Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Basalisk

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

Basalisk

Final (64/17/6); ended 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

I am happy to present Basalisk for your admin consideration. He isn't a flashy guy, but he has managed to rack up over 6,000 edits, making improvements all over Wikipedia. He is a doctor, and having another admin with a highly technical and medical background is surely a good thing. Like many of my fellow admin, he spends more time fixing articles rather than creating new ones. My number one criteria has always been a good demeanor and a willingness to help others, and Basalisk easily qualifies. He has a good mix of article, talk and Wikispace edits, and good all around experience. He is smart, has a level head and a mature attitude, and I have no doubt he will make excellent use of the tools, helping others, and serving the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Co-Nomination

I am delighted to co-nom this user: I recently offered to nominate him, but am equally happy to comment here. Basalisk came to my attention some little time ago in CSD and in AIV, with an exemplary crop of nominations which showed a good understanding of the policies and guidelines relating to thee pages. He is also a good and sensible article editor. As Dennis says in his nomination this editor is a medical practitioner, which suggests a degree of level-headedness and willingness and ability to be helpful, and this is refected in his edits. I am very certain that he will make a great and dedicated admin, and I sincerely hope that the community will give him the opportunity to do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words. I accept. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:11, 16 November 2012 (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: The only area in which I can say I will work immediately is CSD, though with a little more experience I eventually intend to help at AfD too. I feel that I'm ready to review speedy deletion candidates and have shown decent judgement in nominations myself, though I would also point out that my threshold to nominate for deletion as a patroller is obviously lower than it would be to delete as an admin. I also intend to work reducing backlogs such as RfC closures and at AN/I, where response times are usually good but can occasionally lag as the current group of admins becomes overloaded with work.

I am a doctor and member of the medicine wikiproject. I'm not particularly active there but I do monitor the talk page, and administrative intervention is often required at that page to prevent spam and self-promoting quackeries. Though wikipedia has a medical disclaimer, I suspect that many readers still use it as a medical reference, and it is important that we prevent parties with a conflict of interest from detracting from the quality of wikipedia's medical articles.

Finally, I'm in the process of applying to become a trainee clerk at SPI; another wikipedia venue which is often badly backlogged. Whilst it is not necessary to be an administrator to become a clerk, having access to the administrative tools can speed up the process at SPI, as many cases can be dealt with before one of the small band of CheckUsers has time to review the case.

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

A: I'm not a huge content creator, and I recognise that this will be an issue for many participants here. However, I feel that I do other good work and have other things to offer to the project. Most of my contributions in article space are cleanup orientated, such as copyediting, and gnomish tasks such as fixing reference formats and removing external links. I have a few short articles, such as Elective (medical) to my credit.

Apart from that, I think my best contributions to wikipedia have been through new page patrolling, both in terms of general cleanup to bring new articles up to a basic standard, and in CSD nominations. I know how sceptical some editors are about those of us who work in deletion-heavy areas, but diligence in screening new additions to the encyclopaedia is really important in preventing wikipedia becoming a collection of advertisements and worthless information.

Overall, I hope that I've done enough to demonstrate to the community that I can be trusted not to misuse any of the tools.

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: The only significant dispute I've had with a single other editor was with User:Rinpoche. This user turned out to be a serial sock master who I initially bumped heads with over the use of an image on the Major Depressive Disorder article. I wasn't the only person who had problems with this editor, and he is now community banned and has a LTA page to his name. The whole affair taught me that it is often best not to respond to goading, and that a cool head or even silence are usually the best approach.

There have been other minor disputes but I wouldn't say any of them escalated, and I've learned that rational, concise and open-minded discussion, even in the face of hostility, often avoid the need for formal dispute resolution.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 4. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: First and foremost, when considering blocks, I would consider myself to be involved if I have ever had anything that could be construed as a dispute with that editor (this doesn't include prior disputes in which my actions were purely administrative, such as protecting a page on which he was edit warring). In particular, if I've ever been in a content dispute with the editor it would never be appropriate to block, unless the case was completely obvious and entirely uncontroversial (such as in the case of blatant mass vandalism or copyvios).

When deciding whether or not to protect/unprotect a page, I would generally consider myself involved if a) I've ever been involved in a content discussion on the talk page; or b) the material being edit-warred over could be loosely construed as related to content I'd previously worked on within the article, as this could lead to accusations of bias over which revision I preserved. I do not believe myself to be "involved" (in the administrative sense) in every article I have ever edited. Again, the above applies except when the action is obvious, such as to protect an article from mass IP vandalism or a 4chan raid or something like that.

Overall, the definition of "involved" tends to be broadly interpreted, and so if in any doubt I would hand the issue over to another admin.

• 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A: In a word, cautiously. WP:IAR is an important concept when another editor is blatantly misusing the letter of a rule in order to break the spirit, or damage the encyclopaedia as a whole. IAR is also important when exploring new situations and contexts which have not arisen previously, as the application of old rules to new scenarios doesn't always work. Overall, the most important prerequisite when ignoring a rule is that you fully and demonstrably understand it first, and the reasoning behind why the rule exists.

It is important to recognise that the rules of wikipedia do not set unbreakable precedents or create immortal statute. The rules simply outline consensus that has already been previously reached via discussion and consensus, and as consensus can change, so can the rules. Ultimately, the rules should not prevent you from attempting, in good faith, to improve the encyclopaedia.

Being bold, in my opinion, is useful in two situations:

1. When making a drastic change to a piece of content which has become the subject of a dispute which has reached stalemate. Sometimes, one editor attempting to re-write a controversial section can hit the nail on the head and end the conflict.
2. More commonly, when making a change or adding content over which no previous consensus has developed/which has not been discussed before, or where there is good reason to believe consensus may have changed.

In these two situations, being bold is to be encouraged. However, in my time here I have usually come to regard undiscussed editing contrary to a clearly and recently defined consensus as disruptive. I do not consider this kind of editing to be the good type of "bold editing".

