I noticed you reverted my edit at WP:ANRFC. I am the user who initiated the current request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. The comments I removed were comments made by an anonymous user who submitted a closure request before the thirty day period of the request. I simply removed it because I believe it is no longer relevant (it does not need the attention of an administrator) and that the updated status of the request, that it is waiting for assessment by an administrator, should be clear. I am writing to apologise for my edit, since it appears as if you think it was counterproductive. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk)
Relisted the first and closed the second. (The first also needs to be closed by an admin, as the target contains more than one revision.) ArmbrustTheHomunculus02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You can only upload images on Wikipedia, if you have made 10 edits and your account is older than 4 days. Also images from Bollywood Hungama can only be uploaded if they pass certain strict criteria, which can be found at commons:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. However if they fit these, than should be uploaded to our free media repository, the Commons. You do not need any special permissions to upload there, and you can use the same username and password you use here. ArmbrustTheHomunculus12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone can become an administrator after a successfull Wikipedia:Requests for adminship nomination, although I strongly discourage you from making such a request at this time (as it would certainly fail). There are no required standards, although accounts, that are younger than 6 months and have less than 3,000 non-automated edits, rarely pass. ArmbrustTheHomunculus13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Seem to matter, as this is an encyclopedia, so I don't understand why you promote a FP not supported by the article text, when this is noted in the FPC. I bring this up in the FPC talk page, and I am letting you know of that discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
No, WP:Consensus deals explicitly with raising concerns such as mine, that the diagram does not meet FP Criteria.
"A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised."
Failing the criteria to be a FP is a proper concern. Lol. Should I nominate it to be delisted nw? Let's take this to the community discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
That doesn't mean, that one oppose !vote will magically outweigh the other seven support !votes. From the lead of WP:FPC: "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image". ArmbrustTheHomunculus12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Banhtrung1
Just a quick query – say this user created articles in violation of the restriction, would they be eligible for CSD per G5? GiantSnowman14:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Your comments on WP:CFDS appeared that you opposed the renaming of the project, but you are only stating that the category move does not meet speedy criteria. Is that correct? 117Avenue (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, when you get a chance can you close out the talk page discussion and move the above-referenced article. There is a consensus the article name should be simply Betty Boothroyd. There has been no movement in quite a while and it's long past 7 days. Thanks. Quis separabit?13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Then could someone fix the resulting junk, since the new cat doesn't exist and has 64 entries, and the old cat still has the request for comments. --Bejnar (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so basically what I was going for. Ready for the complaints about how we missed the anniversary by a day? I know I am! They'll complain about anything... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
E-Mailed You Carefully-Edited Logos For WEZR (AM) & WKKB
I am rather frustrated by your opposition to renaming Category:Redditch District Council elections. This is a standard naming format for these categories (alongside "Council elections in Redditch"), and the presence of the Redditch local elections article is not relevant to the naming of the category. As I noted on the discussion page, I am concerned that this is something of an abuse of process, as you seem to be complaining about the naming format of the categories in general, rather than the specific cases put forward, which are clearly in line with the established naming convention.
Could you reconsider your opposition, and also let me know if you will continue to do so if future mistakes are identified? Number5722:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
PS, apologies if this comes across as a little brusque, but it's been a long day... I'm just trying to avoid going through the whole CfR process when the outcome is obvious. Cheers, Number5722:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Well standard naming formats are not covered by the C2D speedy criteria, and now that the category is at full discussion it's not eligible for speedy renaming. I also think that the presence of the Redditch local elections article is relevant, because it causes a conflict between two speedy criteria, and this can only be resolved with a full discussion. Regarding you question about mistakes, I can't give a general answer. It's completely dependent on the nominated category. ArmbrustTheHomunculus01:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: No problem, everyone can have a long a day. In such cases I hear an album of System of a Down, Static-X or Splipknot. They calm me down. ArmbrustTheHomunculus01:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I still don't see why the presence of the Redditch local elections is relevant, because it is unrelated to the well-established naming convention for that category tree. Surely WP:C2C is also relevant in the sense that the suggested correction maintains the estabilshed naming convention? Number5713:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Armbrust. Knowing of your closure of the Mariah Carey birth year WP:RfC (a closure that I previously noted here at your talk page earlier this year so that you would correct a typo you made in it) and that I think you regularly close WP:RfCs, would you be willing to close this one about the WP:Lead, which I made a request for at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? It's a WP:RfC that should have been closed by now, but the discussion got a comment today from JzG (talk·contribs). Looking at the edit history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, it seems that that's where JzG came across this WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I created this category, for an article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. We later had a discussion on the talk page, and renamed it 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I do not understand why this does not meet speedy criteria. It should, to be in line with the main article, under criteria D:
D. A rename to facilitate concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name.
The C2D speedy criteria contains more than what you quote. It clearly says:
This applies only if the related article's current name [...] is [...] uncontroversial – either due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename.
Given that neither of this applies, this category can't be speedily renamed. The mentioned discussion wasn't a requested move, which last for a minimum of seven days and is closed by an uninvolved user. For how to initiate a full discussion see WP:CFD#HOWTO. BTW adding the speedy renaming tag back to the category isn't enough for it to be renamed. It's needs to be listed at WP:CFDS, where I will oppose it again. ArmbrustTheHomunculus20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of all this. I suppose you figure 'controversial' different than I do. I guess it can be left, as I have no desire to endure a discussion. It is a shame, though. RGloucester — ☎21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this merge consensus. This AfD came from DRV, I believe that the article has potential for further expansion. I'm not seeing any GNG issues. If you disagree I would prefer an admin close as I generally do with article coming from DRV. Thanks! Valoemtalkcontrib16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Could that logo possibly be uploaded as non-free logo to serve as primary identification at top of the page, due to it being a low-res logo? TheMesquitobuzz15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. till the time you are there, 24-hr open, that's not needed. But a bot can do that more faster, eh..?? The herald15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Armbrust, I have no idea why you have removed material which is both researched and true from my edits of List of snooker player nicknames...including the fact that the puppet himself repeats his nickname? You've also removed my concession about the tag, "Interesting." I was perfectly willing to compromise and modify my original work – is this not the essence of a cooperative encyclopaedia? But I see you even removed those. Having contributed to wikipedia for a number of years on assorted topics, only once in this time have I suffered what I would call a malicious edit, when another writer recommended an article for deletion within minutes of my researching and writing it. But that is not really the point. Mainly I cannot understand why your edits seem to be suppressing material with which you do not agree, even to the extent of removing the citations provided for it. Ronnie O'Sullivan is not the same case – the nickname was provided under different circumstances. I see that you have also reverted other people's "good faith" edits, and I wonder with what authority you proceed to nullify others' work? I am reverting your edits and adding a citation of IMDb (Internet Movie Database). (incidentally, sorry to revert one of yours, but I did not know how to get my work back without doing that. I have restored my work manually.) I very much hope that you might respect the validity of my research. I hope that you had a good Bank Holiday. FClef (talk)08:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Well for first Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (that's Wiktionary), but an encyclopaedia. I also have removed it again, as IMDB isn't a reliable source, see WP:IMDb/RS. The Nickname article also clearly says in it's Conventions in various languages section, that "English nicknames are generally represented in quotes between the bearer's first and last names". This is the case here too. ArmbrustTheHomunculus08:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected the speed error "dictionary," which you graciously point out. (Snowed under with university teaching and working quickly.) You failed to spot my other "deliberate" error in the initials IMDb, which I've also amended. Your citation of wikipedia seems to be an example of post hoc, propter hoc reasoning. Unfortunately you have not addressed the suppression of material points, which I, as a good faith contributor, consider important. How does Wikipedia feel about the removal of citations which support work? And the removal of compromise (like my "shortened to Interesting", etc.) Does Wikipedia like dogma? FClef (talk)09:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You call it "suppression of material", but I say it's removal of incorrect information. Also already said Youtube and IMDB are not reliable sources, and the Express.co.uk source doesn't say that this is a nickname either. There is no need for a compromise (which look awful BTW), as the nickname isn't 'Steve "Interesting" Davis" but just simply "Interesting". ArmbrustTheHomunculus09:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
2014 World final article
I see this revert. Please note that we'll be converting these bullet points to something approaching decent prose in due course. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a book of trivial facts. It would be great if you'd help. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Do you contest the guideline's validity? (I'm inquiring because you redirected Conan (TV series) to a disambiguation page before hundreds of incoming links were repaired and allowed that change to stand when another user reinstated it.) —David Levy01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
BD2412 (similar user name coincidental, I believe) repaired the incoming links in the article namespace (410 of them, to be specific) the following day.
To be clear, there's no question that BDD was acting in good faith; the change (at that point) simply wasn't consistent with Wikipedia's consensus-backed practices. —David Levy16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Problem with an article you moved...
