not a jerk & after reading the opposes & neutral comments, still think he has a clue. Find bruce (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
60. Support - looks like a clueful person. Somewhat disappointed to see most of the opposes focused on vague accusation of hat collecting, or what seems to be a "bad feeling" about the candidate. When we get controversial candidates, people oppose them because they're too controversial. When we get uncontroversial candidates, people oppose them because they aren't controversial enough and so a) their motives must be evil or b) there isn't enough evidence to judge them etc. The saving grace here is that most of the community seems to disagree with this perspective. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
61. Support A pleasant surprise to see at RfA indeed. I am glad to focus on TheSandDoctor's positive contributions, rather than 'I've got a bad feeling about this.' talk to !dave 08:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
62. Support, don't really care how they voted at AFD. Do you think they will be a bad administrator? If the answer is no, then you support. Everything else is frippery. I've seen nothing to make me think TheSandDoctor would be a bad administrator. Fish+Karate 09:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
63. Support. Candidate seems amiable. No obvious red flags. We can't lament at the low number of editors volunteering as tribute wanting to go through the difficulties of RfA and then slight a candidate for hat-collecting when one is available and wants to jump through all the hoops set by prominent RfA participants! Deryck C. 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
64. Support as pointed above by SMcCandlish and others, we can't have it both ways. Any weakness pointed out in opposes/neutrals seem small ones; overall nothing suggests they'd abuse the tools or that they wouldn't be a NETPOSITIVE (even if the to-my-eyes largely unfounded hat-collecting accusations were true..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    With all due respect, WP:VANDALISM is an official policy and WP:AGF is an official guideline, and while we may interpret them differently, wouldn't an administrator violating them be abuse of the tools? How do you define "abuse" of the tools? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    The most common reason why RFAs fail over concerns at potential use of the tools is sloppy deletion tagging. But I've seen RFAs fail over concerns that the candidate would abuse the tools in other ways such as not understanding when they can't act as an admin because they are involved. Not understanding what is or isn't vandalism could lead to abuse of the tools, but not understanding what is or isn't vandalism is a rare failure at RFA. Even NotNow candidates, those with a few hundred edits and a few weeks of tenure, rarely show a failure to understand the difference between vandalism and not vandalism. This candidate is a long way from being a NotNow candidate, and while there are several opposers, I'm not seeing any of them yet produce diffs that would indicate any risk of this candidate abusing the tools if they had them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that because I frequently see experienced administrators block IPs for "persistent vandalism" without giving thought to the possibility that different people could be responsible for the different edits. Read WP:NONSENSE and WP:VANDNOT. Pay close attention to Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. I frequently see what some may consider "silly vandalism" self-revert, which is associated with test editing (see WP:Self-revert) I also frequently see Wikipedians, including myself, mistake good-faith edits for disruptive ones, which is why I almost always prefer to use {{uw-test}} rather than {{uw-vandalism}} when warning IPs. If someone from a residential DSL or cable modem, where the most amount of people likely to be sharing the connection is 10, is repeatedly adding nonsense to articles, policy allows for the edits to be classified as "silly vandalism," but in any kind of an institution, making assumptions about edits from IP addresses or ranges with thousands of users is incompatible with WP:AGF, in absence of an obvious pattern (as I observed with a particular hospital IP /24 range, which was {{anonblocked}} for two years per my recommendation at WP:AIV, and a particular university's IP, which I decided to handle with an abuse report and that seems to have worked). As a vandal fighter for many years, I know dealing with vandals and other problematic users can be frustrating, but honestly, the majority of the unacceptable edits are cured with a few clicks of a mouse. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    I'm not sure why you're trying to make this RFA about your quixotic crusade against blocking IP editors, but it's a bad look. If you want an actual response to your concerns, please discuss them elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    @PCHS-NJROTC: Some admin blocked my local library for two years once, stopping anyone from editing there, but if you can persuade the admin corps to just stop whacking people on the head with banhammers, you're a better man than me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    If people really do share my position, and they don't keep it to themselves, the admins will realize their actions don't have the community support they think they have. But people must also remember Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that we are to be WP:CIVIL towards each other; it's easy to tear another person down, but it's more rewarding to lift another person up. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

65. Support. Only been registered about a year and a half, but in that time has made a serious number of edits, including, by my standards, adequate article space quality work. Seems technically competent, and what from I have seen of their personal interactions, appears to be consistently polite. Willing to accept recall. Low risk to the encyclopaedia and the community. Some may ask more, but this is enough for me. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
66. Support. Established and uncontentious character, I find the oppose section unconvincing. Non admins may be interested to know that I've looked at some of the deleted edits, and the candidate got both the G10 and BLPprod tags correct. ϢereSpielChequers 12:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
67. Support Appears to be a net positive for the project and per many of the supporting reasons already stated. Strikerforce^Talk 14:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
68. Support mainly per the opposes, which have moved me here from neutral. I do think the AfD issue is a real issue (which is why I raised it), but I don't think we should be giving credence to the idea that 18 months is too soon for adminship or that people shouldn't be seeking out respected nominators. I also get the sense that there is this unspoken idea that we should be seeking out all star candidates every time who are going to reach RFX200 and pass with 99% support (as in Lourdes or Megalibrarygirl.) I've long been of the belief that we need to encourage more candidates to have a go at RfA who are competent and can use the tools, and who might get in the low 100s and 80% supports.
    We need admins of all different types. I think TSD will be non-controversial, do a lot of work in the admin trenches. That being said, as I've mentioned in my reply above and in my neutral (which I am not completely striking as I stand by the commentary), we also need every admin to be an independent voice. It is basically the only system of checks and balances we have other than ArbCom. The AfD pile-ons are worrisome to me, but I hope TSD will learn from the feedback here that the community expects administrators not to simply pile-on or act robotically but honestly assess each situation with their independent judgement. We get into a lot of trouble when admins don't do that. All that to say, I see no reason that they would abuse the tools, and I want to counter the opposes, so I'm here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    ("All-star candidate"... he he, I like the title... :) Lourdes 04:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC))

69. Support per thoughtful responses, clear dedication to content, and interest in diverse areas of the project. If that's hat collecting then give them all the hats, which is to say I find the opposes unconvincing. More administrators with an affinity for sand, says the Prince Edward Islander. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
70. Trust. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
71. Weak support Very much on the lower end of the tenure i would expect here; answers, however, and general stability of character seems to alleviate that concern. The opposes raise some points; in the end, though, i resort to my default position, AGF and trust. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
72. Support very nice editor. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
73. Support. I'm impressed by TSD's content work, demeanour, and thoughtful answers to (most of) the questions. Like others, I'm less impressed by his record at XfD; not just the pile-ons, but the very high proportion of delete !votes and the fact that 80% of his AfD comments were made rapidly in a 5-day period in March. To me these suggest a lack of understanding that XfD is a discussion and not a vote, which is also the impression I get from his answer to my Q15. I also think that he is too quick to decline at AfC (see my Q14), and perhaps has fallen into the common trap of thinking "which red box can I put this in?" rather than considering the spirit of our core policies and guidelines. My worry in both cases is that the somewhat superficial understanding would transfer to poor judgement of consensus as an admin. However, after mulling it over for a while, I think that this is probably just a symptom of TSD trying out a lot of different maintenance tasks in a relatively short period of time (no bad thing!) There are certainly no "red flags" in his editing record and I'm sure that, if he gets the tools and maybe gets dragged through DRV a few times, he will pick up the finer points soon enough. I would just ask him to remember that almost every page on this website is a person's earnest attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, so deleting any of them shouldn't be done casually. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
74. Support Looks good. I can understand that some supposed padding at AfD is an issue — and I'd like the candidate to address it — but to me that says more about the supposed value of AfD "success" ratios than anything else. Answers are a little milquetoast, but then again so are the questions; besides, TSD has demonstrated the ability to effectuate policy well. I will unequivocally state that I do not think TSD is the perfect candidate, but I do not want the perfect candidate. TSD is experienced and knowledgeable, and more importantly appears thoughtful about our project. Quite clueful and a clear net-positive. This is the sort of candidate we should be getting here — not perfect, but good enough; anything else is just forced inefficacies. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    That being said, TSD swung and missed on a beautiful opportunity to complain about how sand is coarse, rough, and irritating, and gets everywhere. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    I am likewise distressed at the missed meme opportunity. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    I just want to note that, after my support comment above, TSD emailed me to address the padding issue. It was largely identical to what he wrote in reply to Tony's question 26. It's a good response, and I appreciate the candor, and hope some of my friends in the oppose section will consider it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

75. Support, pleasant and professional interactions, no concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
76. Support Some concerns about short tenure and AfD record, but not enough to oppose. I was considering a neutral !vote but want to counter some of the opposes which seem to be criticizing the candidate for seeking out nominators, which I find bizarre.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
77. Support — Passes my RfA criteria. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
78. Support a year and a half is long enough to grasp the essence of most policies and in any case, adminship is not rocket science. I fully expect that sysoping TheSandDoctor will be a net positive for the project. I'd also like to confirm what Bellezzasolo said about one of Serial Number 54129's concerns. ACTRIAL changed the project's needs: fewer people were needed to patrol the new pages feed and the number of CSD-able articles went way down. But of course this, at least partially, just moved the problem elsewhere: it created a backlog for the evaluation of drafts in the Draft space and increased the number of G13 nominations. In other words, TheSandDoctor's edit pattern in this case is not some nefarious plot for hat collecting but rather a case of an editor adjusting his editing habits to match the project's needs. Pichpich (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    Pichpich, I'll just point our for the record, and in no way as a criticism of your support for the candidate, that while the number of new pages arriving in the feed since WP:ACREQ, the reviewers are now facing new challenges, those of the creators, for example, of undesirable content finding workarounds that require enhanced diligence. The workload has thus not decreased, and as many active reviewers as before are still rquired. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

