Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trevj

Trevj

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (70/5/0); Scheduled to end 18:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Trevj (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination.

• I joined Wikipedia in 2004 but didn't make my first main namespace contribution until 2006. I was then mostly inactive here until 2009, taking up editing more seriously in 2010. I have some involvement with WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Bristol, where interactions with other editors have helped inform my understanding of policy. I occasionally contribute to other Wikimedia projects, such as Commons.
• After a couple of brief exchanges in 2012 regarding potential adminship, I recently decided to submit this request. (I'm very grateful for those comments, and I hope that I'm not giving a contrary impression by not having returned to follow things up.)
• I enjoy editing here, and it should go without saying that I feel I understand and generally appreciate the Five pillars. I feel that aspects of my editing would be more productive if I had the option of using the administrative tools myself, e.g. not feeling like I ought to wait for the outcome of a {{db-move}} before altering article leads, etc. Additionally, my contributions to easy calls on deletion would free up others' time to assess more complex discussions.
• Finally, I believe that my editing history successfully demonstrates that I wouldn't intentionally break anything as an administrator. If I were to err inadvertently, I could be trusted to correct things without delay and would also seek advice from those more experienced than myself.

-- Trevj (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (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: If there is assent for this request, I anticipate that one of my first administrative actions would quite likely be the deletion of an article as a result of a deletion discussion. I'm currently restricted to closing as keep, no consensus or merge: if a delete outcome is warranted by consensus, policy and (in particular) the notability guideline then I generally pass over. I also anticipate deleting some CSDs, being more cautious here and starting with the uncontroversial ones, also learning by watching pages to see if the final outcome accords with my assessment or not, and seeking advice as necessary from those more experienced than myself. Deletion work would probably also extend to proposed deletion, again with caution. I've also made a few requests for undeletion myself, so may possibly get involved there too. (I keep logs of CSD and PROD nominations, and acknowledge that their limited contents may be insufficient if I were claiming enough experience to dive straight into those areas.)

I may well close a few other debates too, initially the shorter ones which take less time to evaluate, e.g. requested moves, files for deletion. I already have some experience in such areas too, although again am unable to delete pages/files. (Obviously some of these closures don't require admininstrative actions, and there are numerous non-admins who already work extensively in such areas, so it's not a backlog reserved for admininstrators.)

I don't anticipate undertaking much blocking/unblocking of editors, due to my limited encounters with vandalism. However, this is an area I may possibly become involved in, as the need arises and in accordance with the blocking policy (and where not classified as being an involved editor). I've engaged in user talk dialogue with some subsequently blocked editors and this is the basis from which I'd be working, again proceeding with caution and seeking advice as necessary from those more experienced than myself.

-- Trevj (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

A: My article space contributions don't (yet) include any work directly related to good or featured articles. However, new article creations include the following:

• Isochrone map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – subsequently translated into Spanish by another editor;
• Rover chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – a piece I've never seen, by a designer I knew nothing about; and
• See No Evil (artwork) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – subsequently the subject of others' edits in a way many of the other articles I've started haven't been.

Improvements related to existing articles include:

• Clive Sinclair – I've since seen that this violates WP:MOSINTRO, and will rectify this after closure of the RfA;
• Newton OS – whereas this content arguably warrants summarising up in the lead;
• Progressive Miners of America – contribution to copy editing by introducing sections, per a recent tag;
• Articles for deletion/Persefone – to put my approach to deletion into context, this is an example of where I tracked down references for a subject with which I'm unfamiliar (naturally, I'm not always successful, and sources I've unearthed during other discussions have been rejected... but then discussion is the whole idea around AfD, after all); and
• Articles for deletion/Europanto – ditto.

One minor improvement of a technical nature which I can recall is the recommendation to incorporate into Help:Userspace draft MediaWiki's prefix parameter. I'm by no means a technical whiz kid, but can get by and believe that I know my limitations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 November 2013‎

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: Yes I've been involved in conflicts over editing, but I wouldn't consider that others have really caused me stress. In such instances I've tried to remain calm and to focus discussion around policies and content. I've also found that input from uninvolved editors is often of great value. If my arguments aren't supported by consensus, I defer to the consensus view or may request a re-evaluation.