Hi Armbrust – I see that last month you moved Otago Region to Otago, after a request and two supports. It's a shame there wasn't any posting about the discussion at WP:WPNZ, and that I wasn't aware of that discussion (and neither were any other Otago Wikipedians, by the looks of it...). Otago can refer to Otago Region – the current official name of the region, or to Otago Province, the former subnational designation for the area. Under the new name, there is likely to be significant confusion between the two. There are also other concerns – note that the vast majority of articles relating to the area also have "Otago Region" as part of their names (as – until this name-change went through – did all the categories). This has also thrown a major spanner in the works as far as uniformity is concerned, since all other New Zealand regions use "Region" as part of their article and category names. Grutness...wha?08:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the current "Otago Region" is the clear primary meaning of "Otago", hence the proposal. The discussion was one of a series—all of the articles on NZ regions are being discussed in turn (a group discussion on all of them resulted in a general feel that individual discussions would be preferable). I also don't think there's a need for all the region articles to use the same name formatting. In some cases, such as "Otago", the name is the primary meaning. For others, such as Wellington Region, it will not be, so the latter will have to be disambiguated in some form or another. Finally, there was a posting at WP:WPNZ about the discussion: see here. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree on the clear primary reason. Otago Region and Otago Province are both widely described as being "Otago", with neither one being primary. Grutness...wha?23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool, Danke. Ich habe noch eine Frage. Es betrifft den Artikel: Balkline and straight rail. Im letzten Abschnitt hatte ich die verschiedenen Cadrearten aufgeteilt in metrische und imperiale Maße (s. meine Bearbeitung vorher), mit eine Tabelle. Die wurde mit der Begründung herausgenommen, das die Amis das ja erfunden haben Blabla. So wie es jetzt ist, sieht es nach der doppelten Menge an Cadrespielen aus, was es definitiv nicht ist. Siehe auch dazu Carom billiards#Balkline. Dort hat er es noch nicht gesehen und gelöscht. Was tun? Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust! Thanks for fixing up the mess I made of that. I've considered awarding myself the Barnstar of Administrative Incompetence ("for completely fuddling up a simple CSD G6 move") but I'd probably add to another user's talk page by mistake. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Armbrust. You closed the requested move discussion on the talk page linked above, but the page hasn't been moved to its rightful title. Is there something else that needs to be done to get this page moved? Versace1608(Talk)12:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be worth putting an auto archive on this page, rather than you doing it all? Although I have to confess I don't know if there are any bots capable of recognising that it can archive when a thread is marked with the Done symbol. Number5713:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
So, der Artikel ist übersetzt. ich hoffe, ich habe alles richtig gemacht. dabsolver ist auch schon rübergelaufen. Wäre aber nett, wenn du nochmal prüfen würdest. Es gibt hier noch eine kleine, nicht aktuelle Liste. Die erübrigt sich wohl. Der Titel BWA World Champions ist eh falsch. Es wurden von 1988 bis 1991 ein paar als WM gewertet, weil die UMB keine eigene WM ausgerichtet hat. Hier gibt es noch einen Fehler. Habe SLA gestellt. Evtl. stimmen noch irgendwelche Links nicht. Mal sehen. Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Armbrust. I just uploaded a ton of Bounce TV affiliate Text Logos to their corresponding articles. I'm messaging you right now to ask for a 2nd opinion. I rested on the decision to consider the Bounce TV logos to NOT be within Public domain, because the colors are too complex. The logos are a grayish color but it's not a solid, uniform gray but, instead, the gray's shading varies throughout the logo. But there was one instance where a Bounce TV logo was in solid black, in which case I rated the logo as a Public domain logo. For example, Text Logos such as this one, I considered as a NON-Public domain logo that was subject to Non-Free Rules and I considered this text logo to be within Public domain. I suppose that the uneven "O" character might also be considered adequate grounds for considering the logo to be a NON-Public domain file; although, I'm rather lax in my determinations and I rested my decisions on the complexity of the coloring alone. For Text Logos, Solid Colors = Public Domain and Uneven Colors = NON-Public domain. It was a tough call but I decided that the complex colors definitely played an adequate role in my decision to consider these text logos to be NON-Public domain images. Please, let me know what you think of this decision, Armbrust and whether you feel it was a sound one for me to have made. I just figure, "better safe than sorry" because Wikipedia has been known to treat instances of Copyright violations very seriously. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, Armbrust. Could you help me out and delete these stubs I created some time ago. They are either not notable enough or no third-party sources is available.
@Crisco 1492: I wasn't in the mood to argue with him, and his latest comment ("it was a non admin closure, so yes, I got permission from me, myself and I") makes me think he has absolutely no idea how FPC works. If you think you can reinstate it. ArmbrustTheHomunculus10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Carom Federations
Hi Armbrust, habe folgende Artikel übersetzt: ACBC, ACC, CEB und CPB. Bitte mal durchsehen. Bin mir nicht ganz sicher ob ich die Infoboxen richtig aus gefüllt habe (auch UMB). Vielleicht willst du ja auch noch einen stub-baustein einfügen. Kennst du jemanden der aus dem Spanischen übersetzen kann?. Gruß. --LezFraniak (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Better to leave it. I left a note on an admin's talk page as I've never seen this type of notice before. Thanks anyway. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Follow up. It turns out the template is to alert an admin that a deletion is needed on the copy vio edits. The admin I asked went ahead and deleted the edits and removed the template. So learned something new on WP today. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This time I also agree with moving the article name. But, two inputs are not a consensus, for future reference let a few more users give their inputs for move of the name before making it. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice you have decided almost unilaterally to re-move many Apple pages ordinals from numbers to names without proper discussion. These have previously been discussed a number of times now, and there were clear and obvious reasons why we should NOT use first/second/etc. in place of 1st/2nd/etc. for these products. So can you please undo the edits accordingly, before I'm forced to re-raise it on the appropriate admin boards to have it undone, yet again. Proper discussions should always be carried-out before such a large change was re-imposed on the titles for these pages, which have a knock-on effect on a huge number of other connected pages and their content – and having checked the page histories concerned, those discussions most certainly did not properly occur (THIS is certainly not a proper discussion: and certainly NOT "result of the move request was: moved all as proposed"!), so such edits are completely invalid and against WP policy. As a regular editor, I'm sure you'll understand this is the correct course of action according to the WP guidelines we all have to follow. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Jimthing (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That's untrue, as I said above, it was previously discussed and previous consensus was to leave as it was as it was for very clear reasons, not least it being the brand name Apple themselves use in their own documentation, which overrides the WP naming scheme guideline (plus many other reasons, including legacy, page layout problems, et al – eg. here). In fact the very first comment on your RM makes this very clear: "There has been quite some discussion about whether to use spelled out ordinals, and these pages were recently moved back to numeric ordinals, while iPhone (first generation) remains intact. We should keep the usage of ordinals consistent" – which is exactly as they were BEFORE your so-called consensus that lasted all of seven days; a ludicrously short timeframe for such a massive re-edit that causes many issues on other pages across the site. You also failed to ping other regular users talk pages for opinion (just as you failed on your response above to add a talkback to my talk page). Hence please do the appropriate and right thing, and undo your mistake accordingly, given the RM failed to reach a true and proper consensus in the first place, hence is invalid, so other editors don't have to waste their valuable time re-sorting this out again for you. Jimthing (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and it looks like in this case it did. Also it's not the closers job to "ping other regular users talk pages for opinion". Disagreeing with the result of the RM doesn't mean that it's invalid. ArmbrustTheHomunculus06:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"it looks like in this case it did" – I'm sorry but "looking" like it did is not the same as it actually being so. There was no CLEAR CONSENSUS full stop, therefore your edits were not correct according to WP policy, regardless of anyone disagreeing or agreeing with them. It was 2:2 (as proposer, your vote does not count) – as I said above the first replier was against it, even making it very clear that this had been discussed many times before, going so far to state "these pages were recently moved back to numeric ordinals", which you completely ignored to find out why – instead going ahead and unilaterally editing, creating other legacy issues you failed to even notice nor were considered or discussed anywhere in the request. You also didn't check the talk pages for all the edits you wanted to make for previous comments about such a change either (eg. here is one clear example). You've also entirely ignored other points I've made above: 7 days with only 4 replies (with NO CLEAR consensus) is not long enough and not enough replies for such major page naming decisions (and their consequences) to be made. And it's also considered good faith to ping other users on such major changes, especially when hardly any replies were forthcoming meaning other editors very clearly did not even see the request in the first place, given as it was hidden away on a single talkpage of only one page of the many that you edited. Jimthing (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. I didn't propose to move the articles, that was 159.118.81.240 (whose !vote obviously count, even if you don't like it) and as nominator he automatically supports the nomination. Also consensus isn't based on head counts, but on the strength of the arguments, and the users supporting the move had a guideline-based argument (WP:ORDINAL). By closing an RM it isn't necessary to evaluate all discussions, which took place in the past, but only the current one, and therefore Talk:IPad#Naming convention isn't relevant (for which you, as an involved editor, can't declare what the consensus is anyway). WP:RM discussions can be closed after 7 days, and therefore the discussion is long enough, and WP:CONLIMITED doesn't even apply (mostly because the result of the RM didn't go against any established policy/guideline, and because the discussion you mention was never closed to determine its consensus). The argument that "it was hidden away on a single talkpage of only one page" shows you have absolutely not clue, how the RM process works. 1: all discussions are listed on WP:RM until they are closed, and 2: because this was a multi-move proposal, therefore a bot placed a notification on the talk page of all other involved articles. Also notifying/pinging other users (not required by the RM process) is courteous, but it has nothing to do with good faith. BTW arguing this any further would be just a waste of time, if you think there is something faulty with the close than you should raise it at WP:Move review. ArmbrustTheHomunculus00:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally misread that RM thinking it was opened you, my apologies. Shame the other editors who commented didn't know (or care?) about the back history of the page name issues, as they jumped to conclusions without checking past discussions on fully-factual WP guidelines for these. The problem I find on WP, is that unless you keep track of the right pages, you can end up not noticing an RM or whatever has been started, and then the change has taken place before one has had a chance to notice and attempt to stop it; is there a good way of tracking such things...? Anyway, I'll sort these myself, thanks. Jimthing (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Saw it during my check for FPC urgents, and I'm always willing to close things if I haven't voted on them. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Because the voting period didn't ended yet, and it wasn't a speedy close. (Currently speedy closes are only for unsuccessful nominations.) The voting period is there for a reason, and you tend to close nominations constantly early. ArmbrustTheHomunculus00:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It was closed 20 minutes early, with seven supports and no opposes. I really don't see the problem. It's not like I'm skipping a day. I was there, it was close to time, so I closed it. <Sven ManguardWha?00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Well it's actually AN. At "Are you in the right place?" it says "Administrative backlogs → you can add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page or post a notice here.". ANRFC is the place to list individual discussions that need closure. ArmbrustTheHomunculus13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust, pardon my technical backwardness, but why is it that when I click on a pic. I can no longer see how big (number of px) it is? Sca (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't know, I can still see it at the file description pages. They are missing for you probably because Wikipedia:Media Viewer was turned on for all accounts, and you didn't turn it off yet. The page also contains how this can be done. ArmbrustTheHomunculus14:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