79. Support We need more admins, and I don't see this editor doing any damage with the mop. I think one and a half years is sufficient time for an editor who has contributed well to be trusted with a responsibility such as this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
80. Support Answered my question brilliantly. Good luck at your Adminship. I though concern your technical skills, but given you are the ones who doesn't involve a lot at technical stuff, that shall pass.--1233^Talk 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
81. Support. Helpful and knowledgeable, clearly trustworthy. Bradv 21:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
82. Support - a year and a half experience concerns me slightly, but he is open to recall. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
83. Support candidate is likely to be a net positive; 1.5 years is sufficient in my opinion. Lepricavark (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
84. Support Some problems but seems to be competent. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
85. Support: Generally speaking, the opposes are nitpicks and not reflective of a properly considered, balanced review of the candidate. This is particularly important given the widely divergent standards for successful RFA espoused by various members of the community. Thus, we regularly see opposes for both too few and too many of specific activities (e.g., AfD, anti-vandalism patrols); opposes that are couched as supports except for one or two comparatively minor points (which could perhaps be more effectively addressed as "support, but candidate should consider X"); opposes for both self-nominations and nominations from others. We need more admins. I'm not seeing any issues with this candidate that are problematic enough for me to say anything more than "read the comments and keep them in mind", and consider the candidate to be a net positive. I wish the candidate success. Risker (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
86. Sadads (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Good candidate for admin, and sounds like a strong track record of collaborating with the community. Definitely worth giving the mop!Sadads (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
87. feminist (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    Not the best answer to my question, but not enough to oppose. I would like the candidate to be more careful with controversial AfD discussions. feminist (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    I was intrigued by your AfD query feminist and was awaiting TSD's response. While TSD's reply looks good to me, I'll look forward to hear from you what would have been a better response. Thanks, Lourdes 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Yeah, I guess I was overly critical. There is a distinction between WP:SNOW keep and WP:Speedy keep, so technically the closure was inaccurate. Regardless, this isn't something that would cause any significant trouble. feminist (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    I see that Ahecht has asked a question regarding this issue. feminist (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support after candidate's answer to Ahecht's question. feminist (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

88. Support. Clueful and civil. I don't see any indication that he will do something incredibly stupid with the tools. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
89. Support candidate is has a great content record and seems interested in admin work with a decent record. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
90. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
91. Support will be a good admin as they have been a good editor. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
92. Support per Risker and others above. If 18 months and 20,000 edits is not enough anymore then RfA truely is broken. Aiken D 06:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
93. Support net positive. Nigej (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
94. Support solid editor and has done good work till date. FITINDIA 07:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
95. Support Pratyush (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
96. Support, longtime contributor with high edit count (three times as much experience as I had when I passed RFA), appears to have clue. I don't like high "correct" percentages in AFD but if I start opposing over those, RfA will be even harder to pass... (see also what Risker said). —Kusma (t·c) 08:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
97. Support, Haven't seen anything that would pull me away from voting support. User seems genuinely interested in helping on Wikipedia, and using the admin tools carefully, and for good reason. "Hat Collecting", doesn't apply, as all hats have been used well to point. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
98. Sure, why not. — 🦊 09:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
99. Support at the usual level—however I strongly suggest to you, TheSandDoctor, that you take some time to walk the admin route before you start to bike it, and then take some time to bike it before you finally get in your shiny new Adminicar and go vroom all over the wikiplace. As to how to do that, others have more experience than I do in this area (I will never be an admin), but as you seem earnest and earnestness is my favorite virtue, I'll throw out a few ideas.
    I have faith—good, even—that you'll reread the debates here about what is known about you. I suggest you condense down the things that people are saying you need to work on until there's no repetition and make a private, off-line list of them. Then add to this very private list other things you know about yourself that you'll have to watch out for as an admin, such as areas you need to improve. Try to rephrase things more positively and as action items when possible. Then periodically, perhaps using spaced repetition, check in with that list, divorced from this debate and the names involved, and see what you have improved in and what areas still need improvement or even which ones you've slacked on. It happens. Acknowledge it, update the list, and move forward.
    Also at first, while you're walking or biking, try working less often or more cautiously in admin areas you consider yourself to be more familiar with, and spend some time learning the ins and outs of admin areas where you naturally will have more of a beginner's mind. Be an earnest student of the ones before you in their successes and failures. Challenges like this are a great opportunity to develop a beautiful character; the heart is like an unpolished rock that only shows its beauty after some grinding and getting some bits knocked off. Or at least, that's what a manga told me.
    Sorry this is so long, but with my real-life limitations I got to data-dump when I can. Ps. Deescalation rocks! Geekdiva (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
100. WP:100. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
101. Support - has a clue, experienced, civil, and would bring definite good things to the admin corps. I haven't seen anything in the oppose section so far to make me worried. If the community doesn't want people to stack up AFDs before an RFA attempt, then it should stop demanding participation there as a prerequisite for the bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
102. Support Per nominators. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
103. Support I see opposes by editors whose opinion I am favorably disposed towards. The same is true of several in the support column, of course. On the negative side, the candidate appears somewhat over-eager. Although I have have no hard-and-fast rule regarding tenure, I would (in general) rather see 2 years and 12000 edits than 1 year and 40,000 edits. The early closings were certainly mistakes, but I view all these actions as a single mistake. In their favor they ceased the slightly disruptive actions immediately when it was discussed with them, they did not repeat the mistake, and they did not take a defensive posture but instead seem to be a student willing to learn. I am with those who are not particularly impressed with the answer to question #17. The late AfD voting is also not impressive, but that is tempered with the fact my strong supposition that they were probably following instructions. There are items which land me on the support side. The first is Ahecht's testimony, which I think describes TSD's attitude in general, as further demonstrated by their behavior in this RfA. The second is his work at Oshwah's talk page. Oshwah gets more than his share of loonies, trolls, and the incurably clueless. That no one takes issue with TSD's work there is also a good indication. It is therefore my opinion that Wikipedia will be further improved should TSD be granted the tools. Good content work. They'll probably make a few further blunders, but we truly need to allow this in administrators. What I don't foresee are ego-driven dramafests. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)modified 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
104. Support I don't see anything in the oppose section that is persuasive. I examined a fairly large set of AFD contributions, and they did not strike me as piling on for the sake of piling on. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
105. Support!! -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
106. Support – mostly per Risker. I believe TheSandDoctor will continue being an asset to the project if he is given the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
107. Support - more admins is always a good thing; also trusted noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
108. Support - I have read almost all the comments of those who oppose this nomination, and I sit here in front of my computer and ask myself a couple of questions. While 18 months of registered user does seem to be a short period of time for me, but when is it "enough time" to RfA? I find that there is no established time-frame a user has to be registered to RfA in the Wiki guidelines. Looking at TheSandDoctor's contribution history, I see a consistent and broad enough history that satisfies me enough to think that he will continue to make credible contributions without having to hit the delete button. And secondly, I don't find reaching out to other third-party wiki users about their chances in passing RfA vote and seeking guidance on the procedures as "hat collecting" or "padding their chances". While it may seem that way to some, but I feel that this user truly wanted to be an admin and, for the right reasons, sought out council about their chances. I think was wise and shows the sign of levelheadedness needed to be an admin and I encourage others seeking RfA to follow this example. I'm also glad to hear that you would be willing to accept a policy requiring reaffirmation of admin-ship, cause I think that there are a small handful admins out there that have abused their responsibilities and need to be re-evaluated on their merits. I wish you the best of luck in this RfA TheSandDoctor. Neovu79 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
109. Support My only question is whether this user is ready for the conflict that will probably find them as an admin that doesn't seem to have found them before. Having watched their responses to the questions on this page it seems like they are well positioned to carry over the positive temperament they've shown as an editor with some new tools. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
110. Support Per above all, definitely a net positive. 18 months is enough time, even if he hasn't been subject to major dramas yet, to be able to handle and/or know what is expected of him should issues arise — IVORK _Discuss 01:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
111. Support In answering the questions, the candidate has shown a good understanding of our policies and guidelines. I read the opposes !votes carefully, and none of the concerns are serious enough for me to oppose. 18 months of productive editing is adequate, and I like the candidate's willingness to learn and to commit to doing things differently in response to feedback from other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
112. Support Eighteen months does seem a short time to me, but if the community asserts that a candidate's last 18 months are all that need to be examined, that is fine with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
113. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
114. Support per Risker and net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
115. Support \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 06:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
116. Support - I'm familiar with TheSandDoctor's work and I am not concerned by the points made in the oppose section (while legitimate, I believe they don't accurately represent the candidates intentions). -- Dane ^talk 06:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
117. Support. I think the user has been around enough time, has done a good number of edits, and seems to be very polite and professional. I don't know if the editor is hat collecting as many opposed to the nomination say, but even if he/she/they is, I think that shows an appreciation for the project and that the editor is proud of contributing to Wikipedia. That's not necessarily bad. It can actually show charisma. Thinker78 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
118. I've been on the fence about this for a while. There's plenty of positives; SandDoctor is polite and collegial, hasn't made serious missteps that I can see, seems to have an understanding of policy, and has a need for the tools. My few interactions with them have been entirely positive. Nonetheless, I feel the candidate doesn't quite pass the smell test. I have nothing concrete, just a feeling that they may be over-eager, and that their understanding of policy is more superficial than substantive. Ultimately I find myself in the "support" section because it would be unfair to the candidate and to the system to oppose them over this without concrete evidence, per WP:NOBIGDEAL and WP:NETPOSITIVE. Expecting perfection is unreasonable, and the process of learning with respect to policy is continuous regardless of what flags you hold. I encourage the candidate to take it slow in areas they are unfamiliar with, and to continue to take feedback in a constructive manner. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
119. Support Don't particularly buy into / worry about the "hat collecting" opposes. Rest is good, and partly why I wrote WP:NETPOS years back. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  08:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
120. Support seems like a good candidate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
121. Support This user will not abuse the tools. That is my main criteria. The opposes are unconvincing. --rogerd (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
122. Support Regarding the opposes, when RFA stops being a terrifying, grueling ordeal that few can pass, then it will be time to start worrying about editors who are preparing for their RFAs by checking all the boxes, padding edit counts, and keeping their head down. Right now, it's more or less required strategy and should not be held against anyone. Also "hat collecting" is not, in and of itself, a worthwhile reason to oppose anybody's candidacy for anything. (So you want another user right next to your name ... who cares? What matters is what, if anything, you will do with it.) TSD's tenure is sufficient and editing is a net positive to the project. Vadder (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