Finally, there are some special areas of wikipedia, many of which are subject to discretionary sanctions, in which bold editing is often risky. A good example would be articles related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. In these areas, discussion is always advisable before making major changes.

The crucial difference between the two cases above are the differences in the WP:BRD cycle. In the first case, where bold editing is best, changes should be made first and discussion can happen later. In the second case, discussion should probably happen first.

• 6. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: When determining consensus, it is important to remember that discussions are not polls, and that raw head counts aren't hugely helpful. Administrators should try to remember that the required standard is rough consensus, and try to avoid defaulting to a no consensus decision if possible.

In terms of the process I would employ, I would read through the discussion, discarding !votes which provide no rationale, or provide rationales which are not based on policy, are clearly fallacious, or are based purely on personal opinion.

For the arguments which remain, I would use my judgement and apply weight to each of the arguments, a process which can be roughly illustrated by this argument pyramid. I would also be looking for participants in the discussion who changed their minds, and why - a clear shift of opinions towards one particular position may be important. If one position clearly has more weight than the other(s), then rough consensus has been achieved.

Most importantly, the closing administrator's own opinion on the best outcome should play no part in the process. Administrators must be able to enact a final decision with which they personally disagree, if that is what consensus shows.

DRV operates much like a court of appeal, in that the purpose of discussion there is to determine whether there was a procedural fault with the closing of the initial deletion discussion, and not to simply re-start or extend the original deletion discussion.

Finally, at venues such as RM there may be other specific, context-sensitive policies to consider, such as WP:COMMONNAME, or other factors to consider, such as existing editing restrictions for RfC/U's.

• 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Firstly I'd want to see what was happening for myself. I would check the article to see what the core of the dispute was, and check the article and relevant user talk pages to see how much discussion had already taken place, and how many, if any, warnings had been given. There may even be a clear previous consensus.

If the situation was as simple as described in the question - just two usually constructive editors warring over a specific issue - I would warn both editors not to edit war and to engage in discussion on the talk page. If there was no discussion ongoing, I would begin it and encourage both to participate. If warring continued regardless, temporary blocks may be called for.

If the situation was more complicated, and involved several editors with various points of view edit warring, then temporary full protection would probably be needed, which may force the involved parties into discussion. If I did protect the page I would attempt to find a reversion from before the edit war (if it had a distinguishable start point) and revert to that revision. Otherwise, I would simply protect the latest revision, provided it did not contain serious problematic content such as copyright violations, BLP violations or vandalism.

In the case of there being one editor clearly adding vandalism, copyvios etc. or warring against consensus with a large group of other editors, I would probably issue a short block with a warning that further warring would lead to longer blocks.

If none of this yielded results, I would proceed to formal dispute resolution.

• 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: Because I honestly believe that the greatest contributions I can make to the project, according to what I believe to be my personal strengths and weaknesses, are in areas which require use of the administrative tool pack. I love wikipedia; I read it incessantly for years before it occurred to me that I could contribute, and this is how I believe I can help best.

Additional questions from Hahc21

9. You expressed above that you'd like to work at AFD in the future. Now, how much knowledge [related to AFD] do you consider to have and give a brief description on how consensus is reached/asserted at AFD when closing discussions.

A: I think the answer to this question has already been provided in question 6, as I think your question is about how administrators work at AfD. If you want me to answer based on how editors should discuss and nominate, let me know and I'll get back to you.

10. Additionally, as you will work at CSD. Explain, in your own words, which is the main difference between CSD and AFD, and how would you determine the bright line between when to tag an article for CSD and when for AFD, aside from the already established criteria?

A: From a technical standpoint, CSDs are much more restrictive than AfDs. Only certain types of page/article subjects qualify for potential speedy deletion, and so this is the first thing to check. CSD nominations should require no research to verify. If an article qualifies for speedy deletion, then it should be deleted based on nothing but its own testimony - even if everything the article claimed was true, the subject still wouldn't be appropriate for a stand-alone wikipedia article. With CSDs, the crucial factor is a claim of significance. If none is made, the article should be speedy deleted. For example, if an article is created about a 19 year-old high school student from Delhi, which contains nothing but his name and grades from school this year, then it should be deleted even if the information it contains is correct, as there is no claim of importance in the article. If a reasonable claim of importance is made, and doubts still remain about notability, the article cannot be speedy deleted, and must go to AfD instead.

There are other criteria which are generally more straightforward, such as obvious copyright infringements and attack pages. Pages with no content or insufficient context are also fairly easy to recognise, but should be given a little more time to develop under the author before being deleted.

AfD is a far more complex process. The crucial difference from an administrative point of view is that in CSDs the admin is judging the content, whereas with AfDs they are judging consensus. I have discussed that process in detail above.

Additional question from My76Strat

11. Please tell me why wp:csd is the admin niche you expressed most interested in? I ask this with utmost respect, as I believe you are far more "fully qualified"; and capable! of contributing as much more of a benefactor.

A: Apologies for the delay in replying. If I had to say one way or the other, I would say I lean towards immediatism on the immediatist-eventualist scale, despite the fact that there is no time limit. I enjoy the process of screening new articles and weeding out the ones that shouldn't be here. For the multitude of new articles which are appropriate, I get a real kick out of copyediting them, cleaning them up and bringing them up to a basic standard for specialist contend editors to work on (I liken this to working in an emergency department in a hospital. I also enjoy lending my skills and knowledge of wikipedia to new users who have the knowledge about the subject, but don't know how to format an article properly. I know you asked about CSD specifically, but that's really only one half of what I enjoy about new page patrolling. I've only placed particular emphasis on this nomination because reviewing CSD candidates is an admin job, where as to carry on bringing new articles up to scratch I don't need new tools.

Additional question from Berean Hunter

12. After you have requested checkuser in an SPI case, the checkuser confirms socking and blocks the sock and master indefinitely. You see the master (who was never previously blocked) file an unblock request where he acknowledges what he did wrong and promises that he will never do it again. He promises that he will only make good contributions from now on and will not cause any problems. Do you accept or decline his request and what is your rationale?