A. A list of FPs by nominator (creator/restorationist if possible), particularly the top ten.
B. People who have had 40 or more FPs since the start of this year?
I want to cover FP milestones for users in the Signpost, but there's no lists like there are for articles (so far as I know). Adam Cuerden(talk)12:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know from such lists either. Probably because they didn't exist. I'm afraid going through the monthly FPC archives is the solution. ArmbrustTheHomunculus13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your close of the Requested move on the above page. But what happens now? Can random editors such as me just go ahead and move the pages? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That'll leave some breathing space in a couple years... so I guess having birds every eight days or so will be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of categories for discussion
Hello Armbrust! I notice that you deleted a few categories I nominated for speedy move under criterion C2A, saying that they were "untagged".[2] Could you let me know what this means or point me to a page that could explain it to me, so that I can make a proper submission? Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. I found the detailed instructions and I think I can get by. First time submitting CfD's, so I went too fast. Madalibi (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Madalibi: Hopefully it's not WP:CFD#HOWTO, that's only applicable for full discussions. For a speedy renaming the relevant instructions are in the lead of WP:CFDS:
They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal.
Armbrust. I think I made the wrong decision about the Čiurlionis pictures category. They are more illustrations then paintings. Do you think it is possible to move them? They look weird among the other pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was my reasoning too. But I still think that some of them are more like illustrations. Ok, never mind. Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. When closing AfDs as 'redirect' please remember to add the appropriate 'R from...' template, in particular for schools: {{R from school}} to the redirect page so that it automatically adds the appropriate message and populates the school redirect cat. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust, thank you for reading, 'digesting' and closing the Wikipedia:Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC. Regarding your comment: "There was, however, no discussion about the the conditions, under which it should be re-enabled", it was mentioned, at least by me, that Media Viewer should only be enabled when all the beta testing has been completed, all the bugs and faults fixed and resolved and offered as a default only where there is overwhelming approval for it. I think if MV was fully tested, worked fine, offered the same easy access to file information, links and other functions, etc, and 'offered' to (not forced on) Wikipedia overall it would have received a much better reception. There is one lingering question. Will the WMF media viewer project team be compelled to respect consensus and the decision of this RfC? Or do they still have the option of doing what they please? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the sub-sections (for logged-in users & for non-logged-in users) separately, before reading the rest of the discussion, and closing the whole discussion. So it's probably in one of the other sections (too long to read it again), but it certainly wasn't discussed enough to form any consensus about the conditions for re-enabling of Media Viewer. ArmbrustTheHomunculus06:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking on such a huge task. As there indeed wasn't much discussion about 'conditions' for enable, only that most editors/readers simply wanted it disabled, it's not hard to assume that they don't ever want to see this viewer again, under any conditions. That is my speculation at least. In all fairness, they should have discussed 'conditions for enable' before it was dumped on everyone's lap. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate for you to change your original wording in RfC's closure note silently after your original description got implemented and subsequently reverted. Matma Rextalk15:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Armbrust and Matma Rex: -- Armbrust, thanks for clarifying a point in the closure notice. Since this is where the notice will be viewed overall the clarification is completely appropriate. Thanks also for your consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is any problem with it, I just added two words which were simply missing (and they are present in both subsections anyway). ArmbrustTheHomunculus16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I have only pointed it out because people have already commented on the exact wording you used on the talk page. Matma Rextalk16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, WP:CONLIMITED applies (as you may have noticed from the talk page). I had posted to a new section earlier, but it is gone now, and the old link takes me here. — Gryllida (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I have not, because I have never read that talk page. (Because the section you posted had the same title as an already existing section.) Bye, ArmbrustTheHomunculus12:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello again Armbrust. Since you closed the RfC of June 2014, I would encourage you to reconsider and say something at Arb'Com to help everyone resolve the issue involving this RfC, which is being brushed off as inconsequential by some WMF members. (See my response.) The RfC ran for more than a month, many editors and readers weighed in and as such it wasn't difficult to see the trend emerging that media viewer was not well received due to all of its bugs and faults. Anyways, whatever you decided, your efforts were appreciated. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Armbrust- Could you please have a look at this and let me know if the formatting/layout is acceptable. Thanks in advance--Godot13 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I hear you, confusion was my main concern. I just thought being able to see both works side by side might be helpful. I might just put a link in the engraving description to the original work... Thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Louvre
I moved The Louvre to Louvre, but I had to manually delete the talk page, and move the original talk page over. I think it is fine, but I usually don't have to do that. Can you check to make sure everything is fine?--S Philbrick(Talk)18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think Seattle categories need to include "Washington". Seattle itself does not. They don't appear to need disambiguation. Am I missing something? – Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've tentatively began editing British & Irish articles, as you've explained that my topic-ban 'expired' April 3. Just wanted to thank you, for the clarification that I was 'again' able to edit those articles :) GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Mert èn ponytosan igy akarok válaszolni ennek a személynek , mer elég volt ebböl a sok állandó civodásbol minden miatt ami az útjaba kerul. El akarom választani egy kulön válaszra. Hafspajen (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Köszi. Meg mondom miért. Lehet rémes, de nem az a fontos hogy civódunk, hanem az hogy mit szavaz, mert az eltunik a sok vacakban. Tul sok a vacakola´s mostanában. Hafspajen (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You relisted my requested move of Haym Solomon to Haym Salomon (currently a redirect to the former). Is this really necessary? The sources support the requested title and nobody (else) cared enough to even comment after a week. Sounds about as non-controversial as it gets here . —[AlanM1(talk)]—09:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Alt was nominated by me after Crisco's oppose (he wanted more pixels and I suggested the Google Art Project Gigapixel version based on the holding museum's own image). Hafspajen's image was not properly sourced. It claims to be the museum image, but it plainly isn't its published image and it's hard to reconcile with what you see in Google's Virtual Tour at the Musée d'Orsay (too pink). I do think it's rather possible that in fact it's an image of the smaller version auctioned for a then record price at Sotheby's in 1990 and reputed to be held in a private Swiss collection. The Sotheby catalogue for that is still available and I have ordered it and will let you know. I should have liked the nomination to take its course. I have renominated the Gigapixel version. Most of these have made their way to Featured Picture status by now. Concerning an editor at that forum who has (literally) screamed his dissatisfaction with me, every time he makes a pointed remark to me I reserve the right to respond in kind. I don't feel you need to respond to this. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and Question
Armbrust,
Thanks for relisting the requested move of Anne of Burgundy, Countess of Savoy! I'm hoping perhaps you can answer the question I have about the next step: What is done in cases of apparent apathy like this? Is it a sign I should have just moved the page myself? As the 2nd seven day period is ending with still very little response, should I just move the page now, or will an admin or helpful person such as yourself move it, relist it again, or should it be left alone? I appreciate any advice on the process, as I've not moved a page before. Thanks1bandsaw (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on either of them, but you have to consider the sizes of the original paintings in relation to the resolution of the files too. The first has a size of 34.5×66.5 cm with a 4,029×2,028 pixels resolution, while the second has a 200x205 cm (~2x2 m) size with just a 1,653×1,656 pixels resolution. So the first would probably have more chance at FPC. ArmbrustTheHomunculus19:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. I wasn't thinking of nominating them for a while, and just added the first one to the article, so it needs at least a week more. I was just frustrated that this really great painter is so little known – outside Hungary. Wish there were better files on Magányos cédrus , or Taormina, a fantastic picture, that one, really breathtaking. Wish we could get some better files on his works. Do you have any solution on this problem? Just feel free to nominate it, if you will, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I only nominate paintings at FPC if (1) there is an article about it or (2) it's a portrait, and there is an article about the depicted person. ArmbrustTheHomunculus20:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Armbrust for adminship. Over the past couple years Armbrust has fulfilled a great demand at Featured Picture Candidates, regularly closing nominations and nominating his own (and, in accordance with FPC rules, letting others close them). His judgment is quite good: he has yet to be wrong in one of these closures, and knows when to ask for further clarification before making a decision. He's also expressed a willingness to do the less glorious administrative duties, such as archiving and CFD. Although the articles he's created are not featured quality, they do indicate a good understanding of referencing and notability guidelines (example). All in all, I think Armbrust would be a great addition to the admin corps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Co-nom statement
I first came across Armbrust (talk·contribs) at WP:FFU, a few years ago, where I started assisted with processing requested uploads. At the time, Armbrust was the main contributor to WP:FFU (a place where we see a lot of new editors) where he patiently yet expeditiously processed requests. His high quality of work, his knowledge of procedure and his interaction with all sorts of editors, caused me to identify him as someone I'd like to learn from. He may not know this, but over the next few months, I WP:WIKISTALKed him (in a good way, methinks). I followed him to WP:FPC and then to WP:ANRFC, both places where he clerks. At WP:ANRFC, I saw how he would assist by performing non-admin closures and I tried to learn from him how to best handle situations. Although, we did not directly interact much at that time, I learned many skills from Armbrust, skills that led me have the community trust me with the mop this past March. Since then, Armbrust is quick to help clean up any mistakes I make (we're all human, right?) but does so in a friendly manner with helpful advice. Since I've known him, he's been a dedicated editor, taking on administrator-type tasks, including clerking WP:FPC, WP:ANRFC, WP:FFU, WP:CFDS and WP:PERM boards.