     Amen brother (or sister). Well said. --rogerd (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

123. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
124. Support - Me neither. Home Lander (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
125. Support - I do have some reservations around inexperience, but overall I think TSD has the makings of an excellent administrator. Poltair (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
126. Support. Everything looks good.--Jusjih (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
127. Support - User seems to be sufficiently experienced and clueful to not blow up the site with the admin toolkit. The common oppose reasons of hat collecting and AfD pile-on are not great concerns to me. Collecting hats is bad if the user thinks this is a WP:MMORPG, but not if the user is just interested in helping out around here. I think this is a case of the latter. That said, I hope the candidate will take the criticism at this RfA to heart and will proceed with appropriate thoughtfulness and care (especially in the realm of deletion). Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
128. Support -- Just do me a favor and don't end up with a block log that looks like this -- Dolotta (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

     @Dolotta: Sounds like someone got a little....bored? Though that is admittedly funny and done for "giggles" to oneself (therefore not affecting others), I can assure you that I would not do that to myself as I do like the look of an empty block log. (No promises for TheSandDoctor testing though. It is a testing account and, although I do not foresee a reason now, I might legitimately have one in the future to test something. Nevertheless, I would most likely refrain from the use of foul language in such a case. Of course, this is all assuming that this request passes. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

     Yes, please don't turn Wikipedia into RationalWiki where the sysops block each other and start wheel wars for fun. I don't have any reason to think you'd do that, and I'm all for good natured fun, but adminship is a serious affair and creating block records like that makes the project look unprofessional (although I'd let it slide on April Fools Day). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

129. Support per TonyBallioni comment --Alaa :)..! 05:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
130. Support Yes, I think so. I would have liked a longer tenure/more contributions, but most of us learn from our experience in any case. Deb (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
131. No major concern to me. Think he will be a good admin. Hhkohh (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
132. Support per everyone else. He's cautious, happy to ask for advice and is unlikely to go on a rampage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
133. Support I see no issues and I think it's a positive you've been member just for over a year. You're not yet as cynical to Wikipedia processes as the old-timers. --Pudeo (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
134. Support Adding the voice of journeyman editor with not-much-past 1000 edits. TSD and I had a civil interaction on some article and TSD took time to send a nice note about a joke on my userpage, which I greatly appreciated. His curiosity and impulse to outreach will be good equipment for an admin, IMO. 16:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs)
135. Support While you might be a year younger than me on Wikipedia, you seem like you'll fit well in the role. —JJB^ers 17:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
136. Support meets my my RFA standards. Mkdw ^talk 18:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
137. Support This is obviously going to pass so I’m piling on in an effort to pad my stats. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
138. Support. Articulate, detail-oriented, conscientious. --HappyCamper 22:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
139. Support Sufficiently tenured and I trust their judgement. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
140. Stephen 23:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
141. Support--MONGO 01:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
142. Support I find it refreshing to have this opportunity for an injection of what, by all appearances will be, a responsible and conscientious sense of youth into the admin ranks. Owing to the candidate's ability to traverse steep learning curves with remarkable speed, I suppose we'll all be gathered here about a year from now for his RfB.  spintendo  01:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
143. Support. Clearly a thoughtful and responsible editor, likely to make a fine admin. bd2412 T 01:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
144. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
145. Support. I am unconvinced by the arguments that TheSandDoctor should not be given the tools because on-Wiki work seems to have been tailored to RfA expectations. If someone can check all the boxes before RfA, it is reasonable to assume that he or she will continue to do so after RfA. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
146. Support - This candidate reminds me of myself during my rfa in some ways (but not others). I read their answers to the especially relevant questions asked; their answers to 24 and 31 are particularly adequate. I approve of their cautiousness and hope they will grow into a good administrator. I see no problem with how long they have been editing. Answers to questions that are not clearly incorrect and a significant amount of editing history is more than can be said of others whose requests have been successful recently(ish), so why not? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
147. Support, I haven't heard of him, but want to counteract some frankly nonsensical opposes. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
148. Support, unconvinced by the opposes, will do a good job and won't delete the main page. -NottNott 11:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
149. Support as net positive. Not all the answers are ideal (the humblebrags at Q2 or Q7, for instance). Nor is the appearance of playing RFA Bingo a happy one, particulary given how many of the bulk AFD !votes were of negligible value... but fundamentally RFA Bingo has been required by some and recommended by others, and has been so effective that fewer than 50 (non-bot) users to have created their current accounts in the second half of WP's existence currently hold adminship. If the candidate wants to mop the sand away then good luck to them. If it happens to be too difficult to remove problematic admins, then fix that and/or create an approved process for binding recalls or whatever. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
150. Support. I haven't heard of the nominee, and it's really been only 17 months since he registered, but during that time he seems to have shown interest in admin activities and content creation. I would trust TheSandDoctor with the admin tools though, based on their willingness to deal with the hard stuff (like third-opinion disputes). The XFD stats might be a little light after September 2017, but that's because of ACTRIAL, so I wouldn't hold it against him. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
151. Support good luck.--Mona778 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
152. Support. Clearly qualified. Not perfect, but no-one is. Opposers, please come see me when he goes rogue and destroys Wiki. Moriori (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
153. Support as net positive. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
154. Support' - Clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
155. Support. Although I don't fully understand why someone who is still so new here would want to take on more responsibilities and undergo more scrutiny, in the absence of evidence indicating a problem, such willingness is better met with appreciation than with suspicion. I do think his level of experience is sufficient to the task, as long as he's careful, and I see no red flags—just a lot of clueful edits, most gnomish, many repetitive and thankless, and nearly all accompanied by a summary. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
156. Support. I think that if the candidate were a rogue or had bad intentions, some indication of that would have surfaced after 18 months and many edits and interactions. The candidate has spent a lot of time and effort to establish a good record. The opposers rightly point out that he made some mistakes, at AFD closing in particular. But these concerns or mistakes do not warrant an oppose as far as I am concerned because he seems to learn from them. Few if any perfect candidates can be found. Correcting mistakes, learning from them and acting rationally add to a conclusion of trustworthiness. I too can attest to the decline in speedy deletion nominations as starting with the ACTRIAL change. I do not see hat collecting as a problem if permissions have been used productively, or at least not abused. A user with 18 months experience, many good edits or actions in various areas is not a NOT NOW or NOT YET unless perhaps an underlying anxiety about his age part of the concern. True, a few young users have passed RfA in the past six years or so and not worked out, but that should not be anywhere close to decisive in later RfAs. The user is not so young as to raise concerns about his age alone or to have not made a good record over a sufficient period of time. Mature demeanor, rational handling of questions and situations, willingness to learn, enough varied experience without much in the way of problems and mistakes and similar qualities are in his favor. I respect the users in the opposition and I do not think the concerns are specious. I do think they are not definitive, and to some extent not even applicable, in this case. Sorry for the long comment. To stop it here, I still need to acknowledge the comments (and a few cautions) of AddWittyNameHere, User:Ahecht, User:Lourdes, User:Tryptofish, User: Risker and User:SMcCandlish, in particular, as adding to my confidence in supporting the candidate and as covering a few other points I skipped over or have not covered as clearly. Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
157. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 14:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
158. Support: I see no issues . Kpgjhpjm 15:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
159. Support. While the AfD padding is slightly concerning, it's ultimately a relatively minor issue and shouldn't detract from the fact that this is an excellent candidate that's probably worth taking a chance on for a position that's supposed to be no big deal, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
160. Support: I’m supporting this nomination based on the experiences I’ve had on Wikipedia between January 2017 and December 2017 with TheSandDoctor on my previous account, DrStrauss. Answers to questions 14 and 15 are exceptionally impressive. TSD will make a good administrator because he works in areas where the tools are needed and has demonstrated good judgement and has a good track record at AfD. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
161. Support per Ejgreen77. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
162. Support I believe anyone running for adminship with no obvious red flags deserves the opportunity and Wikipedia needs new people with the tools.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
163. Support - TSD reached out to me with some kindness and moral support a few months ago at a time when I was needing it. He's a good egg in my book! Swarm ♠ 21:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, cum paenitemus—I've always got on well with TSD, so I hope this is taken in the spirit it's given. Which I admit, sounds mildly ambiguous. But I must oppose at this time. The candidate states their preferred area to work in as reviewing speedy deletion nominations...as a natural extension of my already existing work. Unfortunately, the candidate cannot show a sufficient track record in their "already existing work" to make me comfortable giving them the deletion button.
   I note a mention of hat collecting; that may or may not be the case. But something certainly happened around September last year to radically decrease their mainspace CSD tagging and equally rapidly rely on G13 tagging. For the mathematicals among us, since that month they have tagged 140 pages—of which over a hundred are G13s. Not only does this provide very little recent activity to make a judgement on, but suggests—padding, as has also been mentioned. As a percentage, it's enormous, particularly with the concomitant decline in article tagging. The concerns below regarding AfDs are concerns, but not so much as the CSD tagging, which is the easiest and simplest way we have of WP:BITEing newcomers. Their NaCs are satisfactory, generally, although it's true that the have a tendency to jump on and vote on the seventh day. Arguably, at least that creates a consensus (very arguably though); perhaps slightly more worrying is the rather recent and slightly embarrassing WP:BEFORE failure heer (and, by extension, here—two articles were at risk), which required the candidate to put their snow-shoes on. A similar lack of BEFORE is suggested by this R3 tagging; luckily it doesn't seem to be part of the pattern.
   I'm not so bothered about tenure generally, but in this particular case, yes, it is a concern. It needn't be: the obvious example is the RfA of BU Rob13, who had even less tenure than the current candidate. The difference though is the=at they clearly demonstrated an unusually advanced understanding of policy and practice; unfortunately, I do not see that here (yet). And even problem areas like the CSD log—for me persnally—always be out-weighedby—á la Goldenring—answers to the question of such precision and nuance that adminship qualities are transparent. But again, this is not the case. The "questions for the candidate" are an opportunity to demonstrate the abilities and positives that their logs cannot provide—it is a shame that so often the are not taken advantage of.
   TL;DR:Sort that bloody CSD log out, and come back in twelve. Good luck either way, whatever happens. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   My hero, what does cum paenitemus mean? <3 Lourdes, 16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   "With apologies"? GiantSnowman 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   You may recognize it as the Latin root for penance or repentance. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   I'd translate it as 'with regrets", or, perhaps less faithfully, "regretfully", but yes, penance/penitence, from the Latin paenitemus. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Serial Number 54129: September 2017? I expect that would be ACTRIAL. 14th September 2017 - 14th March 2018. If you look at my CSD log, my mainspace tags will have skyrocketed between ACTRIAL and ACPERM (unlike the candidate, I'm a child of the ACTRIAL age). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Yeah I can attest to the fact that CSD-able articles greatly declined in availability after the start of ACTRIAL. All the CSD backlogs disappeared almost overnight. You will see a big dip in my CSD tag log as well, as they just got hard to find compared to previously. (I eventually took to reviewing the back of the backlog, where there are very few CSDs, so that's why there is no spike after ACTRIAL ended in my CSD log). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Mild oppose. Under any other circumstance I would vote support, but I feel the need to register oppose for several reasons, mostly after reading Serial Number 54129's comment above. TheSandDoctor appears to be one of those consistently civil editors that have stayed free of any controversy completely and have managed to avoid making any major mistakes, which of course none of them being a bad thing. I think the experience for continuing with their maintenance works as an admin is there; I am not worried about that. What I am concerned is that how sometimes adminship/advanced permissions in general can elevate the confidence of editors, particularly the ones that appears to be relatively on the younger side, and would entice them to venture into areas in which they are not completely ready/or do not have the experience for. From the answers to the questions, I am fairly confident that TSD would not deviate into that path recklessly (unlike myself); however, without seeing much examples of how TSD react to stressful situations, I am reluctant to support at this time. Whatever the results may be, I encourage TSD to remain humble, continue to ask questions, and continue to find the right balance between humour and serious approach. Alex Shih (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I sense a bit of hat collecting here, primarily because the AfD votes seem to be recent votes on clearly established consensus. AfD is about making "policy-based" arguments, but it is also about forming one's own analysis. Therefore, it is preferable that editors do not pile on established consensus, but find sources, analyze AfDs and whether there is an alternative to deletion, and so on. Simply piling on suggests that AfD is more of a game than a productive discussion. Adminship requires judgment, not just a strict reading of policies and guidelines. I don't see enough evidence of that judgement in AfD or other venues. Esquivalience (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Esquivalience Nothing wrong with hat collecting. What's the difference from medals collecting, awards collecting, resumé collecting? Thinker78 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Well, I think "hat collecting" is definitely problematic in the sense that a hat-collecting editor wants to have extra permissions just for the "status" associated with those extra permissions, instead of actually using those permissions to improve Wikipedia. The relevant distinction, in my mind, is that TheSandDoctor demonstrates elsewhere (e.g. AfC, his user talk page, his content work, his AfD noms) that he does understand Wikipedia policies, and if asked to do so, he can and will explain his reasoning to you and will also listen to your reasoning. He's a good editor, and I genuinely believe that he is here to benefit the project as an administrator, not just to be an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   A right is not an award. Esquivalience (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Just a note: Hat collecting is listed at the WP:NOTHERE supplement page (formerly an essay) that many admins have pointed to when blocking people. It was added by an editor during an incident I went through. That editor accused me of hat collecting. As if. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