This is much the same procedure I'll use to deal with any future conflicts involving my edits. In the case of becoming involved in content disputes as an observer, it's behaviour I'd encourage in others.

I would of course not use administrative tools with the intention of bypassing proper process, e.g. because I felt a need to force a minority opinion in the face of consensus.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 November 2013‎

Additional questions from Jni

4. Are there any special considerations when deleting list articles according to deletion policy?

A: The main deletion policy doesn't specifically refer to stand-alone lists, except in the context of merging. Deletion discussions for such articles should make reference to the notability guideline. In this case, we can refer to WP:LISTN (which redirects to Notability#Stand-alone lists). Notability for stand-alone lists is invariably determined according to whether the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources (emphasis per the original). Therefore, if a number of items within the list article have been noted (within reliable sources) as a group according to their common characteristics, then the existence of the stand-alone list article would generally be valid and result in a keep consensus. Participants in such discussions may note that this does not mean that every item within the list must satisfy WP:GNG, although individual items still require verification via reliable source(s).

Therefore, I would say that a closer of such a deletion discussion should pay special consideration to participants' !votes in terms of whether they've been focusing on individual items which may not satisfy GNG on their own (which is really a discussion for the article talk page) or on the sources which discuss the group or set. -- Trevj (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

5. Can WP:IAR ever apply to admin actions?

A: Yes, but rarely. It's a policy and is one of the five pillars, with no exceptions for admin actions. If, however, an admin were to perform an action citing IAR without good reason, they may expect to be legitimately questioned by others. One example from AfD last year (although not technically an admin action because it was a non-admin closure and therefore didn't require admin tools) is the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breyer horse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). If you'd like me to expand on this further, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Trevj (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd classify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breyer horse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as valid application of speedy keep guideline, as it satisfies one of the requirements there. That is slightly different than WP:SNOW closure which is more IAR-like. Good answers nevertheless. jni (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Optional questions from Pharaoh of the Wizards

6. Can you please explain your comment . Are you saying that if an IP is autoblocked then it should be given IP Block exemption to allow anyone to use it ?

A: I'll gladly explain: no, not exemption for anyone. I found this autoblock of the IP address I was editing from at that time to be a little inconvenient (an opinion expressed in my comment of 13:30, 27 November 2013). I'd rather avoid having editing rights unnecessarily temporarily suspended again due to the editing behaviour of an unregistered user (unconnected to me) sharing an IP address. This being my first encounter with an autoblock, I wondered whether it'd be possible for assessment to be given to applying IP block exemption to my account next time. To expand on this, I thought it worth extending such consideration to other registered users sharing the IP address. This might necessitate sockpuppet investigation(s), because the IP edits could be made by a registered editor who was deliberately logged out. But it might be possible to easily distinguish between some registered editors and the IP edits (although I guess that'd involve checkusers). If such pre-emptive exemption isn't the norm, then fair enough. -- Trevj (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

7.Can you Please Explain why you asked an admin to REVDEL your own comments in your own talk page made on Nov 27th 2013 when you made an auto unblock request ?

A: I asked for this to be done because my placing of {{unblock-auto reviewed}} resulted in a permanent public record of my editing from that IP address. For privacy reasons, this isn't something I'm especially comfortable with. I realised that I could have made the unblock request by other (non-public) means but knew that the records could ultimately be removed from general view after the matter had been concluded. Those missing edits (IIRC):

• 583223041: placing of {{unblock-auto reviewed}}, including required parameters
• 583516907: follow-up comment
• 583527398: question
• 583528656: placing of {{admin help}}
• 583534380: the unblock
• 583536386: and subsequent note
• 583536742: admin comment
• 583545692: follow-up comment
• 583547605: redacting of IP address, admin name, some timestamps (I thought maybe this would make it a little trickier for people to track the IP address via reference to the blocking admin's edit history)