A: I wouldn't be happy to reverse a block made by a CheckUser before talking to him first. Generally speaking, master accounts aren't indefinitely blocked for the first offence. It could be that the CheckUser indef blocked in error, or it could be that they have access to sensitive information that they can't disclose, on the basis of which they decided an indefinite block was appropriate. In the case of the latter, I can't possibly come to a sound decision about whether or not an unblock is appropriate without discussing it with the CheckUser, and so I wouldn't unblock (even though blocks are preventative and the user has promised to cease disruption).

Additional question from Begoon

13. Following on from a comment in the oppose section: are you able to give some background on this discussion on your talk page? Some of the comments in that discussion seem a little pointed and barbed on both sides, for instance: "whatever else you call it in your own little world" and "Bollocks, you just made it up and chucked in the article, as usual. Stop doing that." I'm sure there is more to this than meets the eye, but on the face of it, it isn't a very pleasing exchange.

A: Thanks for giving me a chance to explain this. This isn't the first time I've interacted with MarkMysoe. If I remember correctly, I believe this was my first comment on his talk page, and I think that's reflective of the way I interact with other editors in general. The background to this discussion is that Mark has a habit of adding phoney references to the Kevin-Prince Boateng article - usually adding magazine-esque material which contains a lot of puffery about his playing style or abilities as a player, which is sourced, but when checked the source is just a squad profile with his photo and squad number, or something like that. He often does so under false edit summaries and marks his edits as minor. I find this particularly damaging to the content of the encyclopaedia, and is probably clear by now my greatest drive in working on this project is protecting it from low-grade content. This is not the only example of this type of dispute Mark has been involved in. I feel fairly confident in saying that every comment I've made which sounds crass, such as the ones you've quoted above, has been made before in a more level-headed way, though it would also be true to say this isn't the first time I've gotten frustrated with him. Unfortunately, there are times in life when people do not listen to gentle advice, and will only take help on board when it is said more forcefully. Not every dispute can be solved with a smile and a cup of tea.

Though the way Mark and I interact may seem prickly and sub-optimal, it is not dysfunctional - despite our differences and our style of communication with each other we have actually been able to work out this dispute. We've never sparked an edit war, or required a third opinion or any kind of mediation because, despite the language we use, ultimately we're able to come to compromises and have a healthy level of respect for each other. The language may look colourful, but it's worked for us in this one particular instance. I'd also like to point out that, whilst I've grown frustrated with some patterns in his editing, I've never actually insulted him or even dragged him to AN/I or anything like that, and even during the most heated exchanges I've always tried to keep things cool. I feel this has actually caused the project far less trouble than the weekly disputes between editors who are perfectly parliamentarian in their language superficially, but underneath are totally unwilling enter a dispute with an open mind and call in the cavalry on a noticeboard.

Finally, I'd just like to re-iterate that this exchange is an exception. It is not reflective of the way I interact with others generally, even in dispute with them. I think my talk page history supports that.

Additional question from Bbb23

14. Several editors have commented on your edit count. I'd like to focus a bit more deeply on your edit history and pattern. You didn't edit much until September 2011. Any reason why things changed that month? Then you began editing, but not, in my view, particularly high numbers, mostly below 500 edits per month. Any reason why your edit counts are not that high even in the last year? Your editing pattern is mostly uniform in that you edit articles less than the typical editor; instead, your edit distribution indicates that you are equally interested in talk and Wikipedia pages. That's not necessarily a bad attribute for an admin (although some might disagree with me), but, again, is there a reason why you edit in those areas? Finally, even in the past year you had three months where your edit count fell well below 100 (February, March, and August). Why is that? Although I know I concentrate a lot on numbers/statistics in this long-winded question, my real interest is to try to illuminate how committed your are to Wikipedia and what really grabs you, as an editor and as a future admin.

A: Oddly enough, I think I managed to stumble across one of the wp pages in September 2011; I think it may even have been AN/I. As I've already stated, I've always loved wikipedia and used to spend hours reading and following odd-sounding links, but when I stumbled into the wp namespace, it was only then that I realised that there was an intricate community of people working behind the scenes to make it all possible. I wanted to be a part of that. Obviously I always knew that wikipedia was written by the general public, but I think before I discovered the people behind wikipedia, it all seemed a bit distant and inaccessible.

In terms of my editing numbers, I think the answer is the boring (but genuine) one that I'm a busy person in real life. Since September 2011 I have revised for and sat medical school final exams, moved 200 miles to a new city and spent months in the third world. I actually think that 6000 edits since then represents a significant commitment to the project from someone who is busy in the real world.

Which brings me neatly to the quiet months you mention. During the months of February and March I was in Tanzania on my elective. Even then I managed to edit a bit! I graduated in June and started my first job on the 27th July. I'm sure you can understand that the first month of the first-ever job of a newly qualified doctor can be a stressful time, and everything in my life that wasn't work stopped for a few weeks. Again, I think it shows good commitment to the project that I am gradually setting more time aside for editing again. Indeed, I started thinking about RfA properly once I'd come the decision that I wanted to carry on contributing to wikipedia despite my new busier schedule.

In terms of where I do my editing, I don't think it's surprising that I make a large proportion of edits in the talk and wikipedia namespaces, seeing as it was those pages which first drew me to participate in the project,. In addition, as I have already stated, I don't consider writing articles to be my biggest strength. I enjoy it and am committed to improving, but I think the best things I have to offer are in areas which require good judgement and a cool head. I enjoy being involved in the community process and being in discussion with others, and I think that is why I am drawn to such areas.

Additional question from DGG

15.Would you please comment on your following speedy deletion nominations that were challenged by other editors (I link to the state of the articles at the time you tagged them) I am not asking

A. Kuppanatham Dam

B. Greycaps India

C. Claire Fryer

D. SkillPages

E. Hyrbyair Marri

F. ATOL 495

G. Dandapāni

H. Karysun / Year of No Light

A: I'll have to make this quick, as it's 08:00 here, I have work today and the process is likely to be closed by the time I return to my computer. If you're simply looking for me to admit that I've made bad calls, I can make that admission right now - these were all bad calls. I do make some.