4. Oppose - sorry to pile on, but I concur strongly with all three voters above. Great points, and I especially agree with the concerns of hat collecting, particularly due to pile-on AfD votes, as others have noted, which seem to be done solely to beef up his/her own stats in the time leading up to an RfA. I also came here to bring up the lack of tenure; I would NOT be comfortable letting someone who's been around here for only a bit over a year have the tools, especially without much history to speak of in dealing with editing that isn't exactly the smoothest sailing (i.e. remaining civil under pressure and resolving one's own conflicts). TSD seems to be very much a good person, but he reminds me too much of myself circa Jan/Feb 2016 (incidentally, also long before he joined, excluding his 2015 account that was never even autoconfirmed) for me to be able to say confidently that he would make a good admin. Maybe wait another 18-24 months? 65HCA7 21:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Not to badger too much, but you really think they need another two years before they reapply? That seems to me frankly ridiculous. — 🦊 09:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

5. Oppose per the above. The AfD padding leaves a bad taste in my mouth of someone trying to tie up loose ends before an RfA run rather than it being something they are committed to in order to help the site. Nihlus 22:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose, sadly. WP:NOTQUITEYET First of all, you have only been registered for a year and a half, almost putting you into WP:NOTNOW territory, and I agree with others that it looks like you have jumped into grooming yourself for adminship right out of the gate, though you are apparently not so new because you edited as an IP and with an account that you only used a few times (for the record, that is almost exactly how I started out). The incredible part of this is that you should be able to appreciate the fact that not everybody is interested in creating an account at first more than people like me who have been registered at this encyclopedia for years, but your answers to 18 and 19 say otherwise. I encourage you to read WP:Blocking IP addresses (especially the parts related to shared IPs) and decide for yourself if basing blocking decisions on school IP addresses, especially institutions where students remain four years or less, on the IP's "history" (assuming there isn't some obvious pattern, like the same girl's name being spammed over and over again) is in line with WP:AGF. Indeed, there are times when schools and other shared IPs need to be blocked, but you seem to subscribe to the position that "they can just create accounts", and unfortunately that is exactly the type of mentality I do not want to have access to the mop. Some "school vandalism" is actually test edits by curious teenagers or staff members who have heard that Wikipedia can be edited, which is not treated quite the same way as vandalism per WP:VANDALISM, while some of it is indeed people with a malicious desire to troll, and in either case, 21st century technology makes it extremely easy to evade the block (the school block template even tells them to just do it from somewhere else), whereas someone browsing Wikipedia from a school who finds something that needs to be edited, like outdated information or an article that has been vandalized by someone else, is undoubtedly less likely to make an account to make the edit, so really softblocks may do more harm than good when they are not being used to stop an active vandalism spree (the same kind of bad edits happenening over and over again in a short period of time, not just kids being kids over a wide span of time) or a true case of WP:Long term abuse, usually involving a sockmaster who has been banned, and usually the WP:CheckUsers get involved in those cases. I really hate to turn down a content contributor, but community consensus is to let adminstrators use their discretion with school blocks because the community has endorsed them through the RfA process, and while some undoubtedly disagree with me, I have years of experience in vandal fighting, I have watched administrators get increasing heavy handed in dealing with static IPs shared by thousands of users, and I will not endorse someone who I believe will be part of that problem. Best of luck in your endeavors. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 08:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I’m neutral, but I want to point out how ridiculous the idea is that 18 months is NOTNOW territory. I got the bit after 14 consecutive active months (I’d registered this account in 2007, and had some experience off and on through the years, but really only started back editing in August 2016). The practical minimum these days is around 12 months, and a really compelling candidate could likely get it with 10. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Perhaps you should check out WP:NOTNOTNOW. Did you mean WP:NOTQUITEYET? --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 12:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I agree that 18 months is enough, but I said barely because six months seems like yesterday to me. 12 months is my minimum to support, unless it's a really good candidate with a really good nominator and I might consider a newer person. I also agree the NOTQUITEYET essay is a better way of putting it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I'm going to add something to my oppose here after rereading the answers, so it doesn't just look like it's about hating all schoolblocks and the relatively short amount of time you have been an editor. Your answer to number 18 is not a deal breaker because it is certainly reasonable to block IPs in some circumstances, but you have outright said that you are not comfortable in making blocking decisions, and while it is laudable for you to admit that, it's not something I want to see in someone wanting to work AIV, hence WP:NOTQUITEYET. 19 is a hard fail for me because you are expecting something that is, in my opinion, unreasonable: you are looking for a shared IP to remain problem free which is highly unlikely to ever happen (especially one belonging to a school) unless the IP gets reassigned to a mail server or the institution blocks access to Wikipedia, and your response leads me to believe you are willing to discard valuable content creation in attempt to stop people from occasionally writing "poop" on articles (which is a losing battle, because people are always going to do that occasionally in a highly visited wiki). I too sometimes watch IPs and IP ranges that I know to generate occasional problems, and if it reaches a certain point, I'm not bashful about going to AIV about it or reporting the misbehavior to the IPs network administrator (particularly if it's really damaging misbehavior, like deliberately adding factual inaccuracies), but based on your admitted discomfort in making blocks, and how you have said you would respond IP misbehavior, I just don't think you are ready for the mop. Unless there is a serious turnaround in the voting, it looks like you are going to succeed though (and good for you), I just hope you remember the same WP:NETPOSITIVE that helped you win when making administrative decisions. I honestly do wish I could move to neutral, but I can't. Good luck! PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