If you'd like further specific details, I'm happy for any admin to provide their own summaries of the above (with the exclusion of the IP address itself) up until the closure of this RfA. -- Trevj (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirming that nothing was altered other than the removal of the IP and the blocking admin's name. I don't remember anything else in the conversation; this seemed fairly straight-forward. Kuru (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Autoblock#Requesting an unblock. As indicated at the talk page link given in the answer to q6, it didn't seem reasonable to contact the blocking admin directly. (I rarely contact editors by email, because we're here as volunteers and it can be helpful to separate life as editors from real life.) I've not been on IRC for around 20 years, and instead followed up via UTRS after a couple of hours' wait. Revdel should always only be used in accordance with policy, and its overuse should be discouraged as both a distraction from the free nature of Wikipedia and as a drain on maintenance time/resources. -- Trevj (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that the issue of potential improper use with regard to accidentally created block logs was noted at User talk:Donner60/Archive 3#Oops! (diffs): hid[ing] blocklog entries ... would not be a legit case for using that mechanism. As I understand it, in the case of an autoblock there are no block records for affected registered users and no block templates placed. -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from TeeTylerToe

8. A lot of the things you say you would be working on hinge on consensus. How is a consensus reached? What happens when there's groupthink as commonly happens with projects? Does groupthink usually form the consensus? If so, how does WP consensus policy support groupthink forming the consensus?TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A: Consensus is reached through editing and discussion. In the simplest cases, articles evolve through editing, with editors either accepting or rejecting (in whole or in part) others' edits. In this way, the overall intention goal of improving articles is worked towards. In the case of rejected edits, further discussion can sometimes be needed. But edit summaries (especially when making reference to policies and guidelines) can also explain rejection of others' edits, and can be a more efficient way than lengthy discussion. Discussions on article talk pages should focus around policies and guidelines. Editors may not always agree about the applicability or interpretation of such norms, and such comments can be informative within discussions. But unless there is consensus for change(s) to the policies or guidelines themselves, they should be respected in the interests of improving the encyclopedia.

Regarding WikiProjects, WP:CONLIMITED (which redirects to Consensus#Level of consensus) explains that participants in a localised discussion (e.g. a WikiProject talk page or perhaps an article talk page but with limited input from those outside a WikiProject) cannot disregard (or water down) wider community norms. What can happen is that WikiProject participants believe that applicability of a particular policy or guideline may be flawed, in the case of articles within the WikiProject's scope. This could well be the case, but simply agreeing so at a local level excludes the wider community and can be legitimately challenged at any time. As to whether groupthink usually forms the consensus, I really don't know the statistics on this. I would guess that if groupthink follows community norms then yes, but if not then it's probably more likely that the answer is no. Groupthink can be a basis for change to wider community norms, if corresponding proposals are accepted by the wider community via consensus. If arguments for changes to policies or guidelines are strong, it is advisable to formally seek wider community consensus , perhaps via an RfC. -- Trevj (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Optional question from JodyB

9.Could you discuss the balance between building the encyclopedia through main space edits and maintaining the encyclopedia through non-main space work. Is one more important? Should an admin be balanced? JodyB _talk 13:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A: Both aspects of editing are needed to build the encyclopedia. In my humble opinion, for editors to edit effectively in their chosen predominant area(s) (assuming there is some distinction) it's beneficial to also have considerable editing experience in (at least some of) the others. A good balance is probably struck when main space edits are planned according to consensus (I guess this is how professional publishing involving multiple contributors works, but stand to be corrected). However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and it's essentially down to individuals and specialist WikiProject participants to decide and implement the best ways forward to build the encyclopedia. Non-main space edits (article talk, template, project, deletion, etc.) are essential to support the maintenance and development of a main space desired to be of high quality.

Arguably in an ideal world one could suggest that the single most important is main space, because without this there is no content. However, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which obviously necessitates discussion between editors. Then, in order to protect privacy, we welcome contributions from unregistered users. This can have its drawbacks in terms of vandalism and POV pushing, which can necessitate actions such as blocking. Attention can be drawn to the possible existence of such POV issues via the use of maintenance templates and discussion noticeboards.