A - Bad call. From a tranche of bad calls I made in January about similar articles. I'd been new page patrolling for about a month and didn't really understand the CSD criteria at that point.

B - Weak article, but in retrospect its claim that the subject is the "second largest" of it's kind in India is a claim to significance. Shouldn't have tagged.

C - my rationale at the time for this one was that, in the absence of any references which would automatically confer notability, the claim that she worked as a writer for a soap opera was no more a claim to significance than claiming to be a floor cleaner on the set. Obviously I was wrong.

D - Silly nomination. The link you provided actually isn't the state of the article as I found it; it was full of spam, and I got distracted by this and lured into a knee-jerk reaction.

E - another bad call. I think the body of the article itself is worthy of an A7 nomination for a second opinion at least, but the external links clearly establish notability and so CSD fades into irrelevance.

F - I felt the article was a bit spammy. Shouldn't have nominated. A good example of how a poor article can grow into the start of a good one, and I've learned from it.

G&H - both bone-headed. For G, I didn't realise the subject was a religious figure. For H, I didn't notice that the second producing artist has a wikipedia article (I just saw the redlink on the first line).

I have learned a lot from my mistakes. Particularly, those ones from June taught me a lot. I became a lot more cautious and considered, and my nominations have been near-flawless since then. What I have tried to demonstrate with my CSD is record is that when I started I was rubbish, in the middle I made some significant mistakes, and now I am ready. I am not trying to argue that I started new page patrolling in January and was instantly perfect. I am simply trying to show that now, in November 2012, I can be trusted to do this properly. I had hoped the last 5 months of my CSD log would show that.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to the talk page. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Never talked to them, but it's a good candidate. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
3. Support looks like a good speciality to have to broaden administrative depth. Trust the judgement of the nominator. Would like to see answers to some of the other questions that recently got added though. PaleAqua (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Like the answers I've seen. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Rzuwig^► 21:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Trusted user working at CSD? Sounds good. AutomaticStrikeout 23:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
6. Support as Co-nominator. He will make an excellent admin. (Sorry for delay - had to go out)--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
7. Support as I believe that the candidate is well-suited for the job and haven't found anything objectionable. His answer to my question is satisfactory although the optimal response is that you wouldn't reverse the checkuser block per WP:CUBL. This is not a problem as I'm sure that the candidate will never make this mistake now that he is aware.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   You didn't say it was a {{checkuserblock}} block, just an indef block ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   If the CU confirmed socking and then blocked as stated in my scenario it would be a {{checkuserblock}} block.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Not necessarily. What if the checkuser issues a username block instead? :D--v/r - TP 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

8. Support per AutomaticStrikeout and Dennis, let me put it this way: if Dennis Brown think it's a good idea to grant someone the bit, I'm not going to argue. I seem to remember one encounter I had with this user, and it was positive, if I'm recollecting correctly. In any case, I have no objections, so barring any catastrophic answers to questions, I'm inclined to support. Go Phightins! 04:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
9. I've seen Basalisk's name around and I think he'll do good work as an administrator, all things considered. I also trust the judgment of both the nominators. Kurtis (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
10. I think this user's experiance and will to improve content will do just fine. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. Good contributions. _{Although I would like to see a lot more activity in Wikiproject Medicine.} Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
12. Support and not because one of the nominators is responsible for me having a mop... I've seen the candidate in CSD and other places and can't remember having to correct their tagging. (But someone will now go rooting around and find something from when he'd just started.) Edit count? If someone stays out of trouble for 6000 edits, they should have an idea of what's what and where. I had 12,000 edits or more then, and I'm still finding new bits of Wikipedia. Frequency? It's not a full time job we're interviewing for. It's OK to have people popping in and out. Two part-timers can be better than one full timer. If one goes off sick, you've got the other still for some of the time. If both go off together, you're no worse off than with a sick full timer. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - Satisfies my criteria. Has substantial CSD experience despite a lower edit count (standing out to a nominator early in your career is not a bad thing). Good answers to the questions. Resounding endorsements from the nominators. Nothing that raises any red flags. Happy to support. If occasionally getting the slightest bit snippy with troublesome users who are frustrating the hell out of you means you're unfit to be an admin, then someone better start my recall process. Swarm ^X 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - Satisfies my criteria, too. He wants to improve content, and his contributions show he has enough experience. He handles himself well under pressure and is prepared to explain his actions without knee-jerk self defence. These are all good things for an admin. The nominations both come from editors I have seen and respect, and I have found nothing to make me doubt their faith in Basalisk. Begoon ^talk 18:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Good candidate (thought he had the mop already), good nominators. Love that signature! :-) Miniapolis (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
16. 6000 edits is not enough? Yer kidding, I was elected with 2.5K. Max Semenik (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
17. Support No concerns. A few more admins with a level head on their shoulders would do Wikipedia good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
18. Support - happy with his answers, especially the ones that answered my only concern - particular cases with other editors. If nothing else, it would be good to have another medico-admin - we could have used one at a couple of recent AFDs. Cheers, Stalwart111 12:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC).
19. Support I had a look through your contribution history plus a quick look at your Facebook page. I saw a competent, intelligent and well-rounded individual. Rotten regard Softnow 15:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
20. Yup and I don't see any use of Polyjuice Potion. No evidence of future chaos found. On a serious note, intelligent user, and no concerns. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
21. Opposers' posts are not so insignificant to be casually brushed aside, but not so significant that I feel any great desire to join them. At some point we must come to the acceptance that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Everyone has slip ups and everyone makes mistakes. To me, if what's been brought up already is the worst that can be found, the candidate is sufficiently good to be given the mop. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - I'm impressed with their CSD work and the long red list in their log. I've read through the Oppose section, and I can't see any reason they shouldn't be an admin. I'm also quite impressed with their calm, rational, and well-thought out responses in this RfA. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
23. Support The candidate may not be perfect, but if we look for perfect candidates then we would have no admins at all, myself included! I would advise the candidate to take note of the concerns in the oppose and neutral sections, and allow them to give guidance on self-improvement. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
24. Support I read the opposes, checked contributions and choose to support Basalisk for adminship. Never let perfection get in the way of very good. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
25. Support after review of opposes, selected contributions, AfD contributions and CSD log. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
26. Support – Great CSD, good AfD, and plenty of talk page discussion. Involvement in many admin places is very good, such as AIV, ANI, and obviously CSD and AfD. The user has also made many small edits to articles, and I am not really that concerned about the edit count (it's quality, not quantity, that matters). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
27. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - Good contributions, admirable judgment and solid knowledge of the policies and norms of the project. He will surely benefit Wikipedia as an admin as well. - MrX 04:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. Don't remember interacting with you before, but I'm willing to trust Dennis Brown's judgement in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary. What Bbb23 says in question #14 is important — lots of contributions in the talk namespace shows that you're collaborative. What's more, your WP:IAR response is significant, and with 6000 edits you definitely have enough experience to be an admin. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. Fully qualified candidate in my opinion, although whether this RfA passes or he has to wait for the next one in a few months, I expect he will benefit from the more thoughtful ocmments on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - Nihil obstat. Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