   @PCHS-NJROTC: I respect your decision to disagree, I just wanted to clarify that I was uncomfortable with performing range blocks as IP ranges are not something I am familiar with at the moment and would defer while learning (more if possible). When it comes to specific IP addresses or other block decisions, I did not mean to imply I was uncomfortable with them. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but that actually makes my oppose even stronger. I'm going to try to not WP:BLUDGEON this, but for the purposes of explaining why, I work part time for a major corporation that employs about 87,000 people, and if I look at the /16 range belonging to the company, almost all of the editing comes from two IP addresses (the current one used by the stores, and the old one that used to be used by the stores). So even though it's just one IP, blocking it effects nearly as many potential editors as blocking the whole /16 range. Charlotte County Public Schools routes all of their outbound traffic through one IP as well, and I've seen larger districts do the same thing. In fact, while rangeblocks may seem more intimidating, putting a /22 schoolblock on Liberty University or even a /16 schoolblock on the University of Central Florida would affect less potential editors than a block on the one IP used by my employer, and in light of that, if you are uncomfortable implementing that kind of a block but okay with blocking one IP used by thousands of people, I can't support you at this time, sorry. But again, good luck! PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

   Just noting her that in my experience the majority of admins do not deal with rangeblocks, as we are advised to find someone who does know what they are doing and ask them to figure it out. I’ve been an admin since 2009 and have never done one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Really? Fair enough I suppose. Dealing with IP addresses is tricky in general. Some of them, like wireless and dial-up ISPs, are highly dynamic and anything other than a rangeblock won't stop someone from vandalizing, some are relatively dynamic and change occasionally (sometimes you have to rangeblock them if a determined troll keeps resetting their modem), some are pretty much static and the same family keeps the same IP for years, and others are static but represent thousands of people, and blocking them can effect more people than blocking some ranges. The worst part is trying to separate the good-faith edits from the bad-faith edits when several people are editing from the same IP or IP range, or trying to decide whether there's an actual pattern of activity (good, bad, or ugly) or if it's just lots of random incidents because the IP is used by a ton of people. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose. (Moved to "Neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)) Sadly, I have to be here for now. With my interactions with the nominee, the nominee obviously has the drive to help with administrative backlogs. However, they have also been pointed out a few times somewhat recently issues pertaining to how they have closed XfD discussions, either early or with errors in regards to perceiving consensus. If the nominee were to wait a year and get more involved with XfD boards with more non-admin closes without errors, I could see myself supporting. Steel1943 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Actually, upgrade me to a full "oppose" after reading SoWhy's nomination statement. The age of the "TheSandDoctor" account (1.5 years), plus The "...contacted me about my opinion regarding a run for adminship..." raises concerns that this editor may be "hat collecting". If this RfA doesn't pass, I would recommend that the nominee allow the account to age another year or so before inquiring about a possible run for adminship. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   (Struck out part of my statement I realized I don't even agree with, and was essentially a red herring to the point I was trying to make. My apologies for the confusion.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Also, see my next comment in the thread below why I consider this exclusive case of seeking nominators troubling. (Stand-alone, this comment makes no sense; I meant for it to be in compliment with my initial comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Steel1943: I usually try to avoid commenting at RFAs in which I nominated the candidate but I do feel like I have to clarify this: TSD contacted me for an independent evaluation of his contributions after another admin recommended he run for admin late last year (see his acceptance statement). He chose to ask me because I had no significant interactions with him before and thus was likely to be more objective than those admins who recommended he go for this RFA. I don't want to be accused of mischaracterizing your comment but it currently appears as if you fault the candidate for doing his due diligence and gathering more opinions before deciding. I don't know about you but I definitely want more admins that gather input before deciding. So I don't think the "hat collecting" is really correct, considering that TNT reached out to him about RFA more than half a year ago and he waited until now. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   This is normal and encouraged. We frown on self-noms generally as a community (which I think has some merit.) Let’s not start frowning on asking people to nominate you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   We shouldn't really be punishing people simply because they sought out adminship. All it shows to me is that the user is up to the challenge. We should really only take people on how they will benefit, and not how they applied. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I find it amazing how 3 editors have now misconstrued my comment, and thanks to an edit conflict, I lost my original response. My issue is not that the nominee approached other editors for nominations; that is just the icing on the cake for outlying issues that the nominee already has (IMO) that they have not spent enough time to correct yet. I feel as though this nominee has not spent enough time trying to correct and prove themselves above recent mistakes they have made in closing discussions in a non-admin capacity. In other words, I cannot provide trust of the admin tools to someone who too recently performed a series of somewhat sloppy judgement calls, has not spent enough time yet to rise above them, then asks the community and/or other editors for tools which they have yet to (IMO, again) prove themselves worthy of using. I feel that the nominee fails self-reflection in this regard. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Also, I think my use of the word "age" above was misconstrued. Yes, if an editor has a good track record at 1.5 years, they could potentially become an administrator. (When I said "age", the word I think I should have used was "wait" ... to get past recent issues I've seen.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Steel1943 This is not at all intended to be badgering, your opinion carries weight with me. I'm having trouble accessing the NAC link Serial Number 54129 kindly provided. Can you provide a few examples where you believe the candidate has judged AfD consensus incorrectly? Many thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   @78.26: No worries, and I did not assume any badgering with your inquiry. To answer your inquiry: the example that happened I can recall the most vividly was brought up on the nominee's talk page here. The nominee had performed a series of discussion closes at WP:RFD that were WP:IAR to a point where they were a bit problematic. Most of the closes were performed before the 7-day discussion period ended, and there was at least one additional example where the close was questionable in the nominee's assessment of the consensus. This string of closes happened in January 2018, so I must admit that my perception of "recent" may be a bit up to interpretation. Either way, I do agree with some of the "support"ers that the nominee does attempt to communicate with the community to resolve issues that arise from the nominee's actions. (Unfortunately I'm having issue right now locating specific diffs or examples of discussions which this occurred in January 2018, but I do recall wanting to bring this up on the nomimee's talk page as well. If I find any specific ones soon, I'll post diffs.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   It's not a diff, but this old revision from the RfD log page for January 10th shows the early closures that were later reverted after the referenced talk page discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7. Oppose How you accepted the nomination is telling to me. It appears you believe adminship is no big deal--nothing wrong with that. But Serial Numbers' and others' responses above show evidence perhaps of RfA padding and hat collecting. In other words, you do seem to care enough that you want to rush the process. Although adminship is no big deal, it also is not a race, and I do not feel comfortable supporting someone who may not truly be fully prepared for the tools.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Oppose per everyone above - They seem like a nice editor but like the above I too sense hat collecting here, Again I have to agree with the above the AFD !votes appear to have been done for the sake an RFA - They have participated in AFD since 2017 but March seemed to be their most participated month and then after that they pretty much stopped with AFD altogether
   Anyway my main issue is the tenure - Newbs here pick up things quicker than others granted but I feel it takes more than a year and half to know everything here, Personally right now I feel it's TOOSOON, My best advice if this is unsucessful is to work more on the CSDs and AFDs and perhaps retry in a few years. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per above and indeed below, but the clincher for me is what looks like a calculated attempt to game the system by manipulating AfD stats. That doesn’t sit well with me and while I could perhaps ignore it in someone who was in other respects an excellent candidate, in this case it pushes me over the line into oppose. Korruski^Talk 19:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
10. Oppose, per above and per review. Kierzek (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Oppose, IMO way too early to be an admin. Also because of the concerns raised above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    Are we seriously saying that 18 months is too early? This really is beyond belief for me. Again, I effectively passed RfA 8 months ago with basically 14 months of editing experience (I edited off and on for a bit over the past decade, but any look at my contributions will show I seriously started editing in August 2016.) BU Rob13, a current arb, passed in 2016 with 13 months experience. Look, I get concerns with the candidate: they aren’t perfect and they come off a bit young and like they were aiming for this, sure, but if those are the concerns, just say it. Don’t raise the bar from the current de facto standard of 12 months. That’s harmful to the process as a whole in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

12. Oppose per above. AfD stats seem inflated to the point of being contrived for the sake of RfA. Simple, straightforward acknowledgment of efforts to prove oneself before RfA would make it easier to trust. Hat collecting is an issue. Consulting with others to get feedback before RfA is fair, but drumming up support is another matter. The thing that concerns me most in terms of predicting how well this individual would use admin tools has to do with blocking decisions on school IP addresses. It's tricky, I know, but be careful. Individuals do not have to register to use Wikipedia. That's a long-standing principle here. Respect it. That goes back to attitude, which seems to suggest insufficient appreciation for the importance of admin status. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
13. Oppose, counterproductive. Colonestarrice (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Counterwhat?! Lourdes 06:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Colonestarrice, if you want your vote to be taken seriously, please read WP:RFAV and help maintain RfA as a drama-free place. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