It is sometimes said that the community collectively appreciates admins with a balance of edits, in order to better appreciate the process of building content. As a member of the community, I agree with this view. -- Trevj (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Optional question from Epicgenius

10. How much of a Wikipediholic are you? Did you take the test and if so, what is your score? Epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A: I'll come to this. The delay in answering isn't because I'm taking the test right now; it's because I somehow missed your question! -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here goes. On 23 February 2012 at 15:02 I acknowledged the possible onset of Wikipediholism, then proceeded to make this public knowledge within 6 minutes. Realising that recovery may necessitate abstention, I thought it best to take preventive action by attempting to reduce my edit count. Despite my comparatively low reliance on Wikipedia, with hindsight I see that I'd not spotted the signs soon enough.

I was hooked (albeit on low doses) and apparently overdosed in March 2012, with a 139% increase in article space edits over the previous month. Despite my best efforts, I found myself battling with recovery and narrowly escaping that level of article space edits again just three months later in June 2012. There may have been some meteorological factors at play, with my actual article space peak recorded the previous year, in June 2011. This level, I am relieved to note, has not since been surpassed.

I am considering seeking professional guidance regarding potentially dangerous and unsustainable levels of edits (to various name spaces) which have been emanating from my fingertips. It may be that a diet restricted primarily to one or two name spaces per month could be an effective recovery path. Purging my userspace drafts into article space is a course of treatment on which I am currently drip feeding, as can be seen at User:Trevj/We Need To Talk About Dad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

As to the test itself, no I've not taken it. Nor do I plan to, for fear of my potential inability to deal with what it may expose.

The disease really doesn't seem to be restricted to those exhibiting obvious symptoms of editcountitis. Have you taken the test yourself? You may be well advised to ease back down to levels at or significantly below those seen in July 2013. Please think of your own health too. H-E-L-P ! Help us both, somebody... -- Trevj (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trevj: No, I have not taken it yet, but I will be doing so shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Optional question from Alex

11. What would be your opinion in this discussion? If you were to close it now (without considering relisting) what would be your conclusion and statement?

I'll get to that as soon as I can, and within 24 hours in any case. But because of the length of the discussion, I'll need an uninterrupted period of time to spend evaluating things. I hope that's OK. -- Trevj (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I should've noticed that I made an early comment (but a not !vote) there. Unless I'm advised otherwise, I'll assume this invalidates neither the question nor my hypothetical closure of the discussion. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. No, just answer this modified question: Can you explain your opinion on this discussion? If you're about to close it now (without considering relisting) what would be your conclusion and statement? I apologize again if this made you difficulties. Alex ^{discussion ★} 11:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me for requesting what may be an unnecessary clarification, did you intentionally link to the same AfD again, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan RoAne (2nd nomination)? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just wanted you to elaborate your stand here in that particular case, and what would you do as a closing admin. Thank you. Alex ^{discussion ★} 15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A: My opinion on the discussion is that participants are considering both notability and promotional editing. Notability is determined according to guidelines (e.g. WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR) and (in the case of living persons) the policy on biographies of living persons. In this case (because the subject has not requested deletion and there appears to be no contentious content), WP:BIODELETE would not apply. Therefore, there would be (with respect to the discussion as it currently stands, dated 18:45, 3 December 2013‎) no default to delete in the event of no consensus being reached. Promotional editing (WP:PROMOTION) is a concern, but other editors have been involved in improving the content and its neutrality has been improved. There were also due weight concerns in the 1st AfD which may not have been adequately addressed according to the delete !voters.

At the time of my comment in the AfD, my opinion on the content of the article and comments by others was that deletion may be warranted, per my !vote in the 1st AfD. Since then, the sources have been helpfully rearranged but are still not readily available for further analysis.