    ^{[in English?]} :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

    We even have an article on the Latin phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

    Hmm, I've never seen it before; I guessed what was meant, but I figured it was just a little random Latin thrown in for a little comic effect. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

32. Support - Seems to be qualified, fine demeanor and I think will be an asset as an admin. The issues raised in the oppose section don't concern me (the issue raised in #1 would concern me, but the candidate seems to have learned from it). Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - suitably qualified. We need to move away from the attitude that you need 10k edits to be an admin. Claritas § 16:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - I feel I have to support a candidate whose markup has a chance of being as bad as mine :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - Many good qualities. Fervent. Can adjust style of engagement to fit the situation. Looked at opposes. Meh. Seen them all before.→StaniStani  21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. - If DB nomed you then you are alright in my book. Good luck and serve the community well! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
37. Support' While some levels of experience are are a bit on the weaker side, there's no evidence he will abuse the tools, and I'm sure he would learn from this RFA whether it passes or fails like NYB said. I'm not concerned about inclusionism/deletionism tendencies unless it shows evidence that he's out of touch with the community, which the oppose votes don't really have much. We also need more subject area experts as administrators. Secret ^account 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
38. Support No issues from me, looks to have a clue about the area they want to work in as well as more generally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. Solid contributions, good temperament, reliable nominator, willing to learn, no signs of impulsivity and plenty of clue. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
41. Support: I trust Dennis' judgement, but outside of that, I strongly approve of the highly literate style of communication, and the answer to Q13 eased my lingering concerns about the MarkMysoe situation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - Candidates don't need to be super-human. —stay (sic)! 18:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
43. Support: Answers to questions convince me. Moriori (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
44. The opposes actually convinced me to support. Nothing remotely major there. Wizardman 05:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
45. Support the opposes are not convincing, no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
47. per NYB (minus the tiepoes) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Satisfies my criteria. Becoming an editor is a learning experience. Becoming an admin makes it a learning experience all over again. One of the core issues I see in RfAs is the nitpicking opposes. One doesn't really have admin experience until they've been an admin. The deletionist attitude can be fixed once he begins to evaluate XfDs. Incorrect closes he makes can be pointed out and fixed. Other issues are fixed once you really have the ability to be bold.—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
49. Support. All oppose rationales are trivial, as some opposers have conceded by appending "weak" to their oppose (which has no real meaning at RFA, given its basic percentage model). Chick Bowen 02:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
50. Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
51. Support I once had an unpleasant experience with this user in which they insisted on redirecting a notable song to an album, citing WP:NSONG being rather reasonable, and also knowledgeable of WP policy. In all seriousness, s/he is the exact kind of person WP needs as an admin and exactly the kind of editor whose failed RFA would demonstrate how broken our system is. Sædon^talk 08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
52. Suppprt Seems to be clueful and sufficiently experienced. I'm not convinced by the deletion-related opposes, and I don't think having the candidate come back in 6 months helps the encyclopedia. wctaiwan (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
53. Support - I think he can be trusted with a mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
54. Support - Basalisk is one of the few editors whom I came across when I was new to this site and from what I recall, I was pretty satisfied by their responses. I can at least recall one sloppy CSD they made, however, it is too minor to take in account for building up an oppose. I trust Basalisk's judgement and I don't have any concerns which can possibly make me oppose this run. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
55. Support Opposition noted, but "6000 edits is too few" is a woefully poor reason, and the other more sensible opposes don't disuade me. Seems more than capable of using the tools. Pedro :  Chat  16:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. I've had to weigh a number of issues carefully before deciding to support, because there are some valid reasons given by opposers. In some ways, what bothers me the most is the sourcing pointed out by Dank. I also find that talk page discussion about the athlete a little blunt. But I'm weighing those things against the clear positives of a thoughtful and intelligent editor, and trying to get a complete picture, not a gotcha. I was struck by how the candidate's answers point to starting out in CSD while moving slowly to AfD. The picture I get is someone who is careful not to overreach. On balance, I trust the candidate, and see the tools as a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
57. Support. His answer to #13 is excellent and bodes well for how he would deal with tough interactions as an admin. The statements in the opposes aren't complete arguments -- they're a claim ("Too few edits") without a warrant ("No experience in admin areas makes his skill level uncertain"). His great work in places like CSD demonstrate that we should not have doubts about whether he could do the job. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
58. Support per the candidate's useful CSD work. I've been hesitant in supporting because of concerns raised about mistagging. I think that, as long as the candidate proceeds with caution as an admin, the end result should be a net positive. -- Trevj (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
59. Support - I am going to be very honest here, and say that Basalisk isn't perfect. Several of the issues brought up in Oppose are troubling. I'll address them all here to justify my decision: 6,000 contributions is low for an administrator - I strongly disagree. A base of ~5000 positive contributions is enough for me to support. Why should a user need >10,000 edits? Adminship is Not a Big Deal. ...I'm not impressed by the user's condescending attitude in response to this person on their talk page - I feel the Basalisk was being reasonably polite. Besides, who's to say admins can't have a bit of temper anyway? What is the Arbitration Committee for? ...they insisted on redirecting a notable song to an album, citing WP:NSONG and completely ignoring the existence of WP:GNG - this is a single incident and quite a long time ago. Per their recent knowledge gain and their useful CSD tagging I think this has gotten better. I agree this wasn't the best, but it's an old isolated incident. I'm uncomfortable by the deletionist tendencies of the candidate, as shown by 88% of his AfD !votes being delete or speedy delete. - most AfD's close as Delete - it's just a fact. I think Basalisk is doing his job here. There's an example of off-base speedy deletion tagging... - This has been addressed by Basalisk and his recent excellent CSD tagging has shown he has gained massive knowledge in this front. the candidate has really only been active for the past year - I feel this is long enough. What really matters is the knowledge of the policies, not editing time. No one should become an admini[s]trator, unless they have experience writing a substantial article. - Why not? Administrators mostly deal with technical stuff, such as deletions, blocks, protection, etc. In no case should article writing be neccesary. Vacation^nine 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
60. Support, reasonable candidate. 2000 edits are more than enough to judge a candidate, and he has three times that. —Kusma (t·c) 08:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. Basalisk's CSD log looks good, and he seems to have learned the lessons from his mistaggings in June. I admit to being a little concerned about the MarkMysoe exchange and the sourcing of the articles he has created, but not enough to stop me from supporting. He seems trustworty, and handing him the tools would be a net benefit for the 'pedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
62. Support No concerns over experience. Smart and intelligent editor who will do fine with the tools.--v/r - TP 14:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
63. Support Having reviewed answers, edits, and opposes, I see nothing of substantial concern. The editor has demonstrated maturity (which edit counts don't measure) and will use the mop responsibly. -- Scray (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
64. Support; clearly a competent user, and the answers to the questions are just fine. I do have a question, though; can you confirm whether you do live here or not so we can put that rumor to rest? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