14. Oppose While TheSandDoctor may turn out to be a perfectly good administrator, it is difficult to know in advance in someone who seems to have ordered their contributions to Wikipedia specifically with an RfA in mind. The "me too" approach to AfD is not impressive, but my main objection is in connection with the answers to questions, especially #3. This strikes me as an answer designed to tick all the right boxes rather than the candidate's genuine point of view. How can we entrust the mop to someone whose answers do not ring true? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    I do appreciate this which I feel explains more clearly than others what fears for the project arise from someone having done what’s asked of them too well (without that, comments just come across as IDONTLIKEIT). Still I don’t agree we don’t know the candidate's genuine point of view. Unless one had serious reason to believe a candidate were a bad actor, I feel like 18 months of closely learning and adhering to site culture is very much a specific personality/point of view—and, rather a good one for an admin. Would that all were so drama-free and committed to following community consensus! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

15. Oppose as per the reasons given above. I don't support self promotions based on resume padding so why should I do so in the WP world? To be honest, he seems like a very good editor, but I'm a bit weary of editors who come in and go with gusto and then want to be sysopped in a relatively short amount of time. Feels like someone who wants to get into a fraternity but doesn't want to pledge...can't do it.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 20:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Agreed. What makes TheSandDoctor so special he can get in when other people with comparable stats would get shown the door almost immediately? From the sounds of it, anyone could make an account, start using a bunch of automated tools, rack up a 5-figure edit count in just a year, and then become an admin, and that's not how the RfA process is supposed to work. 65HCA7 11:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    @65HCA7: Care to elaborate why that's not how the RfA process is supposed to work? After all, that's how RfA worked for many years. Not only myself but also a lot of highly respected and longstanding admins passed RFA under such conditions and the project would imho certainly have been worse off if they hadn't passed. Regards SoWhy 13:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I see where they are coming from. I get the vibe, based on the candidate's claim to have been IP editing since the late 2000s that this is a long term IP contributor who created an account specifically to become an administrator, which is fine except we have no way of evaluating those early edits since he hasn't told us what IPs he edited from (and for privacy reason, I would not expect him to do so). However, I also get the vibe he is telling us what he thinks the majority wants to hear because there is no way a long term IP editor is going to answer 19 the way he did unless the candidate has extremely poor judgement (look over the scenario closely, especially this part; it's a deliberately abnormal situation designed to assess whether the candidate will jump to a decision based on what normally happens, tell me what they think I want to hear without actually giving it much thought, or whether they will use common sense and see that it's not a typical situation), and that disturbs me. While determination isn't really a bad thing, it's almost like this guy has been through WP:Admin coaching at some point and knew how to create the perfect resume for RfA, and while I can't really say this candidate will do this (and certainly don't mean to imply in anyway that he will per WP:AGF), I can see a smart enough troll setting all of their ducks in a row like this to pass RfA as soon as possible and then getting revenge against everyone he or she had a beef with. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Yikes. Sorry, I don't usually badger the opposers, but this is somewhere between assuming bad faith and complete paranoia. You are taking one possible fact - that the candidate has padded their AfD stats - and are now arguing that they are a sock of a former contributor who may be trying to get adminship in order to get revenge on people? You have absolutely no evidence of that, and rest assured that if it's true, I (or any one of the ~50 people with the ability to do so) will very quickly remove the sysop bit from the candidate. If this were a request for rollback or pagemover, you would expect that someone would get experience in relevant areas before applying. But you have adminship on such a high pedestal that anyone who prepares for an RfA must be getting ready to conduct massive abuse. Please re-think the status that you are assuming comes with adminship. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    1) What ajr said (minus the pulling access bit as I’m not as special as him).

    2) @65HCA7: Can people just go ahead and say “He comes off a bit young.” rather than this bull that some how his numbers don’t add up. They do. He has 14 GAs, 18 months experience. his CSDs are fine, and save the padding issue his AfDs are well within the range we expect. Most other candidates with those stats would have significantly more support than he does. (Also, fwiw, I consider “comes off too young” to be a fine reason to oppose because it goes to temperament. I don’t think it applies in this case, but it’s a better reason than patently wrong claims about numbers) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    PCHS-NJROTC: My reasoning was along basically the exact same lines as what you just said, just to clear up confusion here. 65HCA7 20:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Age has nothing to do with it; he could proudly declare that he is a middle school kid and if his actions and answers passed the smell test I would support him. Heck, I'm not all that old myself. What pushed me into the oppose crowd was his answers to questions and for the record, I'm not saying he is a sock, but this guy has done almost exactly what is needed to be done to pass an RfA in a very short period of time (GA/FA participation: check, AfD participation: check, vandal patrol: check, lack of drama or fighting: check). It could be entirely innocent because he has stated on his user page that he has been around here since the late 2000s, so it is entirely plausible that he just decided he wanted to get into admin work, created an account, and knew enough about the RfA process to know what to do to pass it, I'm just curious what made him decide to do that. I don't think it really matters at this point, because short of him doing something really stupid (malicious or not) to cause a tidal wave of vote changes before the close of this RfA, this is almost certainly going to pass, and I offer him my congratulations on that, I'm just saying I can see where these people are coming from. I'm going to choose to think positively and say I'm sure he'll do well in the long run, and he or anyone else did turn out to have malicious intentions, it's not like even an administrator could permanently break the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Ajraddatz Yea sorry to sound rude here, that isn't my intention, but this site has for years been in rank denial about its egalitarianism. The fact is, like it or not, there is status attached to adminship. Admins have authority over non-admins. I started editing more than 10 years ago and took a break for a number of years (actually if you want full disclosure, so nobody tries to call me out, I was blocked. Then I showed I was reformed and was re-instated), and noticed many of the top administrators are the same people I knew and interacted with a decade ago. If an admin gets into it with a non-admin, the site consensus will almost always favour the admin. People's RFa's almost always succeed when other admins support them and almost always fail when it's vice versa, what does that tell you. And I get it, I know why it has to be that way on a site this big and with so much abuse. But there is a status and a responsibility and you have to ask who watches the watcher.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 03:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    There are all sorts of groups that watch the admins - ArbCom can investigate and desysop admins/CheckUsers/oversighters/bureaucrats, the Ombudsmen can investigate and recommend removal of CheckUsers and oversighters, and stewards (and bureaucrats for -sysop) can remove any permission in an emergency. These groups are either elected/confirmed on frequent basis, or appointed by the WMF and accountable to them. You're right that adminship has gained more of a status than it had in the early days, but I think the easiest way to get rid of the status is by making a lot more admins. Hard for something to be special when anyone can get it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    Arbcom is way up in the clouds relative to the average WP user. If an admin decided he wanted to give me a shakedown because maybe he didn't agree with my politics or otherwise didn't like my editing style and so-fourth, there'd be no way in hell I'd ever make myself heard to Arbcom or even Ombudsmen. The only significant case I can think of in which I remember an admin getting de-sysopped was Ryulong and that took forever, and we probably don't know the extent to which he was unfair to so many users. That said, I think it's analogous to politics in the US where everyone wants to pretend the US is classless and simultaneously becomes more stratified. Nobody says the answer to that is to have more politicians. Instead of growing the number of admins, maybe we should just admit this is a stratified site, embrace it, come to terms that the site couldn't function without the stratification and make the standards someone meets to become one tougher. Perhaps make admins have to re-new themselves at the end of terms, but that's totally out of the scope of anything I could suggest. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 06:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    EnglishEfternamn: I agree with you 100% on that. There is no doubt that there's a serious popularity contest involved in RfA - if people like you, they'll naturally be more likely to support you, and if you've made a long list of enemies over the years, more people are going to oppose you. (There are even a few people I've interacted with over the years with whom I don't or didn't get along, although I'd prefer not to state whom specifically.) I also agree with you on the authority comment - admins can block problematic users, which is often viewed and used as a punishment (which IMO it should be; blocking people willy-nilly or issuing "cool-down blocks" is completely unreasonable as they only exacerbate tensions and frustration), and they can delete and protect problematic pages, among other things that regular users can't do, and as a whole I consider them to be equivalent to the moderator role on other sites. (Although let's be honest, the word "administrator" also carries an authoritative sort of position; school administrators are the principal and other people in the office you have to be scared of. Just saying.) If adminship was truly "not a big deal" as was said by Jimbo himself circa 2003, we would have unbundled the tools by now or at least not allowed community standards to drift up to where they (this RfA seemingly excluded) have wound up to this day. But now in 2018 adminship is a huge deal, and as such I don't feel as though TSD is ready to take on that task quite yet, him/her reminding me a lot of myself circa early 2016, hence my oppose. 65HCA7 11:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    PCHS-NJROTC: This is exactly my point too. It doesn't matter if someone is a certain real-life age (and I, like many others, am pretty young myself). What matters is that they have proven that they are ready for the admin tools, can be trusted with them, and show that having the tools would be beneficial. I've got a nice page of standards in my userspace, and I take a lot of this into consideration whenever I vote at RfA. 65HCA7 11:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    At a company I worked for, one night it was just me and the owner at closing time, and I suggested that he make an 18 year old who was still in high school a manger. He agreed and she ended up being one of the most responsible managers in the business. At the same place, there was a person older than me who ended up getting fired for stealing, and now that person has a rap sheet for illegal drug use. So there's that, if it means anything. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