If the discussion required closing right now, and there was no one to do it but me (in a hypothetical admin capacity with an option to delete), I'd close as follows:

---

The result was keep. While there remains no consensus as to whether the promotional concerns have been adequately addressed, the article has been somewhat improved and deletion is not warranted under these grounds. There is weak consensus that the significant number of sources referred to by Green Cardamom demonstrate notability under WP:AUTHOR #3 (The person has created ... [a] collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) -- Trevj (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

---

I suspect that a new admin closing the discussion as it stands (in whatever manner) may expect subsequent queries from participants. Such an early close could foreseeably lead to a deletion review. -- Trevj (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Trevj

• Links for Trevj: Trevj (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Trevj 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

N.B.

If using links within {{RfA toolbox}} above, the additional links I'm adding here include the Alternate name parameter, which is required to list most of the AfD contributions. (Some previous contributions are of course picked up without the suffix, i.e. using the standard links within the template.)

This is entirely my fault for naively suffixing my sig with #top some time back. Apologies. (My reasoning was to avoid the talk link being emphasised with bold text on my talk page, but really I'm unlikely to be signing on the user page so don't know why I included the suffix for the user link too.)

AfD votes · NAC of AfDs

-- Trevj (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Competent and treats other editors nicely. --Stfg (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Trustworthy candidate. Good to be 2nd. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support More than happy to support this one. An admirable humility from a self-nomination. James^x12345
5. Support, good impressions--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support should be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. Looks like a good candidate. INeverCry 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
8. <joke> This is a self-nomination, but candidate has not reviewed any other nominations</joke> Hard to pass up a response to your "This is a self-nomination" :-) Support You've been active here for nine years. You would have retired, gotten blocked, or otherwise not still be active if you were here to do anything except being helpful, but you're still active without any blocks whatsoever. Clearly you're going to do your best to help the encyclopedia with your new tools. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

   Note: I've only really been active here for half that time. -- Trevj (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

   <joke>Aww, "only" 4½ years. I'll have to oppose this nomination, newbie.</joke> Thanks for the correction. I still believe that you're way past the point at which we should have any doubts about the idea of you being an admin. Nyttend (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

9. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
10. Obvious Support I really believed that you were already an administrator O.o — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Looks good, happy to support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Support, pretty good answers. buffbills7701 00:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Support No reason why not. Finealt (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
14. Support No reason not to support and the answers are good. I am One of Many (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
15. Support Helpful and competent; will be even more helpful with the mop. Miniapolis 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
16. Support, I escpecially like editors that focus on working on articles, keeping the good ones and deleting the bad ones. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
17. Familiar name, seems like a strong candidate from what I can see. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
18. I Support this candidate. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
19. Support per answers to questions. jni (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
20. Support seems like it'll work...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
22. Support I like this candidate. They are smooth and measured in their communications and work. There could be more content work in their WP resume but I think all of the major requirements are fulfilled and I support this nomination.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
23. Obvious. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
24. Support I see no problems here. I too would prefer more main space work but then I was weak in that area at my RFA. JodyB _talk 17:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
25. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support after reading several of the recent "oppose" votes. Adminship is not an award for being the model Wikipedian. The candidate comes across as thoughtful, articulate, deliberate, and in-the-loop, traits which, for the behind-the-scenes moderator, far surpass the usefulness of knowing how to contort an article to fit the mold of GAN or FAC. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

26. Support – seems to be trustworthy enough to handle the admins' tools. Epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Good answers, more in depth & original than the conventional platitudes. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
28. Secret ^account 23:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
29. Support --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
30. Support, familiar with this user and gives me no reason to doubt him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
31. Support I've seen him around and seems clueful, no oppose !votes are enough to sway me. Answers seem fine. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - The project will be better for making this candidate an admin. Opposers fail to present convincing arguments to the contrary. Jusdafax 01:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
33. Support - Very level-headed candidate who knows his way around the encyclopedia. I like the answers to the questions. TCN7JM 02:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
34. Support, competent and sober. Answers to questions indicate a well-reasoned thought process. Kuru (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
35. Support Will use the mop well, solid candidate. Spencer^T♦C 05:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
36. Support Answers seem thoughtful and fine as far as I am concerned. Good writer. Seems to have good demeanor and interactions. I find self-described style as "pedantic" to be an appealing quality for an administrator. (Yes, I did look up the word to be sure I knew what it meant.) Donner60 (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    The pedantic style is intended to indicate an attention to detail, rather than a connection with the more negative qualities referred to by the wiktionary definition. -- Trevj (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    Since I found it appealing, I focused on the positive qualities. Also, for what little it's worth, wiktionary was not the first dictionary that google cited. Donner60 (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