    I deny it. As a particularly energetic basilisk, I can confirm that I have never lived on dry land, and have in fact spent my entire life running on water. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

    Oh, lord, another admin who claims to walk on water.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

    To be fair, it's not only admins making that claim. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I once had an unpleasant experience with this user in which they insisted on redirecting a notable song to an album, citing WP:NSONG and completely ignoring the existence of WP:GNG. 6,000 contributions is unusually low for a potential administrator. And quite frankly I'm not impressed by the user's condescending attitude in response to this person on their talk page. Till 01:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   • Would you care to link to the song or redirect that was in question? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Hi there. I couldn't remember the incident in question and so I looked it up. The relevant thread is from April and can be found in your talk page archive here. I was certainly mistaken about the amount of verifiable content being irrelevant (I have learned a lot in the last 7 months!), and it also appears that #I backed down at the time? I didn't touch the article after you added more information to it, and after all, when I first found it it was a short stub about an unreleased song. Once I realised there was a lot more to be said about it I let the issue go. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}/_berate 02:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Really not everyone is going to have tens of thounsands of edits on their WP resume. We all have more important things to do in life and I think judging this person based solely on edit count is a bad idea. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2. The temperament displayed during the Mysoe exchange on candidate's talk page does not inspire confidence. Townlake (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I'm uncomfortable by the deletionist tendencies of the candidate, as shown by 88% of his AfD !votes being delete or speedy delete. Some of his AfD nominations strike me as incredibly hasty and confirm my earlier fear, as seen in this and this- which strike me as having a desire to delete rather than improve our encyclopedia. There's an example of off-base speedy deletion tagging at [1], a desire to delete rather than prune at [2] and [3], and a completely wrong understanding of A7 at [4]. [5] is a very clear example of hastiness, which I feel is an underlying trait in many of his actions, although waiting 10-30 minutes before speedy deleting may be within policy, I feel it still carries BITE-y qualities. These examples are just from one month- June. What tipped me over the edge was the unprofessional and aggressive attitude displayed by the candidate during the Mysoe exchange, seen on his talk page and pointed out by Townlake. Admins need to be professional and courteous at all times when interacting with other editors- this is something that I cannot compromise on.--Slon02 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Hi. I feel this deserves an explanation. Thanks for your feedback about CSD tagging. You're right, those diffs from June were bad calls. I feel I have learned a lot since then. As for my interaction with MarkMysoe, however, I would ask you to bear in mind that this is not the first conversation I've had with him. My frustration with Mark is born of a long history of him not listening to gentle advice. This is not the first time I've grown frustrated with him, but I think I've always stayed constructive during this dispute, and I feel my first post on his talk page here is more typical of the way I interact with other editors. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}/_berate 05:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   That explanation doesn't really fly. If Mysoe really had such a history of awfulness, you shouldn't have been throwing warnings and threats at him, you should have just taken him to the relevant noticeboard so he could be dealt with based on the accumulated evidence. Townlake (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   There are more stats to look at than simply how often the candidate votes to delete. Keep in mind that, while he has voted to delete 88% of the time, his vote has matched the eventual consensus in roughly 3 out of 4 AfD's. Out of the 181 AfD's he's participated in so far, there were 13 (7%) where he voted to delete, but the article was kept. Also keep in mind that, on average, less than 20% of AfD's close as keep. So, if you wanted to be in the center between inclusionism and deletionism, you'd have to vote delete quite a bit more than you vote keep. -Scottywong| babble _ 15:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose - While I thank the candidate for willingness to serve as an administrator, I feel temperament concerns pointed out by Townlake and hasty deletions combined with relative lack of experience (the candidate has really only been active for the past year) sway me into the oppose category. I would urge the candidate to work hard and try again, if still interested, sometime in the middle of next year. Thanks again, and best wishes, Jusdafax 07:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose - Not ready yet, come back in six months. Seems like a solid editor, but my having to fix the indent on one of the opposes twice because of a very basic error from the candidate[6][7] does not demonstrate readiness for the tools at this time. Doc talk 11:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Really? Opposing over wiki-syntax? I'm a software developer and the nuances of the mediawiki software still trip me up.  : #: *: ** :* :# Who knows what to use when? Doc, he's a doctor, not a programmer!--v/r - TP 13:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   Correcting it for a third time would have been unfortunate indeed. I knew zilch about wiki-syntax before I started editing here, and I would hope that admins grasp it as quickly as I did. We all make mistakes. He's not a bad guy at all. Just needs a little work. Doc talk 13:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I was answering another question at the same time as changing the indent and didn't actually realise you'd fixed it in between my edits, which is probably why I missed it. If I'd looked at it after changing it I would've seen it, but I was distracted by the other answer I was writing and so didn't look, which is admittedly a silly thing to do in an RfA. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}/_berate 14:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   I'm feeling glad no-one asked me about mark-up at my RfA. Personally, I don't expect all admins to know everything about everything, just like I don't expect non-admins to. I do want them to know what their areas of knowledge is, and to go cautiously into other regions prepared to listen and learn. And for admins, to know who to pass the problem over to when they find it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose, primarily for ignoring my question. Candidate has expressed interest in deleting articles under wp:csd. I'm concerned Basalisk does not understand the criteria, and has a tendency to act too quickly in several examples. This is indicated by the large swath of denied requests from January for articles tagged {{db-nocontext}}. Basalisk uses the {{db-nocontext}} tag too liberally in my opinion. Take some time to better understand the criteria and come back in six months. My76Strat (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Opposing because a candidate didn't immediately answer an optional question is poor form. Townlake (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   I agree and have stricken that portion of my comment. I'm not married to this !vote. If my concern in the candidates understanding of wp:csd criteria is alleviated, I'll strike the !vote. My knee has already quit jerking. Thanks for the admonishment. My76Strat (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   I've answered your question anyway. Sorry for the delay. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}/_berate 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you, I'll have a look. I'm sorry as well! for "rushing to judgement". My76Strat (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose, reluctantly. Based on your comments on this page, I think you're the kind of editor that should be an admin. Based on some of the issues pointed out in the opposes above me, I'm not sure you're ready. Another six months of what I see in you today and I would be happy to support. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Do you realize Basalisk already has 7 years?--v/r - TP 13:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   His first edit was in 2007, and he only began actively editing in September 2011, so no, he doesn't have 7 years. If he had he likely wouldn't have answered "I have learned a lot in the last 7 months!" to oppose #1. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose- Quick to action is exactly what I don't want in an admin, and that has been proven above to be a quality of this candidate. Bzweebl (talk o contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose Only really active over the last year since the account was almost dormant from 4/07 to 8/11...and 6,000 edits is at the bottom end of below what I consider to be minimal.--MONGO 19:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   Comment Active since September last year, conceded; until then, I believe, achieving professional qualification IRL took priority. But is not the quality of the edits, assuming that the number is acceptable, more important than their timing?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   You know, I've held my tongue a lot with some of these opposes, but at this point I've had enough. MONGO, your argument isn't reasonable. You're holding it against someone that they haven't been active from 2007 to late 2011, in late 2012. If you want to say "A year of activity isn't sufficient", I'd disagree, but that would at least make sense. However your oppose is differentiating between a) a person that created an account a year ago and has edited all the way through the year, and b) a person that created an account a long time ago and has only edited in the last year. The only difference between the two is when the person created the account, and you're somehow saying that a) is acceptable and b) isn't? Maybe I'm misreading what you're trying to say, but if my interpenetration above is accurate, I really can't say that I respect your oppose at all. It makes no sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   This discussion should be moved to the talk page please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   Thought it was mentioned about how long the candidate had been active, but now see it wasn't so I retract that part, but my opinion that 6,000 edits is minimal stands, though that is now poor rationale for me to oppose, so I withdraw.--MONGO 03:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you very much. I, for my part, apologize for going at you so strongly. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

7. No one should become an adminitrator, unless they have experience writing a substantial article. Diesel-50 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
8. Opposing per Reaper (who's neutral). You've learned a lot, Basalisk, and there are lots of reasons to support you in the admin role ... but some of the things you've learned are the wrong things, as evidenced by your citing Elective (medical) as an example of what we should judge you by. The sourcing is terrible, and there are other problems. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Something of a Not Yet situation for me — barely over a year of continuous, active WP participation according to the contributions bar graphs; nor is the total count of edits really sufficient for me to set aside experience concerns and support the de facto lifetime appointment to WP adminship. Neither is the candidate a committed vandal fighter needing fast access to the big hammer. Not Yet. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   Just a note: In Q1 the candidate expressed interest in CSD, not vandal fighting. I imagine they'll be using the "Delete" button much, much more than the "Block" or "Protect" buttons. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose - the judgement "At some point, but not yet" is probably correct - that they've argued deleted at two thirds of the AfDs they've commented in where the result was "keep" is a very bad sign; that a lot of them where nominated by the candidate and subsequently withdrawn shows promise. Ditto the self-reverting of CSD tag(s) - they're simply too eager to delete, even if in sober second judgement their judgement is sound. While that remains the case, they shouldn't be using the delete button. WilyD 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose - Per my reasons in the neutral section. After thinking more about it, following WP:RS is more important than getting CSD minutia correct. I'd be happy to support after you write some well-sourced content (a single GA is relatively easy and demonstrates a good grasp of the content policies). I'm sorry, but I have to oppose this time around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Dank and Reaper; the reasons are already stated above so no need for redundancy. And even though others disagree, I concur with not now. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
13. Very Weak Oppose - Good deletion policies, edit count is acceptable too, but still rough around the edges. I will probably support in six months. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
14. Weak-ish Oppose 6,000 edits are relatively low to be a sysop. Also, why were there a lot of edit shutdown that caused his low edit count. PitsConferGuests 09:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

    He answered that in Question 14.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

    Your own talk-page makes exactly the same explanation for your occasional absence! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