16. Oppose A number of reason, but basically too soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
17. Oppose. This RfA is going to pass, but I'm voting anyway. And, yes, I am voting mainly based on tenure because I do believe that 18 months is too soon for the role. I state this regardless of exceptions like TonyBallioni. Whether it's one year or two years, I do not think it's enough time for an editor to understand even half of what it takes to edit at Wikipedia. And that includes admins understanding certain rules, and what content editors go through...such as dealing with POV-pushers and/or those who game the system. A number of us are familiar with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, for example, and the diligent admins we have helping out with that sort of enforcement. I've been with Wikipedia since 2007, and even I was still editing like a newbie in some ways after two years. And I've seen long-term editors -- those who have been with this site for six or more years -- who don't have a good grasp on Wikipedia's rules. I've also seen newbie admins without a good grasp on Wikipedia's rules. TheSandDoctor does seem to have read up on the ways of Wikipedia; so I'll give him that. But it's not enough for me to put my faith in him as an admin at this point in time. Like others have noted, we do not yet know how he would react during a truly trying time. Yes, admins do not need to be perfect and they sometimes have learning to do. But in my experience, those who have been editing Wikipedia for a year or less almost always have an awful lot of learning to do with regard to editing here. There's nothing wrong with wanting more experienced admins.
    BU Rob13 has been mentioned. As BU Rob13 knows, I've never believed that he was a newbie. Regardless, I consider him an exception. During his RfA, Softlavender stated that his nine-month tenure was "simply too little experience for an editor, much less an adminstrator, to have a full or even moderately full grasp of the increasingly complex, increasingly large, increasingly byzantine, multi-layered system that Wikipedia has become. And accumulating 46,000 edits in nine months means 130 edits per day -- edits which are largely mindless automated edits (which, additionally, look like filler for editcountitis). One cannot learn the ins and out of Wikipedia by making 100+ mindless automated edits per day. Knowledge, understanding, and a feel for Wikipedia comes from being down in the trenches, doing long, slow, attention-intensive work, on a day-to-day basis -- and even that kind of work still requires at least two years of experience in my opinion before adminship should be broached. Nine months of tenure may have been adequate for adminship 10 years ago, but it is not enough today -- Wikipedia is a vastly, vastly different place. All of my interactions with Rob have to my knowledge been positive, but I must decline, and I recommend that if he truly wants to be an admin he give up automated and semi-automated edits entirely and give up 100+ edits per day, and spend long, slow, concentrated time where the rubber meets the road. That's what we need in an admin. I've seen too many fairly recently created admins with insufficient 'trenches' experience making too many poor judgments and rookie mistakes. I will cite NeilN as an example of an editor who knew Wikipedia inside and out years and years before he was nominated for adminship -- please take him as a role model. Best of luck." I feel similarly about TheSandDoctor's inexperience. And I liked that comment by Softlavender so much that it's linked to at the top of my user page and talk page (with Softlavender's knowledge that it's there). TheSandDoctor may prove me wrong when it comes to my concerns about his ability as an admin, but until then... Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Flyer22 Reborn: I'm not trying to badger you or anything but you might want to choose a better example than GamerGate. The ArbCom that investigated and decided the GamerGate case consisted mostly of admins who had (far) less or at most equal tenure than TSD did when they passed RFA, i.e. Newyorkbrad (started editing actively in June 2006, passed RFA Jan 2007), Courcelles (started editing acitvely in Nov 2009, passed RFA May 2010), GorillaWarfare (started actively editing in Oct 2009, passed RFA Aug 2010), Salvio giuliano (first edit Dec 2009, passed RFA Apr 2011), Roger Davies (started active editing Apr 2007, passed RFA Jan 2008), DGG (first edit Sep 2006, passed RFA May 2007), Euryalus (first edit Apr 2007, passed RFA Nov 2008), NativeForeigner (resumed actively editing Dec 2009 after two year almost-break, passed RFA Jun 2010), Timotheus Canens (actively editing since Aug 2008, passed RFA Mar 2010) and Seraphimblade (first edit Mar 2005, actively editing since Sep 2006, passed RFA Mar 2007) (or, 10 out of 14 members). I know there is a claim that Wikipedia today is "vastly" different than it was ten years ago but on the other hand, almost all major policies and guidelines existed in 2008 already, so you might want to elaborate on that (Softlavender didn't). Regards SoWhy 13:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

    Nope, I stand by my entire comment. Like Softlavender, you and many others have stated, Wikipedia (including adminship) today is vastly different than it was ten years ago. It's not a claim. And I have nothing to elaborate on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

    Oh, and all of those admins had years of experience before handling GamerGate. And GamerGate issues, which are not all specific to GamerGate, are still happening today. Those admins clearly got most of their experience after adminship. But again, things were different back then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

18. Oppose. Lack of experience combined with stats-padding. Endorse Flyer's comment above. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for the time being until I complete my analysis. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 22:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

   My analysis is done, but I'm still on the fence. I like the candidate: he's earnest, he's got a clue, and he knows that sometimes he doesn't know things. (Those are all good, by the way.) I can't find many, or major, issues of controversy with which he's been involved that would tarnish our good name if he became an administrator; there's clearly a demonstrated need (but, then again, we always have a bit of a backlog with CSD and NPP), though I hope he'll focus on vandalism a bit more, too; and his edits are sufficiently varied such that I cannot oppose on that regard. I'm also impressed by some 23 000 edits in the past year and a half.

   But there are some issues: I am, admittedly, naturally reluctant to support any candidate; nor can I quite shake this feeling of possible hat-collecting, and (while it's technically not one of my objections), well, I'm slightly perturbed by the length of time the candidate has been editing. (As a point of comparison, I returned to Wikipedia only a month after the candidate did.)

   Moreover, I'm troubled by the response to Question 18. Without getting too specific, suffice it to say that one of my schools (many years ago now) was on the wrong side of a soft IP address block, if I recall correctly, and it hampered a willing contributor (that'd be yours truly) greatly, as school was the only place I could access the Internet at the time. Granted, it was years ago now, I could be mistaken about the circumstances, and I'm somewhat heartened by the responses to 18 and 19, but the follow-up to PCHS-NJROTC fills me with consternation all the same.

   But I digress: my objections do not rise to the level of opposition that would make me vote "nay". Suffice it to say that I believe this candidate will pass, and I think he'll be a fine administrator, a net positive to the team, and judicious with his edits and blocks (as any admin should be). But, at this time, I cannot vote aye or nay for him; in short, my vote remains neutral to the end. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 02:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral I was typing out a support, largely based on SoWhy and Mz7’s reputations. I’m not really familiar with the candidate (which like SoWhy says, is not a bad thing, being on my radar for RfA is not always good, even though I have pretty lax standards.) The one thing that concerned me is that I like to see how the user interacts in project space: it’s the easiest way to test both “have a clue” and “not a jerk”. Since most of their experience here seems to be in AfD I just randomly clicked about 10 AfDs in their log while looking through it on my phone. While they can give policy based arguments, my impression based on a random sampling is that most of their AfD participation was padding for an RfA. They certainly do get policy and can justify themselves if pushed, but it’s enough of a concern for me on the “have a clue” bit of my criteria that combined with my not being that familiar with them pushes me to neutral. If this sounds an awful lot like an oppose, well, maybe, but really, adminship is technically just advanced twinkle. TSD doesn’t seem to be a jerk, and I don’t expect he’d ever abuse the tools. I just don’t see enough independent thought in most of the AfDs I looked at to personally feel comfortable supporting. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

2. User:Ramirabayah, User:Roohaani/Technology, User:JohnMKingIV/John McCandish King - Legendary Oil Wildcatter and Financier. Each of these were genuine attempts at articles created in the draft namespace, which the candidate userfied and then immediately tagged U5. (It's immaterial that they were genuinely awful attempts at articles and were correctly speedied as overtly promotional.) They were admittedly a fairly long time ago, which is why I'm not opposing outright. —Cryptic 06:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Neutral . Unusually, for the second time in a row I'm on the fence at a RfA. The candidate meets all the 'strict' criteria on my 'laundry list' with ease thus proving that despite the relatively short tenure, they are not as difficult to meet as some RFA detractors might claim. However, two issues give me pause: one is the way in which they sailed rapidly through the list of minor rights acquiring them all; the other is that after checking the last 40 or so AfD participations I find that his votes are almost always either the last or the penultimate one after the outcome is fairly clearly established already. I'm not going to be accused of bad faith by spelling out my concerns, but it's enough to put to me in the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral pending a response to my question. Question answered - see comment below (duplicated in new position) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Hi TheSandDoctor. In response to the comments I would say that I do find a lack of taking the plunge in AfDs a weakness - the first 2/3 !votes set out two things: demonstrable evidence that you know policy on your own and a willingness to make decisions that others may disagree with.