37. Support. Refreshing nomination style, great contribs. Thought you already were an admin, etc. Good Luck! — sparklism ^hey! 12:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
38. Support - no issues here. GiantSnowman 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
39. Longterm user, clean block log, seems fully qualified. Content created may not be a GA, but it does include reliable sources, and that to my mind is the minimum for a new admin. As for the deletion of Trevj's IP, as the admin who revision deleted that, we aren't all happy to disclose our IPs and I'm happy to do such revision deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Content creation isn't an issue for me. Knowledge of how the place works counts for more. Hiding your IP isn't an issue either. (I've never bothered to ask for my one accidental IP edit to be concealed as it's not identifiable. If I made one that was, I'd definitely ask for revdel.) We all have different visions for the encyclopaedia. I can see a point in requiring content creation, but do we require teachers to write textbooks before they're allowed to teach? Must you be able to compose music to play it or listen to it? Peridon (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
41. Support Well qualified candidate, no concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
42. Support - While I would prefer to see a little more experience with AfD, the candidate seems to have overall good judgement and I appreciate that the articles that they created are well-referenced. Bonus points for having a sense of humor.- MrX 18:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
43. Support - A pretty reasonable fellow in my experiences. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
44. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
45. Support. This is someone I've seen around, and I don't see any problems. The answers to questions are thoughtful, articulate, and friendly. I've thought about the "oppose" reasons that have been given so far. It seems to me that the revdel concern has been explained to where it is a non-issue. As for content work, I looked at the pages that the candidate linked in their statement, and the content is good enough to satisfy me that this is someone who knows how to discuss content intelligently with other users. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
46. Support, I don't think I've seen much of Trevj in the wild, but those are some good answers. Experience as a Teahouse helper is a nice bonus. Huon (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    I'm satisfied with my contributions at the Teahouse being of help to newcomers. To put the contributions into context, I was more involved early on, and after a while remember reading that more invitations were needed in order to encourage visitors. Since then, I've found that responses there are often dealt with efficiently, such that backlogs don't seem to be a regular problem. As a result, the project is something which I've regrettably not been very involved with for a considerable time now. However, I'm available to help with backlogs and will probably dip in and out to check for unanswered questions again in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

47. Support Yes, certainly, and his help at RM will be much appreciated. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
48. Support - The user seems like he will make a good admin, and the answers to the questions have all been above satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
49. —Kusma (t·c) 06:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
50. Weak support. Generally good contributions. Limited content creation. I agree that revdeletion is sometimes misused, but I don't blame Trevj for that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
52. Support - level-headed, adminship will be net-positive. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
53. Support. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
54. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
55. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
56. Support -- Fully qualified. Also satisfied with answer to Q7, no other concerns. Personally, I've asked for oversight for that reason before. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 22:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
57. Support - Why not. I see no reason why another mop should not be handed out. The opposes do not give me any reason to think otherwise.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
58. Support - Net positive. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
59. Support I'm seeing no problems, and candidate appears polite, reasonable and thoughtful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
60. --Rzuwig^► 10:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
61. Support Competent, level-headed editor. Content creation could be better, but what he has done shows a good understanding of content policies. Solid answers to the questions, seems like a nice bloke - yes, looks like admin-material to me. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
62. Support I first noticed you in Mentoz's AdF, so I thought you were brave to self-nominate, but doesn't seem you had much to fear. You have been here a long time, seem to have a sympathetic behaviour and the right attitude, and I trust the others here regarding evaluation of competence. Good luck. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
63. Support Well-qualified. User's many assets by far outweigh the concern over lack of content creation. Easy to communicate with. Polite, calm, level-headed manner. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
64. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. Making up for Carrite's ridiculous oppose (and seems like a fine candidate). Chick Bowen 03:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
66. Support. AfD comments and non-admin closures look good, and I'm not seeing any red flags. Should make a fine admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
67. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
68. Support. Ok with me. Never been blocked, Always uses the Edit Summary. Therefore I support. When does he get his shirt and mop?!Bobherry talk 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
69. Support. Good answers. Spicemix (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
70. Support per Chick Bowen. Carrite is entitled to his opinion just as much as any of the rest of us, but I really can't agree with his position here. In the absence of any convincing reasons to oppose (content creation is not a big deal to me), I'm landing here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Sounds like a sensible person, but I hate the answer to question 7 enough to land here. Revision deletion is grossly overused and this is an excellent example of "convenience cleansing." Carrite (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