Since his last RfA he has taken the community's advice to heart. He has grown significantly as an editor, and shows he has a great understanding of our policies and procedures. He has the skill set that it takes to be a great administrator. I wholeheartedly believe that if the community gave him the mop, it would benefit the project tenfold. This being said, I am happy to co-nominate my friend Armbrust for adminship. TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will begin my work at areas that I have experience with: speedy deletion of files (including orphan revisions of non-free files) and the closure of XfDs and RMs. I'm already actively closing discussion as a non-admin, but the lack of the bit restricts my activity to non-deleted outcomes for XfDs and need ask for assistance after some RM closes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's quite difficult to choose your best contributions if you have made over 230,000 edits. I have created over 380 articles on the English Wikipedia, my most recent creation is the 2014 Shanghai Masters (a scheduled snooker tournament) and brought the Ronnie O'Sullivan article to GA status. I have also created some intricate templates, like {{POTD category header}} or {{64Teamx2RoundAnd32TeamX2RoundBracket}}. I have been actively closing WP:FPC nominations since December 2012 (successfully nominating 14 images to reach FP status) and archiving the various subpages of WP:RFPERM since December 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: I have been in comparably few conflicts in the recent months, probably because I edit a mainly conflict-free topic area. However, if I encounter conflict during my editing than I try to remain calm, and solve it through discussion. If the situation makes me too angry/stressed out, than I withdraw from the discussion for a while to cool down and be able to reassess the situation. Going forward I will try to use the same approach, and will not use administrative tools if I'm involved.
4. Let's just get to the elephant in the room here, your close of the Media Viewer RFC. Upon reflection, do you think the close appropriately reflected the consensus reached there? Also, is there a specific reason you are not participating in the arbitration case that came out of the resulting blow-up?
A: Unfortunately I have missed to add the two words "by default" in the original closure summary of the discussion, since then fixed. But except that I think it completely represented the discussion. There was overwhelming support in the discussion that "disabled" should be the default state of the Media Viewer. The closure didn't contain anything about the implementation of the result, because that wasn't discussed in the RFC (AFAIR, too long to read it through again). Since then I have seen many times, that the subject of the RFC should fall under WP:CONEXCEPT. I have no opinion about that, except that if it indeed does, then the WMF should have informed the community about it sooner and not just after the RFC came to a conclusion they didn't like. I didn't comment in the recently accepted ArbCom case mostly because IMO I'm just marginally involved in the case, as the user who closed the RFC, and I don't want to get more involved with it. ArmbrustTheHomunculus19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the wording in WP:CONEXCEPT came about from this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_14#Developers. The discussion didn't attract much attention (four people commented - for what it's worth, none of them WMF staff or admins), but the wording apparently hasn't been challenged or questioned. Given the flow of the discussion, the intention appears to have been to indicate that one Wikipedia community does not hold influence over another, so consensus on en.wp does not mean consensus on commons or mediawiki, so the community on en.wp cannot induce the mediawiki developers to do something that they don't wish to. However, I don't think from the discussion that it was ever intended to suggest that the mediawiki developers can ignore consensus on any project and enforce their will or preference against wide and legitimate disagreement. I think the point that was being made in the discussion was that no project can force another project to do something, unless it is an office action. For the avoidance of doubt, an office action is a legal imperative - a software adjustment that changes the way images are viewed is not an office action. As such, the RfC did not fall foul of WP:CONEXCEPT, and your close appears to have followed consensus and been appropriate. SilkTork✔Tea time21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Mediawiki developers, including both paid WMF staff and volunteers, are responsible for the development of the software that the Wikipedia editors use to write the encyclopedia. The independent developer community makes whatever changes it deems necessary or appropriate to the software, such as adding, removing, or changing software features The closure was not wrong in assessment of consensus, it was wrong in not addressing the WP:CONEXCEPT issue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Going to point at the other elephant in the room, your block log. Fifteen months is a long time since your previous block, in that the time since your last block, what have you learned?
A: First I have to say, that every block for edit warring or breaking the 3-revert rule is valid and deserved. I have no excuse for either of them, and they are the result of my own bad judgement. What I learned from them is that there is no acceptable reason to edit war, and it should be avoided every time. ArmbrustTheHomunculus19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
6. The majority of your historical blocks are for edit warring. How do you understand the three revert rule and why is preventing edit warring important?
A: The 3-revert rule says that no editor can make more than three reverts to a single page in a 24-hour period (with some exceptions). Preventing edit warring is important because it hinders the resolution of conflicts via dispute resolution, and unnecessarily floods the recent changes. ArmbrustTheHomunculus19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
7. A significant number of opposers during my own RfA indicated concerns about edit-warring. (The situation is different, as you have history but nothing recent, while I had no history but violated 3RR during the RfA.) I agreed to a self-imposed WP:1RR restriction to help reassure the community I intended to pay particularly severe attention to my conduct in editing disputes in the future. Would you agree to the same self-imposed restriction, for at least the first year or your adminship?
9. Was there anything in particular that caused you to consider earlier this year (or sooner) requesting adminship this time? If this RfA is closed (perhaps undeservedly) as unsuccessful, what do you think would be the main areas you'd focus attention on before running again? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
A: There are two reasons why I didn't run sooner. The first is that I wanted to have a one-year clean block log (I thought that would be enough, but looking at the oppose section, it seems some want to see more time passed since the last entry). The second is that nobody offered to nominate me after April and I don't really want to nominate myself. ArmbrustTheHomunculus08:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
10. In your answer to question 3, you say that your recent avoidance of conflict is "probably because I edit a mainly conflict-free topic area", and that if a situation looks conflictual you will withdraw. That is a very good strategy for an editor, but it is often unworkable for an admin who has used tools and is required to account for their use. When editors object to a deletion, a block or the closure of a discussion, some of them can be quite vociferous and even abusive, so it is not unusual for an admin who has acted in an apparently calm area to find that they are required to carefully explain their actions whilst under unreasonable attack. Since your coping strategy is to walk away from trouble, doesn't your answer mean that you will be unable to cope with the heat of the admin kitchen? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Edit summary usage for Armbrust can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Comment I see many of the "opposes" are coming on the basis of Armbrust's block log. Most of those blocks (possibly all of them) have been in relation to snooker articles. WP:WikiProject Snooker does not have many participants and when there is a televised tournament there can be a massive amount of disruption to the articles and Armbrust is usually on the front line. He tended to just revert and obviously he got hammered a few times for it. However, Armbrust has made a sustained effort to change his approach in heated disputes and I can vouch for his increased participation on snooker article talk pages, and given that he has been block free for well over a year it seems to be working. I can appreciate why his actions as an editor are coming under scrutiny, but IMO the block log doesn't fairly reflect the efforts he has undertaken to reform his conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support - Armbrust's tireless work patrolling areas that few admins take on (MfD, ANRFC) convinced me that him not being admin is detrimental to the project. I agree with the concerns about edit warring raised lower, but I have faith that Armbrust has moved past these issues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support per my nominating statement. Armbrust has had no blocks in more than 15 months, and his self-control continues to improve. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support- Armbrust would be a net positive to so many different areas of the community including MfD, ANRFC, FPC, CFD, RfR, FFU, and the list just goes on, that despite the concerns that will probably make success in this RfA very difficult, he would be such an incredible asset to the admin corps that it would be self-destructive to keep him out of all these areas he would be able to help out in. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Armbrust has a block log, and a weakness when it comes to snooker articles, but that is a singular failing. I've followed him for two years, barnstar'ed him once, and always been impressed with his willingness to mop up. He has a good attention for detail and knows more about the paperwork and procedure here than probably 80% of admin, myself included. I've gone out of my way to pay attention to his actions because I knew he would run again and I wanted to have an educated opinion. When using the tools, can I trust his judgement? Absolutely. Will he be fair to all comers? I think he will. Is he perfect? Of course not, but no admin is. If we want more admin that actually know how to use the tools and can be trusted to use them to benefit Wikipedia, I think Armbrust is a safe bet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Used to seeing Armbrust at MR all the time, and from my interactions seems like would make a good admin. PaleAqua (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Since a great many of the oppose votes seem to be concerning the block history and granted there were 7 real blocks if I count correctly - one was a mistake, there was self-requested extension, and one other appeared to have a time adjustment, just wanted to note that I consider the commitment in the answer to question 7 to be reassuring and still support. In addition it has been over a year since the last of the blocks. PaleAqua (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support While the concerns raised in the oppose section are reasonable, I think the candidate's positive contributions in some undeserved areas will be a big enough net positive that I am willing to take a chance that those problems may reoccur. Monty84517:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I don't have an issue with supporting this candidate. I like the answers for 5-7 and feel that edit warring wouldn't be an issue during his adminship. I also like his file and XfD work. Best of luck, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I expect that this RfA will not be successful, but I've watched the very good work that the candidate has been doing at the requests for closures noticeboard, and I want at least to register a "moral support". I think that Dennis Brown makes some good points above, but I also acknowledge the valid opposes from Salvio, Kudpung, and Hahc21. I've looked at the close of the Media Viewer RfC, and the ArbCom case that came of it, and I'm not seeing the candidate doing anything particularly wrong – the ArbCom case really concerns other users, and the RfC close seems OK to me. My comment should not be taken as a strong support, but instead as a friendly statement of appreciation for the candidate's extensive and helpful service. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Adminship isn't a prize for being a model citizen, it hands an editor a few extra maintenance tools. Apparently I opposed your 2011 RfA but I'm comfortable supporting this one. benmoore20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support; I was thinking about this for a bit, as the candidate is certainly qualified to be an admin, but the edit warring was a very legitimate concern. However, then I saw the answers to questions 5-7, which alleviate the concerns that I had. I trust the candidate's word that if he violates the 3RR he will request a desysopping, and the candidate clearly recognizes that he messed up, which is important. People can mature drastically in a year's time, and I trust that the candidate will avoid further issues. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This request clearly isn't going to pass, but I'd like to give my input, anyway. While I agree that the reasons for opposing are concerning, I think that Armbrust does excellent work, has the necessary experience to be an administrator and I don't think that he'd be abusive. I've only observed positive actions from him; I don't recall anything negative. Like Kudpung below, I am hugely appreciative of Armbrust's contributions to the various PERM pages. I also really like the answer to question five. Acalamari22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Support per Dennis Brown and others above. This is an earlier vote than I would normally make because I'm off to sun myself in yet warmer climes, but I've been editing at WP:FPC where he closes a while now and I'm pretty sure he will be a safe pair of hands. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't speak highly enough of the guy, knows pretty much every admin area like the back of his hand and is always helping out in a multitude of areas. His work at RM, where I'm active, is particularly appreciated – it is a process that is almost permanently in backlog and we need all the help we can get, especially so from editors like Armbrust who have a strong knowledge of WP:AT and its many subject specific guidelines. I have no doubt when I say Armbrust becoming an admin would have nothing but a positive effect on RM. But sadly this RfA is unlikely to pass and it seems to me it's because, like last time, you got yourself too easily talked into a nomination. You have to 'play the game' at RfA or you end up with pile on opposes from (well meaning) editors who have no real idea but just want to jump on the bandwagon. I would strongly suggest next RfA if you want to pass, plan it out weeks in advance (don't let yourself get talked into it after a day or so), get yourself an experienced RfA nom (by that I mean they have both successfully nominated plenty of candidates at RfA and you also see a lot of "per X" at various RfAs and WT:RFA), preferably someone who opposed here or at least didn't support so they can give the spiel about how much you've improved since last RfA. Kudpung is an obvious example, but others also spring to mind. Seek out the person(s) you want to have nominate you and start a dialogue with them, don't just wait until someone drives by your talk page. Make sure when you start your RfA when there have been no recent dramas that involved you at all even if you were not to blame (e.g. Media Viewer RfC). There are probably several other things you can do simply in terms of planning to make an RfA more likely to pass and I would suggest in a few months following up with some RfA 'heavy hitters' to see what advice they have. Lastly, I'm sorry if this sounds preachy, overly critical and/or cynical about the RfA process, but places like RM (and from what others have said, many other parts of the project) could use your help as soon as possible. In addition to that, you seem like a great guy and I wouldn't want to see you go through another unsuccessful RfA when it seems so avoidable to me. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. I have only ever had a good impression of his dedicated clerking and discussion closing. Seems intelligent and capable. Disagree that the block log is so extensive, and it is not so recent. So he had trouble with patience in editing conflicts? Adminship will not give him a looser rein, but require him to adhere to a higher standard. I have no fear that he will misuse the tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. Armbrust is extremely knowledgeable regarding Wikipedia policies and procedures and has excellent attention to detail. He does lots of high quality work and access to admin tools will help him to do more. The block log is long, but the most recent block is well over a year ago, so it's not a deal breaker for me. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support The fact is Armbrust takes on many administration duties already and fulfils them competently from what I've seen. He has a thorough knowledge of the policies etc and I think he's an asset to Wikipedia. Would make a great admin IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Does lots of administrative work already. Should do more! No blocks for more than a year, too, so no worries there. (One year is enough experience to become an admin, so one year clean block log is enough to forget about it). —Kusma (t·c) 09:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support While what the people in the oppose section mentioned is correct, I still feel that there is trust. Looks like adminship will be a net positive. Jianhui67T★C12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I see know reason why he cannot be one. The blocks are minor, and he has not been blocked since April last year. — Spydar007(Talk)13:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support mainly per Dennis above. Despite the bad history, his answers show a level of maturity and temperament I'm more than comfortable with. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a long blocklog, though the first block was a complete mistake and should be disregarded. The edit warring blocks are clearly worrying to many in the oppose column, but not sufficiently worrying to bring me to oppose. This is partly pragmatic, when admins wheelwar Arbcom is quite capable of desysopping them, so for a former edit warrer fifteen months being block free is enough for me. But there is also the question of commitment, I don't doubt the commitment of someone who has been blocked for editwarring, I just want a year of block free editing to show they have learned not to edit war. There are other types of blocks that would make me hesitate for longer, which isn't to say that edit warring is acceptable, just that it is less serious than vandalism, despite us as a community being much quicker to block edit warrers than vandals (we usually go through four levels of warning before blocking vandals but edit warrers rarely get any warning before they are blocked). ϢereSpielChequers19:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as he avoids snooker articles he will be fine, we all have our faults and Ambrust always seems to be as the type of editor who is better with the mop than without it. Per Dennis Brown Secretaccount22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of Armbrust's lengthy history of edit warring, but the last block was over a year ago. Armbrust is a prolific editor with enough experience and knowledge to do the job well. Barring some sort of miracle, this RfA is unfortunately not going to pass. If his fortunes do not change within a day or two, I'd recommend that Armbrust withdraws and returns in about six months or so. Kurtis(talk)03:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support based on long and excellent experiences with this editor in all sorts of processes here at Wikipedia (RFPP, ANRFC, and XfD come to mind, but I'm sure there've been more). With regard to the blocks, my views roughly parallel those expressed by SmokeyJoe and WSC. --j⚛e deckertalk05:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Mainly moral support, as I can't see this one succeeding. I agree with WSC above. Armbrust has plenty of clue and ought to get the mop next time. Barring going doolally in the meantime, of course... Peridon (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Yeah, I think he's a great editor and would be a net positive, by a long shot. Cunard's done a great job of listing concerns, but I still believe this editor is admin material, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:DEALWP:NETPOS. The candidate is a highly active editor who knows the ropes well and should be able to engage in admin tasks without difficulty or major drama. In my (admittedly very limited) interactions with the candidate, I recall meaningful edit summaries. I don't see how denying the candidate admin rights at this time would serve the encyclopedia particularly well... especially considering the views of those who are thinking along the lines of "not now but probably next time". -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Support enthusiastically! Armbrust has come a long way. He's stepped up to the plate once again and I think it's time we see him hit that homerun. Two strikes is enough. Lets not give him a third and risk totally discouraging this valuable editor from his passion for improving our project. As for the block log, a block for edit-warring carries less weight for me than, lets say, a block for harassment, disruption or copyright violation, of which there are none. Even most of the opposes seem weak and reluctant to be there, while praising him for all his good work, and I'm hoping the closing crat will take that into consideration and not just go 'by the numbers'. -- Ϫ04:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Support The candidate has been a tireless behind-the-scenes gnome at AFD, and would be a great benefit there and in other technical areas of admin work. The last block was 15 months ago, and it seems appropriate to assume good faith as to edit warring. Edison (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Support His gnomish work at AFD, RPP and other pages is invaluable... OlEnglish puts it perfectly, edit-warring blocks can be prevented in future by proper discussion! I really hope he doesn't get involved in them once given the mop. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Support I enjoy seeing Armbrust helping around here and think he will become a good administrator. This is a user I trust. A222:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Support (moved from neutral); I think Armbrust will use this tools responsibly; as for the past edit-related issues-they are in the past and I have no reason to believe Armbrust would bring admin tools to a future editorial conflict if he got in to one. — xaosfluxTalk02:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Support - because he knows a lot more about a lot of our maintenance areas than a lot of administrators (myself included) do, and he is unlikely to be abusive in those areas. He is undoubtedly a net positive. GoPhightins!11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Unfortunately have to hang mine here. With that extreme of a block log, one would have to be a couple of years block free before RFA. As well, some of those blocks were for edit-warring, and I have seen a few cases of additional EW-warnings on their talkpage since the last block - which means, we're not quite past the EW stuff. Also, although his assistance on Requests for Permissions - Confirmed added:is very much appreciatedend of addition, he's been asked time and time again to remember RFPC is a 2 step process: the second step is to Welcome the user with an appropriate template, based on the nature of the request. To this date, Armbrust has refused this second simple steps. We RELY on admins and admin candidates to listen to requests/suggestions and act appropriately on them. Because of these 2 issues, I cannot support at this time the panda ₯’16:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust, you are a good editor, but I don't think you're ready to be an administrator yet. I find that Cunard, in his comment on your talk page, explains the reasons why you're not yet ready for the mop very incisively, so I'll just quote him here. SalvioLet's talk about it!16:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – Echoing the same thoughts as DangerousPanda. That is a pretty extensive block log, and as Panda says, those problems may not be over. Wait about 12 to 15 months, don't edit war, and really listen to Panda's comment. United States Man (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – I don't think I've ever had to make a more reluctant oppose on an RfA. I had always believed that lessons learned from his previous RfAs and his block log would eventually lead to be deserving of the admin tools for the impressive maintenance work he does. As one of the most frequent admins at PERM over the last few years until I took my break earlier this year, I was always grateful for his 'clerking' of the pages, where I often scolded other users for unnecessary meddling in what is essentially admin territory. Armbrust is clearly a dedicated Wikipedian but unfortunately, he has always had a slightly blunt side to his character and there have been numerous lapses of accuracy. These are issues that I cannot easily overlook however much I would like to see him getting the tools some day. But it's not for now - the issues brought up by Cunard, in his comment as to why you are not ready for adminship can't be ignored, just as the block log which is going to take a bit more time to be written off as history. Please keep up the good work, be a bit less argumentative, demonstrate that you can be more of an admin than one who just needs the tools for all that monumental maintenance work you do, and I'll see my way to supporting the next trip down this road - if it isn't too soon after this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the most difficult vote I've ever submitted at an RfA, but here we go: You are a great editor, and a valuable asset to Wikipedia just like you are right now. I don't think becoming an administrator is really going to help you out in the long term, and I wouldn't like to see an arbitration case bearing your name in the future because of the problems that Cunard outlined at your talk page. Dealing with pressure and community expectations is not an easy task. → Call meHahc2117:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Armbrust will make a great admin one day, but there are too many recent issues with his editing outlined perfectly by Cunard and Panda that I don't feel comfortable giving him a pass right now. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits17:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. An outstanding editor within his chosen fields of concentration, there are alas just too many boxes on my check list that I am unable to tick off. The block log in particular is a huge impediment. On which subject I will simply say that I concur with Dangerous Panda's comment above. When you have that many sanctions you need a really long period with no issues before coming to RfA. There are some other points of concern including a nearly blank slate in AfD. A little more experience in some of the more common Adminny areas is usually desirable. And finally, a major concern that I have raised elsewhere, is that granting admin rights is one of the very few things on Wikipedia that cannot be easily fixed if it turns out to be a mistake. When we have the problems noted this fact weighs heavily. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Re: Salvidrim's question, I don't think that simply giving the tools to see what happens next is a good idea here.--JetstreamerTalk20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Weak Oppose It breaks my heart to post here, really it does. Armbrust is one of the finest editors I've commented on an RFA for, and frankly I believe could make a terrific admin. I posted Q5 and Q6 to hope for a bit more insight into how his personality has changed since he was last blocked for edit warring, but the detail isn't there. I want to support this nom, with every fiber of my being I do, but I just cannot in good conscious support it if I feel that there is a possibility of the tools being misused. My concern isn't over edit warring per say, it's the judgement behind the decision to edit war that concerns me. Admins are trusted to be the highest example of good judgement in the community, the history of edit warring for me points at a thought process that could be danger if given the tools. My questions were an attempt to see if the underlying thought process had changed. Armbrust, you are a fantastic editor and like I've said, I want to support you, but I can't at this time, there are just too many doubts for me. Like DangerousPanda said above there, give it a bit more time, work with others, find an admin that can coach you and you know what, I'll be happy to co-nominate you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀21:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Solely on the basis of your block log. One, maybe two blocks, even relatively recent ones, I would have no problem with. But that's just too much, especially when they are pretty much for the same thing, over and over again. If we cannot trust your judgement in the middle of an edit war as a normal editor, it's impossible to trust you with the tools. You are without doubt an excellent editor, but I don't think you would be a good admin. §FreeRangeFrogcroak21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry to pile on! - Armbrust is a great editor but the block log is way too much, As noted above if it was 2-3 blocks then I wouldn't care but that amount isn't great, I suggest perhaps retrying in a year or 2 without anymore blocks, Good with future RFA's. –Davey2010 • (talk)21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Although this candidate has a strong edit history (and thus would, if not for the block log and edit war history, be a slam dunk for the mop), after giving this much consideration, I find the candidate's history of edit warring (and related blocks) disconcerting. His non-admin closure after DangerousPanda explicitly said not to leads me to believe that the candidate feels strongly about ignoring the rules whenever it suits him. That isn't a mark of an editor that I like to see. I also have to agree with what Cunardstated on point #3. The answer to Q3 is also not what I was expecting. "Dancing around" an RFA question never leads to good. ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The block log for edit warring is quite extensive. Ordinarily I would be willing to dismiss any blocks given before 1 year ago, but the number of them given out for the exact same reason makes me want to see the block log be cleaner for longer than with other candidates. Come back when it's been 2 years since you were last blocked for edit warring and I'd almost certainly be willing to support. :) ~Frosty (Talk page) 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Per Kudpung and DangerousPanda. I think Armbrust is fully competent, his contributions prolific, but I sense some lack of affability that I wouldn't want in an administrator. The extensive block log only adds to this notion of some incongruous underlying tendencies. I certainly hope another unsuccessful RfA does not discourage his invaluable devotion to the project. — MusikAnimaltalk00:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I was hoping to support, but with a block log this bloated, I would advise you to wait a little bit longer. Honestly, Armbrust, your work here on Wikipedia is simply prolific. You edit tirelessly, and at times where I'd either want to sleep, eat, play, work out, or just lull out in front of the TV with a bag of chips. But the edit warring, as everyone else has raised concerns of, really brings doubt into you having the mop, at least at this time. My recommended time would be maybe wait another year, ten months maybe if you can really prove and demonstrate your conflict-solving abilities (trust me, this is easier said than done). Until then, I wish you good luck, both on your on-wiki and off-wiki life, and I hope to see your fourth RFA hopefully come out as successful. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Some editors just aren't cut out for admin. I don't think that giving the bit to someone with an edit-warring mentality is a good choice for the project. --Adam in MOTalk04:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose reluctantly. Apologies for the pile on. When I first saw Armbrust's name up for RfA I was ready to put my support behind him based on the excellent work I have seen. Then I read the block history and some of the talk page discussion and my mind was irrevocably changed. I'm all for giving editors a second or even third chance but what has transpired is way too much in the context of handing out the tools. Philg88 ♦talk06:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose with regret, due to the candidate's admin-related work and willingness to use the mop for maintenance. Although the block log and questionable NACs are concerns, the big problem for me is the non-answer to Q6. We know what 3RR says, but I see a stubbornness (there and elsewhere) and a basic lack of understanding of how important BRD is to the encyclopedia. I just don't see the temperament required by adminship (yet). Miniapolis13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I think I was the second admin to block Armbrust. But grudgingly; as that was done just some time after I had thought of nominating him for adminship, seeing his work around the project. I've had Armbrust's talk on my watch since then, and have since then realised that Armbrust is a fantastic helper and positive for the project, but is rough in his deportment sometimes - a quality that might result in him losing control as an admin when faced with stressful diatribes. Adminship as of right now is not for him, in my view. The tools will only add to his stress and I suspect put an end to whatever enjoyment he has currently from this social network. For his good more than for anything else, I have to oppose his request for adminship... WifioneMessage15:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Here's a candidate who is doing a lot of work for WP's benefit. I'd like to be in the support column, so I went looking for reasons to be there. There were two previous noms, and there's been a long interval since the last nom; that's a very good thing. It's also been a while since the last block. However, I'm troubled by the short answers. The candidate been here a long time and should be giving better answers to the first 3 questions. I weigh Q3 heavily, and it falls short. Also, I expect a returning candidate to address significant issues without the prompting from additional Q's. The additional answers are still short and leave me less than satisfied. The answer to Q6's 3RR is limited; it doesn't make the key observation that I expect for that question; neither does it offer alternatives. There should be more detail and more perspective from an established user. That makes me queasy, but I still want to support such a diligent candidate. The block log kills it for me. Yes, the last block was over a year ago, but it parallels another edit war block a year earlier (both about the World Snooker Championship). I'm shocked by the number of entries (the first two are mistakes; some other entries are reliefs; there's an indefinite). Well, even some confessed vandals have become admins. Instead of just abstaining, I look a little further. Then I realize that the block history started 10 February 2012. The eight blocks are all after Armbrust's first (September 2010) and second (May 2011) RfAs. I need an explanation for such behavior, and a short answer will not do. Glrx (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Pretty unresponsive for someone wanting to be an admin. Maybe this was just a bad time for the nomination.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose- This user has 25,861 deleted edits and should be NOT ACCEPTED as a administrator, because vandalisim posibilites are high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you understand what deleted edits are? They're edits to now-deleted pages, which is usually a result of deletion tagging. This is a sign of a good editor, not a bad one. It's not the same as reverted edits. AFAIK, there is no count of reverted edits.—LucasThoms04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. Some edits are deleted for other reasons, but the simple fact of the matter is, that's like ten thousand short of my overall editing count. There is certainly reason to be concerned and at the same time understandable with an edit count of over 200,000 since 2008. While edit counting is not really a good way to determine if an editor should be handed the tools, I still see some concern with that number. I do disagree that this is a sign of a good editor. Having so much deleted means one is contributing to articles the community has found either non-notable or problematic in some way and frankly...that is a high number.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand your reasoning, Mark. This candidate's deleted edits account for approximately 10% or so of his edit count. To me, that is a sign that he has tagged articles for speedy deletion, and as such those edits get deleted when the article does. So for me - that isn't a concern. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning as well. These are edits they made and were deleted, not the number of deletions they requested or nominated. Do you have ten percent of your edits deleted? I don't think I do.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