   That said, that might be a weakness that TSD has but it is a small one even when applied to other actions (block discussions etc) - it reduces several positives but by it's nature is unlikely to be a major negative. Far more importantly, my AfD basis is a net positive: TSD doesn't seem likely to bring any negatives as an admin and both in "regular" duties and with bot expertise there are significant positives to be gained. I think he will make a good adminNosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

4. Neutral It's nice to see a lack of pointless opposes based on arbitrary numbers that editors pluck out of thin air (I'm sure that'll come) but I'm not sure if I can support yet. While I genuinely do respect the opinions of the nominators (to the extent that I'd normally support just because they'd nominated), I also respect the concerns of those who have identified issues. In particular I'd like to see how Nosebagbear's question is responded to. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for correcting whose question it was Exemplo347 (I was a scratching my head trying to find where Kudpung had asked something, thinking I'd missed it). I already did answer Nosebagbear's question? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   This is what happens when editing is combined with cooking! What I meant to put was "see how Nosebagbear responds to the answer" - if it's any consolation, I also messed up the recipe (but I was able to salvage it!). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)TheSandDoctor, the question by Nosebagbear was posed after my neutral vote and was based on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Hi Exemplo347 - seem to slightly botched my wikitext on my pinging, my answer to the answer is above (already posted it twice, so I won't clog the RfA up any more by reposting :) Nosebagbear (talk)

   Neutral - Awaiting response to questions. Leaning Support Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm going to put myself here, for now. While I am appreciative of the candidate's contributions, I find myself at least somewhat concerned with the fact that - as I understand the nom statements - they approached other editors about submitting a nomination. In a perfect world, I would rather see other editors go to a potential candidate and inquire as to their interest in getting the mop. I'm going to spend a bit more time with this one to consider my vote, but I wouldn't see it as a net negative if this request were to succeed. Strikerforce^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Striking, per clarification by SoWhy below. Will move to Support. Strikerforce^Talk 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Strikerforce: See my comment to Steel1943 above (oppose #7). TSD did not reach out to me for a nom, just vetting after TNT suggested they run for admin. So this was actually a case where another editor (TNT) went to the potential candidate. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Also, SoWhy, even if they had reached out to you for a nom, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. We have an entire page devoted to that. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I was not saying that. In fact, you will find my name on said page. I just wanted to point out that in this case, this was not what happened. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I know you weren't. I was pointing it out for the benefit of others TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

5. Leaning oppose. I need to look further, but Q1 makes me queasy, Q3 needs substance, and the distribution doesn't help. I'm debating whether Q17 should be a fast fail. Glrx (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I'm debating whether Q17 should be a fast fail. please enlighten us as to how you think the answer to Q17 is a "fast fail"? - TNT^❤ 16:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   No need to be snarky, but I agree extraordinary claims needs to be elaborated. I think it was a good answer, but it could have been better; such as mentioning assessing the strength of arguments in situations involving WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, as "general agreement" is not always going to be reached. Alex Shih (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

   Almost all answers could be better. Good enough should be the bar, and I think this one was good enough. If one wants further elaboration, clarification or detail, ask for it, and consider whether the original question specified what you are looking for. Sometimes it is the question that is at fault, when the answer is not what you wanted. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

   I believe that the answer to Q17 is OK, but consensus in general is not about agreement, it's about finding an acceptable approach based on the participants' concerns. Acceptance is not the same as agreement, and rarely is general agreement ever found; instead, consensus is about seeking a solution that everyone can accept (i.e., not object to). I want to see more of an answer than "general agreement". Esquivalience (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

6. Neutral. (Moved from "Oppose".) After giving it some consideration, and reading some of the other participants' comments, I'm moving into the "neutral" camp. Specifically, after reading 78.26's comment in the "Support" section, they voiced almost all concerns that I noticed myself, but evaluated the information and ended up with the conclusion to support; that conclusion struck a cord with me. However, since I still am in the belief that the nominee has not gained enough experience with discussion closes since what happened in January 2018, I cannot put myself in the "support" column, but I'm in the mind at this point to not let that belief counteract the well-intended support for the nominee that I see. Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Neutral. While I don't think TheSandDoctor would necessarily be a net negative to the project, the issues raised by SerialNumber54129 are too much for me to ignore. Natureium (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Neutral. I've been back and forth on this all week. Great contributor, but there are just a couple of (very small) red flags for me - I guess that leaves me here. Looks like this will pass anyway, so good luck TSD! — sparklism ^hey! 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Can't see a reason to support and can't see a reason to oppose, so I'm here as a neutral. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

General comments

• Has anyone else noticed, based on the candidate's answer to question 13 (apparently he was in high school in 2015) and the statement on his user page that he was editing as an IP in the late 2000s, that this guy was apparently no older than seventh grade when he started editing Wikipedia? Kind of impressive in a way, but it's too bad we have no way of verifying this or evaluating the edits to count it as tenure. I vaguely remember clicking the "edit this page" button around that age once with the intentions of fixing something, but I was too afraid I would mess up the page so I clicked out of it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it matters. One of the comments from my RfA that I got off-wiki was that people were shocked that I was a younger teenager a decade ago (and thus that I am currently only in my mid-20s). People edit at whatever age. Their contributions are what matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, doesn't matter. Most age-related concerns at RfA are pointless, as the candidate's contributions can speak for themselves, and especially online age isn't a good proxy for much once you clear certain barriers. As for you, Tony, I am shocked to realize you were younger ten years ago! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • • Amory, I’m actually a perpetual 20-something. Don’t tell anyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
        • You'll be saying that when you die at the ripe old age of 39. When I get my license renewed, I'll be sure to opt out from this DOB stuff and just go for 28. We should have an article somewhere on which 20 is the best 20. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm 26, and I started editing Wikipedia when I was fifteen (hence why my username references my high school). It doesn't really matter, I just thought it was interesting. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
            • I made about 1000 edits when I was 14 or 15, and then abandoned the account when I came back because it was scarily easy to identify me based on the combination of articles I edited back then. While I wasn't unproductive, I was probably unwise. Natureium (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm 19 right now. My first edits six years ago were really childish, and that will probably be used against me if I decide to run for anything (heh). (Heck, it's even described in the New York Times!) In any case I think it's maturity that matters more than the physical age. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: 20 myself. That is cool that you were featured in the NYT. That doesn't happen every day. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh. I made my first edits (also from IPs) in what is normally considered primary school. ansh666 08:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hah, I made my first edits from the womb :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Amorymeltzer, TonyBallioni said they were a younger teenager a decade ago. Why did no-one tell me there were these bonus years I could access between nineteen and twenty to extend my teenage-ship?! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Drifting dangerously off-topic, but that's technically possible nowadays, if someone's mother edited Wikipedia while they were in the womb, and they're now old enough (max age would be about 16-17, which isn't too unusual). All of that simply to say that age doesn't really matter as long as maturity is evident, as best shown by Tony and me. ansh666 20:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Best shown by tony and me" Proud much? Paging Hijiri88. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't saying that we are, just that enough people thought that we are. ansh666 03:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

---

• Interesting (and good) to see so many questions, which generally read as positive. The last few serious RfAs have an average of 17 or so questions, so 28 within 60 hours is a pretty quick pace. So long as they're on pace questions I see it as a major positive to have so many people asking questions - it makes a pleasant difference from the avalanche of per X !votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be really good if so many of them weren't variants of "Do you support my extreme-minority pet cause? Well, WHY NOT YOU EVIL PUPPYKICKER?" —Cryptic 09:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • It is more a couple of the odder hypotheticals that seem an odd contribution. There actually seem fewer truly niche questions that are actually unhelpful than we've seen in others. [Not any more] Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • *cough* username questions *cough* –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to name which ones out of respect for the Wikipedians who asked them, but some of the questions are right up there with "what if your underwear caught on fire while you were editing?" PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, we are distinctly reaching hypotheticals begatting hypotheticals territory. Nosebagbear (talk)
          • What's hypothetical about spontaneous undergarment combustions (SUC)? That's a serious problem and you shouldn't make light of it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Like Stop, drop and roll these hypotheticals only seem like good practice until it really happens and you panic while surrounded by the laughing bystanders you called your friends Nosebagbear (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I'm beginning to think we should run RfA candidates through CheckUser to look for obvious signs of bad news, kind of like how employers run background checks on applicants. CheckUsers participating in this should be those with extremely good judgement, (which hopefully all of our CheckUsers have that anyway) should privately ask candidates about anything suspicious looking before failing them, and and shouldn't disclose any information obtained through the process, but should indicate pass or fail on the candidate's RfA page. Granted it's not fool proof, granted it won't catch everything, and granted it may dig up things that aren't what they appear, but just like employment background checks, it would weed out obvious problems. While I couldn't support this candidate anyway because I don't trust his judgement, we've had sockmasters try RfA before, and while that one didn't get very far, it's not that much of a stretch to think that a smarter person could game the system with RfA being seemingly more lax than it was in days past, and if I were leaning support on this one, I would feel much more comfortable supporting him if I knew we're not dealing with someone with an extensive block log under another identity since this is admittedly someone who has been around almost a decade and only recently created this account. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't checkuser only go back 90 days? Natureium (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, at least on another wiki where I have CheckUser access. However, that's something that could technically be changed. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFISHING would be relevant here. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) That sounds like a huge AGF violation but more importantly, like a fishing expedition. Checks on request by a user on themselves (which this would essentially be) are not allowed under current policy (see Wikipedia:CheckUser#Grounds for checking) and would also violate the Foundation's pricacy policy. That you had to go back to 2006 to find an RFA by a sockmaster is telling as well. Plus, what would really be the point of "gaming the system" here? Would a smart troll really invest more than a year to build a profile that could pass RFA just to go on a rampage that will certainly see them blocked within minutes? That does not really sound "smart" to me. There are sooo many ways (WP:BEANS) to disrupt Wikipedia without admin tools and so few with them, considering that new admins are usually closely watched for weeks and months.

On side note, please forgive me for laughing out loud at with RfA being seemingly more lax than it was in days past. RFA is fast stricter these days than it has been "in days past". I certainly would not pass RFA based on the record I had when I ran and I assume many others from that time would neither. And still neither they nor I have blown up the project so far. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We have had socks of banned editors get all the way through successful RfAs before, for what it's worth. But I'm not sure we would get much done at RfA if we spent all of our time thinking about that rather than the known edit history of the candidate in front of us. Dekimasuよ! 19:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not to get too far into beans territory here - but Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust either. If you've got it together enough to pass an RFA as a sock / troll, CU's probably not going to be a terribly useful tool. SQL^{Query me!} 22:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I shouldn't have even suggested it because the suggestion is never going to be implemented unless this kind of thing becomes a serious problem here. I'm also sorry to the candidate if this was construed as an accusation that he is a sockpuppet because that's not what I was intending. Congrats on passing, because it looks like this RfA will be successful! PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.