   That was a perfectly acceptable use of revision deletion (hiding suppressible material prior to oversight). I have since requested oversight, and the IP address has been suppressed. I frankly don't know why you are this interested in Trevj's location and the other information that knowing this IP would give you, but I find it slightly disturbing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

   I agree that revdel has been overused at times, but we almost always hide a user's IP address on request. There is nothing inappropriate about Trevj's request, and the suppression was fully within policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

   If scrubbing six nine posts to hide an IP number that was posted through the free will of the poster is "policy," the policy sucks. Revision deletion is frequently used for the sanitization of missteps by insiders. Newcomers get hosed, insiders scrub the historical record with impunity. It's disgusting and needs to stop. Revision deletion is for suppression of libel and copyright violation, not convenience editing of the historical record. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for voicing these concerns. Perhaps the list of unblock methods should be reordered, and a note added warning that requests for revdel of IP addresses may not be granted. -- Trevj (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

   Revision deletion and suppression of IP addresses is very common, and it won't be stopped because one user believes that it is frequently used to cover up mistakes. Revision deletion generates public log entries and both leave gray lines through revisions in the page's history, which makes it very difficult for people to secretly remove mistakes. Not to mention that the revision deletion / suppression screen includes this warning: "Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc...will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping." I challenge anybody to produce a link to content that was hidden solely due to the involved admin making a mistake. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

   Reaper Eternal is entirely correct about this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Carrite. As the admin who did those revision deletion's I'm keen to know why you regard my actions as incorrect. Could you clarify what your concern is about hiding IPs that are "posted through the free will of the poster"? Are you saying that you are OK with revdeleting IPs disclosed inadvertently when the system autologs you out a millisecond before you hit save, but not when someone else deliberately publicises your IP address? Or should I read your comment that it should only be "for suppression of libel and copyright violation" as opposition to any suppression of IP addresses? Personally I don't give a monkeys if my home IP is disclosed, I even listed a couple of them in my first RFA. But I can understand if others take this differently, there is a big difference between an IP that indicates I buy my Home Broadband from one of the UK's largest cable companies and someone else having an IP that for example discloses where they work. ϢereSpielChequers 22:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose Seems like a good enough guy, but given that the examples of his best content work are poor, he is perhaps not the best person to admin an encyclopedia. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per Ceoil. Eric Corbett 17:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not enough involvement in - and therefore understanding of - content creation. I would have liked to have seen at least one GA. Graham Colm (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose as per Ceoil. I'd prefer to see more work in content creation (even gnoming). Civil POV pushing is a major issue, and it's one that needs to be experienced before someone becomes an admin. Should s/he do more content work, I'd switch to support. Intothatdarkness 18:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral First to be neutral! jni (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Jni, it would help if you explained why you're neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Prolly not sure yet. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  Just wanted to see answers to additional questions first. Changed to support. jni (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral, basically on Support -- Answer to Q7 is unsatisfactory, but otherwise great candidate. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sportsguy17: It has been established above that hiding an IP address is WP:SIGHT criteria, not just WP:REVDEL. What specific qualms do you have about Q7? Just wondering. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see the comments above regarding oppose !vote #1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)