    Didn't see that if that came first before my comment. If someone will ask my edit shutdown, I was too focused about school (and I still do). PitsConferGuests 01:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

15. Oppose Too many negative points. Warden (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I don't want admins who are so eager to delete content and shrink the scope of our project. Everyking (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
17. Unfortunate oppose Although I am very able to forgive lengths of time away due to real life, some of the answers and responses show a slight - but significant - disconnect. I believe normally that Basalisk can be an admin and will be an admin, but I think that it's been shown that there's a few areas to work on first, so I won't rehash them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning Support I think 6,000 edits is slightly too low to become and administrator. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   FWIW, I had a grand total of 2,083 edits to my name when I got the bit in 2007. Maybe we need to define "edit requirement inflation" to go with "instruction creep". — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral leaning Support - 6,000 edits is kinda low. I feel like citing WP:NOTNOW for some reason, even though this user's a good editor. ZappaOMati 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   The nom may be a bit rushed one but not a WP:NOTNOW case according to me. WP:NOTNOTNOW? :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Describing a candidate with 6,000 edits as NotNow is worthy of a trout. Perhaps if the edits were all automated, but this candidate seems to be editing manually and plenty of admins have got through RFA with far less than 6,000 edits. Sadly it has been a while since anyone got through RFA with less than 3,000 edits, but 6,000 mostly manual edits should be ample for anyone to decide whether someone is suitable to be an admin, and treating such a candidate as a "NotNow" or even close to that is very disrespectful to the candidate and an awful abuse of the RFA process. WP:NotNow is intended for Newbies who don't yet have sufficient experience to be seriously considered for administrator, it is a ridiculous abuse of the process to describe a longstanding editor such as Basalisk in those terms. ϢereSpielChequers 16:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   I agree that citing to WP:NOTNOW was incorrect, but surely there was a less harsh way of saying that to a user who was doing so in apparent good faith. A gentle rebuke with an explanation would have sufficed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - The edit count doesn't bother me in the slightest, but the article he mentioned in Q2 doesn't seem to cite particularly reliable sources. I'll need to look things over more carefully. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   I'm staying here. Many of the sources are self-published student blogs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral Seems to be a good editor, but I feel that only 6,000 contributions isn't enough yet for administrator promotion. But I also, regardless, have concerns about the user's understanding of some administrative topics on the English Wikipedia. In question 1, the user said "though with a little more experience" but for adminship, I feel you already need that experience. In a nutshell, you are a good editor, but I feel you may have not made enough edits yet, but I am not sure, so I will leave this up to other reviewers here. TBrandley 03:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose Neutral lean oppose. I'm uncomfortable by the deletionist tendencies of the candidate, as shown by 88% of his AfD !votes being delete or speedy delete. Some of his AfD nominations strike me as incredibly hasty and confirm my earlier fear, as seen in this and this- which strike me as having a desire to delete rather than improve our encyclopedia. There's an example of off-base speedy deletion tagging at [8], a desire to delete rather than prune at [9] and [10], and a completely wrong understanding of A7 at [11]. [12] is a very clear example of hastiness, which I feel is an underlying trait in many of his actions, although waiting 10-30 minutes before speedy deleting may be within policy, I feel it still carries BITE-y qualities. These examples are just from one month- June. --Slon02 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Here' a tag from 23 October that gives me pause.... Glrx (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   He did revert that tag 25 minutes later. Though I would liked to have seen an update to the notification of the prod. PaleAqua (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   What brought him back to the article? The "self revert" came 4 minutes after the creator responded to the tag and edited the article. Yes, an update would have been nice (Basalisk did return 2 hours after removing the tag and and copy edit the article). It is not a single act of mis-tagging that bothers me. Slon02 complains of a pattern. Glrx (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Moving to Oppose Neutral - for now. Well keep an open mind. Kierzek (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Move to oppose; per Dank and Reaper. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - [Moving to Support] - candidate has given a well considered answer to my question regarding MarkMysoe, for which I thank him. There have been users with whom I have had similar interaction. What I was also looking for was an indication as to how the candidate would respond as an admin to queries about his actions, and I find that aspect of his response encouraging. I'm leaning support, but want to finish reviewing contributions. Begoon ^talk 11:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Regarding MarkMysoe, for what it is worth, it took me months to get the RocNation template to use proper colors, and talking with him was so frustrating I had to get DGG involved, something you almost never see me have to do. Mark selectively archives his pages, so you have to actually dig in the histories. Mark can be a good contributor, but can frustrated the daylights out of me and others. Go look at his talk history one year ago or the edit history of this template [13]. I can forgive using the word "bollocks" due to this. I've used worse recently, although rarely. As for 6k edits, half of our admin had less when they got the admin bit, so that doesn't makes sense to me, but respect that everyone has a right to have their own criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks Dennis - I'd already had a dig and found a bit of that history. As you say, histories is the only way in this case (it's usually the safest way, anyway, even if a user isn't being selective, they, and archiving bots, make errors...) "Bollocks" isn't, and never was, a problem for me - I was looking at the exchange as a whole, for style and attitude, not naughty words. That was just in one of the examples I plucked out. I'm happy with the candidate's answer to my question. I haven't made any comment on the number of edits. It's not a problem for me - I'll take quality over quantity any day. Just finishing up my review is the only reason I'm parked here - didn't want to leave Basalisk thinking his long answer had garnered no response by not reacting at all. Begoon ^talk 14:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Neutral, I agree with Intoronto1125. --Makecat_Talk 13:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
5. Procedurally Neutral Until I can better evaluate the candidate. Opposition doesn't convince me of potential abuse, but it's significant enough not to support at this time. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning Oppose This user has made some great contributions, but issues brought up are troubling. I'll have to think about it. Vacation^nine 02:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Moved to Oppose Moved to Support under Further Examination Vacation^nine 02:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

6. Neutral - Quite hard to judge whether to support or oppose. I agree with Intoronto1125 that 6000 edits is quite low. Torreslfchero (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2012 (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.