A deleted edit includes the edits made to nominate something for CSD or AFD (i.e. transcluding the template), and thus someone active and accurate in deletion tagging will rack up a good number of deleted edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(Wow, double edit conflict) I personally believe that it's not a reason to be concerned. Maybe he was (unsuccessfully) trying to rescue articles up for deletion. Maybe he was involved with deletion tagging. Maybe he was NPPing. I can't see his edits (you know, the whole deleted part), but I'm more inclined to AGF on his part. Just my opinion. (Also, some context for my comment in the first place: This editor made almost the exact same comment at Solarra's RfA. She's very involved in AfD, CSD, and anti-vand, so she does all sorts of work with pages that eventually get deleted.)—LucasThoms04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any lack of assuming good faith on anyone's part. A lot of "maybe"s but the simple fact is...deletions are indeed a part of the history we look at for nominations for admin. I can't see them, but it does appear to be a part of the option to look at for an editor history here. Am I wrong?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that made it sound like I wasn't assuming you were AGFing. What I meant is, I'm (at the moment) believing those deleted contribs to be deletion-related, rather than misguided edits to non-encyclopedic things.—LucasThoms04:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have about 10% deleted edits, too. It's not just the CSD/PROD/AfD tags either: if I tag an article for PROD/AFD, I often clean it up anyway, so that it at least looks a bit encyclopedic until the time it gets deleted. In addition, I tag it on the talk page with the appropriate wikiprojects, so that the article alert bot can notify them of the PROD/AFD. If even only a small fraction of Armbrust's deleted edits indeed were vandalism, his talk page and block log would be plastered with warnings and blocks related to that vandalism. These deleted are absolutely no concern. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well AFAICR most of my deleted edits come from the file and category namespaces. I have uploaded many non-free files during my work at WP:FFU. They sometimes replace other non-free files (which are nominated for speedy deletion immediately) and are sometimes also replaced with other files (new/SVG logos, in which case I mostly speed up their deletion with a G7 tagging). I have nominated many categories for speedy renaming (made 8497 edits to WP:CFDS). ArmbrustTheHomunculus08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Having a high number of deletions in itself is hardly a reason not to support, but on top of other issues it very well maybe. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed above.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
With permission from Armbrust, I have had the edit counter's API, compile a full statistics report of both his live and deleted edits. (Sorry, the edit counter can only analyze the deleted edits through its API at current.) I have posted the XML to the talk page.—cyberpowerChatOnline18:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Was that really necessary? Any admin can look at the candidate's deleted contributions and see that they are by and large simply nominations for deletion of templates and articles. Any editor involved in deletion areas will have a large amount of those. I had a few thousand at the time of my RFA due to CSDs, and I've never seen this be an issue in any other RFA. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Although I oppose Armbrust's candidacy for other reasons, I think this !vote is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of deleted edits and how they arise that we should consider indenting it.—S MarshallT/C20:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is the part I am not getting: "the candidate's deleted contributions.... are by and large simply nominations for deletion of templates and articles" How does one get their edits deleted by just nominating templates and articles...unless they are nominating templates and article they have edited. If, what you are saying is, the editor is attempting to rescue the articles before they are deleted (blindly, without taking a side in either direction), even when they themselves were the nominator, then there is something neutral in that. However...if they were more successful at rescuing the articles I think they would have a smaller count. Again, if I am just completely wrong, let me know.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that just about none of the other pages in any namespace had more than ~10 edits means that nothing he worked too heavily on ended up being nonencyclopedic. The fact that the other 24,000 edits aren't accounted for in his top 131 means they were almost definitely deletion related, and can't have been significant content work.—LucasThoms20:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: Let me put it this way: Your deleted contributions for example show substantial edits to Samuel Kalimahana Miller, which was deleted later at AFD. Look at my CSD log - every single one of those redlinks is one or more "deleted contributions" for me. When an article, template or any other page is deleted, their edit history is still available to administrators and labs tools. And for Armbrust, I see the same pattern: Deletion nominations and whatnot. Hope this helps. §FreeRangeFrogcroak20:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The way Lucas explained it above was actually what made me understand this a little better. Of course your analogy is still pretty good because, SKM was actually a G7 request after the AFD was initiated because I agreed with the nominating editor as I had already been thinking about deleting it myself as a non notable BLP (there was some confusion and still as to whether the figure was a notable subject, but so far, research seems to indicate they are non notable for our standards). So, in a way I guess it is similar? (let me know if that was not your analogy). I have to wonder (after all of this) if we should even be considering deletions as a reasoning for an RFA. Thanks for helping me understand this a bit better FREE and Lucas!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, same thing. Except that the candidate has far more deleted edits than you, because he has 'touched' a lot more pages that were eventually deleted, and that's true for any editor that is active in any of the deletion areas of Wikipedia. Deleted edits should never be a criteria for opposing, although it is used to gauge in some cases how accurate an editor is at CSD tagging, for example. But ideally that's what the CSD/PROD logs are for. §FreeRangeFrogcroak03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I get that I can't see the deleted edits and that admin tools show these deletions are the edit to nominate or flag articles for deletion. The amount is large and so some see that as sign of a good editor. But I see it as the sign of a prolific editor. Someone that works hard and certainly dedicated to deleting, I guess. I suppose ten percent is not that much but it is the opposite of content creation and I guess that was my point.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It's only the opposite in the way that a dog is the opposite of a cat. Deletion of crap and other things that don't belong (including housekeeping and leftover redirects) is as vital to the continuance of the encyclopaedia as is creation of new stuff. Both require knowledge and a certain skill in their working. As to percentages, I think I had about 33% deleted edits when I got my mop - and it's about 25% now (balanced off by the increased talk page edits explaining where it went and sometimes not to do it again or else...). Peridon (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I've been mulling over this for two days, and finally ended up here. First: Seven blocks for edit-warring, wow, but last one was 15 months ago, hhmmmm... Second: A non-admin "delete" closure, and when being admonished (last January) invoking WP:IAR, is indeed hair-raising. Wikipedia:NAC#Inappropriate closures lists a purely technical reason why this should not be done: Don't close if you can not execute the result. The same thing happened at the Media Viewer RfC, just a few days ago. Independent of the merit of the closure, and the ongoing Arbitartion case, the candidate closed the RfC but could not take the prescribed action, not being an admin. The candidate uses as an excuse he was asked to close, but under NAC he should have declined. Third: The candidate has already last January stated that he would be going to run for adminship again this year, and talked about waiting for some time to increase the blockless time. It sounds like the candidate is aching under the strain of non-adminship, desperately trying to get the hat, and also it sounds like as soon as adminship is conferred on Dr. Snooker he can start edit-warring again but, throwing his admin weight about, would have better chances to intimidate his opponents. Fourth: The candidate made more than 1,100 edits to a single article Ronnie O'Sullivan, with 375 references, about a snooker player who may be unknown to most of us. To compare: The article on Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was US President for 12 years in the middle of two major world crises (Great Depression/New Deal and World War II), has 289 references. It seems that a snooker-centric world view is not a good position for admin discussions. Did the candidate decline to make a short statement of fact at the Media Viewer arbitration case, about his closure of the RfC, because it wasn't about snooker? Fifth: The candidate has an infobox about himself on his user page with real name, photo, links to facebook and Google+, and even blood type and marital status, but Wikipedia is not a social networking service. It's a repository of knowledge which needs people to compile it, but these people should keep a much lower profile than this candidate. After all, the articles are supposed to have their merit independent of who wrote them. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concerns #1 through 3, but numbers 4 and 5 are hardly defensible. The comparison to FDR in particular is a bit weak, as those sources are mostly books, which already have condensed some information, whereas O'Sullivan's article is mostly newspaper articles and statistics pages. The reference lists for sportsmen in general are pretty long: Yao Ming is half the length of O'Sullivan, yet it has 162 references; Derek Jeter is about the same length and has 261 references; Ian Thorpe is a bit longer and has 290 refs – I agree the article could lose a couple of redundant cites, but comparing apples and oranges doesn't help your case. As for personal information, this easily falls under the limits in WP:UPYES. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Re Crisco - No. 4: Ian Thorpe is an Olympic gold medalist, many people know him, I've seen him on TV, and I guess the press covers Olympic sports quite well. I've played snooker too, and have seen snooker tournaments on TV, but never knew about Ronnie O'Sullivan until today. No. 5: I read the guideline you cited (WP:UPYES), and I'd like to quote from exactly there: Wikipedia:USERBIO#What may I have in my user pages? allows "Limited autobiographical content"; and "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia" is considred Wikipedia:USERBIO#Excessive unrelated content. Is the blood type or the marital status anyhow related to one's activity at Wikipedia? Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't knew about Ronnie O'Sullivan, than you either watch snooker very sporadically and only just recently (O'Sullivan plays in less tournaments than others now) or you are confusing snooker with pool (they are not the same). Also I wouldn't consider two unrealted information excessive (BTW both are present in {{Infobox user}} and many more). ArmbrustTheHomunculus17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, Armbrust, I said I played snooker, and I may add that I've played pool also. You see, you need not be afraid that I could mistake snooker for pool or vice-versa. (FYI I've also played at times Football, Handball, Doppelkopf, Skat, Chess, Minigolf, Bridge, Blackjack, Roulette, Craps, Pinochle and a few more games I can't recall now.) Besides, I'm certain that you don't think that anything on your user page is excessive, or you wouldn't have added it. However, I trust that the voters and the readers are able to read the pertaining guidelines and can come to a learned conclusion. And, I prefer to remain ABSOLUTELY SILENT when it comes to infoboxes, war has been waged over them, and they have been subject of arbitration, with two amendment/clarification requests still going on, so the least said the better. Kraxler (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose As per many others above - I think I would prefer the user to wait another 12 months - obviously with no blocks, edit warring etc., to show the community that all mistakes have been learned. Ronhjones (Talk)22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Kraxler: "as soon as adminship is conferred on Dr. Snooker he can start edit-warring again". After three tries at RfA, I'd say it's time to just be happy editing. Chris Troutman (talk)22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per points 1-3 of Kraxler's oppose. I just don't think giving the tools to Armbrust is in the best interests of the project, sorry. Keep up the excellent editing work, though! — sparklism hey!13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per block log. It may have been over a year since the last edit war but there are 7 blocks in 2 years before that for edit warring. A year without a block does not mean much to me because the admin bit will be with you for many years short of divine intervention. If it was 1 or 2 blocks I could understand but 7 blocks in 2 years shows a failure to quickly adopt community expectations. The last thing we want is a wheel war. Sorry Armbrust. Chillum18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. Even if everything else was okay, that block log would need to be a lot further in the past before I could support. There is plenty of evidence here of Ambrust's ongoing valuable work (and I have encountered it myself in several places), but enough concerns raised to make me question whether Ambrust has the right temperament ever to be an admin. I would much prefer to see Ambrust continue to make important contributions in areas where his skills are very evident than to divert his efforts in into a role to which he appears to be less suited. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The last time this editor went through RFA, it resulted in an unsuccessful request, and was immediately followed by a long series of blocks. I'm going to have to place myself here and say that everything seems suitable but it would be my preference for a bit more time to pass from the last block before being granted the tools. Mkdwtalk04:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Reluctant Oppose As BHG said in the questions, an admin will occasionally be forced to work in a heated situation; and I am not quite confident enough that Armburst can maintain their cool in such situations. A little longer without a block/genuine warning, and I'd be happy to vote support in light of their massive list of solid contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunate Oppose - I think Kudpung and Panda sum it up perfectly, but I'll throw in my bit as well: I think you could be a fine admin in about a year, but I need to know that your somewhat blunt personality won't result in major lapses in judgment, especially if you as an admin decide to take on the more controversial issues. That is where being really cautious and mindful plays in as an admin and I'd just like to see a little more of that before I'd feel comfortable supporting. Best of luck in the future! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 12:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that Armburst is one of the best Wikipedia user/curators on there, seeing his username pop up everyday on RecentChanges. He is extremely helpful and will make a good admin one day. I would recommend continuing what you're doing however stay on the positive side, ensure that you keep away from the 'bad side'. Consider reapplying half a year or a year from now, if you stay positive and be a helpful editor than you'll get my support. ///EuroCarGT16:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(Moved to oppose - It appears the editor had left many unanswered questions. They have now answered all but one and may need tome to get to it. It is the one question I asked that could change my vote) Unfortunately, questions 2 and 3 were not actually answered and that does worry me a tad. Especially 3 due to the size of the block log. Question 2 seems simple enough yet the editor only mentions his most recent contributions. It makes me feel that the editor is sort of guiding us away from the past and I would really like to see direct answers to such simple questions. The answer to question 3 also seems to be guiding us to view or discuss only the "recent" past and I really think a simple "Yes, I have had conflicts in the past", and then explaining from there would be better than skimming over that direct question. I believe these can be answered in a manner that would gain support, but could be disappointing as well so I remain neutral for the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Mark Miller: I have indented your comment because of your oppose comment above with a later timestamp. (Please correct if this was not your intent.) –xenotalk13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral for now:Moved to support I would like to see some more specifics in question 2. Question 3's answer doesn't bother me much, but he should explain what has changed since his blocks for edit warring. I am also still waiting on answers 4-7. I remain neutral until I see these answers. It concerns me that he's not answering these ASAP with the RfA going 7suc/10op right now. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)18:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
People do have real lives, spouses, children, jobs and responsibilities. They eat, shower, etc. Or they simply live in other time zones than you. For instance, it is noon in San Francisco but 9pm in Budapest, Hungary. Using a stopwatch to judge how responsive they are is unreasonable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but imo it'd be helpful to a candidate to accept a nom a good time in their day, and to answer questions ASAP. Some people's decisions, like mine, depend on those answers early in a nom like this one. Think of it this way: right now there's a possibility that this nom goes either way. He might withdraw now, as there is only a small chance of a pass, or answer his questions and maybe draw a few from Oppose to Support (earlier than later as those might stack up). RfAs are always a matter of timing in my book. Truthfully, I don't have an issue with supporting, but I really need to see his answers to the EW questions as that issue concerns me. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your timetable is unreasonable. RFA's run for a week. Any candidate that was available every minute for that entire time probably needs to get a life. As someone who has nominated several successful candidates, I instruct them to NOT answer questions instantly, and instead ponder them a while. There is enough stress to running, it is better to answer correctly or thoughtfully than quickly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I generally ask questions to candidates before !voting but in your case I will not ask. I know you are a good editor, your works at PERM were good but sorry, you're not ready. I hate to !vote in the oppose section that is the reason I'm here. I have a suggestion, Armburst you should withdraw this one. I'm afraid that this might not go in your favour. Regards, JimCarter(from public cyber)21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
NeutralI see you doing a lot of useful clerking over at WP:PERM, and thank you for that, I hope one way or another you stay active over there! I'm considering adding some more questions above that may sway this entry. — xaosfluxTalk23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Too many blocks for edit warring for my comfort, indicative of a simple failure to learn the big lesson. One? yeah, sure, stuff happens... Two? perhaps, heat of the moment, whatever... But what are there, six of them? Nope, sorry, we have a huge red flag for temperament and adherence to the rule of law on wiki... Sorry. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well it's actually just 7 (not that it matters much), the 21:44, 14 August 2012 entry was just adjusting the length of the block from 72 hours to 2 weeks. ArmbrustTheHomunculus14:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm torn: I often see your good work closing AfDs and many have commented on your valuable clerking in other areas. However I am seriously concerned about the block log. Therefore I'll have to park myself here. If you come back after several more months or a year, clear of blocks, I may well support you. Best wishes, BethNaught (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to oppose this editor, but cannot fully support given the temperament issues. Armbrust is an enormous net positive for the project. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like if a user answers my RFA question I owe them an up-or-down vote, but I'm afraid I won't be delivering on that at this time. I want Armbrust to be an admin, he is so helpful in so many different areas that I know he could do a lot of good. But then there's the block log, the impression he gives that he is sometimes unresponsive to legitimate concerns, and the stubbornness. I think I could probably look past any one of these, but not all three. I see progress here, and I urge him not o give up hope (I believe the current record for succeeding at RFA was on a sixth attempt) and to keep up the excellent work he has been doing. A crowded "neutral" section is a sure sign you are closer than ever to being ready, and even the opposes are some of the nicest I have ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral. I usually do not !vote if I am neutral or on the fence except in infrequent cases when I wish to offer encouragement for the future or have some comment. Since my conclusion is similar to that stated by Beeblebrox, I add my !vote here. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to say Armbust, you are an amazing editor and I applaud you for your great contributions to Wikipedia. But as others have said, your block log is concerning. I believe that someday you will become an admin, but today is not that day! Good luck to any future RfA's! JayJayWhat did I do?16:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty clear this request is not going to succeed... So my comment is to encourage you to stick around. Being an admin may be kind of a big deal on this project, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter at all. If you enjoy your Wikipedia hobby, keep at it and know that we appreciate all the good things you do. Nathan T 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm impressed with the candidate's contributions and abilities, and I'm not overly concerned about the block history. Question 7 addresses any remaining concerns about edit warring. There are some other concerns raised by the opposers that make me hesitant to support at this point, but I'm completely open to the possibility of supporting in the future. On a more personal note, thank you Armbrust for your work here. It doesn't go unnoticed.- MrX02:25, 2 August 2014 (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.
Armbrust is one of the hardest working editors I have seen, but may actually have a life outside WP. It has only been a half hour since you left your post, a but early to expect a reply. by the way, you are new, so are unaware of many of the unwritten conventions, but nominators are supposed to be well-known, respected members of the community. A nomination from you, if accepted, would be counter-productive. --S Philbrick(Talk)12:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I am actually not that new to Wikipedia but okay. I was merely asking Armbrust whether he was happy for me to do so and do not need you people to get involved and take over. Thanks you. — Spydar007(Talk)12:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually you are fairly new to Wikipedia, with your first edit in April of this year and a total of 56 edits so far, you do not have the reputation that is needed to nominate someone for Adminship. Also since Armbrust has already said you would not be an appropriate nominator, it is appropriate for others to get involved. GBfan12:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I did? You'll have to toggle my memory. I can't seem to find it in my archives. :p I'm not saying however, that I'm refusing to co-nominate, or denying that I did send an email. I just can't remember.—cyberpowerChatOnline11:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Crisco, TLSude and/or Cyberpower would be much better nominators than I'd be, but it'll be my pleasure to support the RfA; I'm sure you hear that pretty often, but I was sure you were already admin. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Says the only admin I know who blocked himself for 3RR and editing under the influence... ... erm... (actually, love the rationale for your second self-block) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yea, but a good nominator has good rep and gravitas at large within the community, and I've always been more of a discreet, lazy gnome. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Har har. Alright. Armbrust, if you want to go through with this, just say the word and I'll prepare a nomination statement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust, Crisco 1492, and TLSuda, I have looked through Armbrust's 2014 talk page archives and advise against an RfA nomination at this time. 1. For the arbitration request that led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC, Newyorkbrad asked on 12 July 2014, "Please let us know if you are planning to make a statement on the request for arbitration." You wrote, "I don't really have anything to say regarding this, so I will not make a statement." Another editor asked you to make a statement at the arbitration request since you closed the RfC, but you did not. You could have posted a short statement at the arbitration request repeating what you said on your talk page (you closed the RfC after a request on your talk page; you added two missing words to the RfC's executive summary to make it consistent with your closes in the subsections). Then, you could have concluded by saying you would be willing to answer any questions the arbitrators or other editors have. Because you didn't comment at the arbitration request, RfA participants might consider this unresponsiveness as an indication that you will not be that responsive as an admin when your admin actions are questioned. 2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#User:Armbrust (talk · contribs) and disruptive WP:OWNing of WP:ANRFC and the "Werieth" talk page section may be viewed as problematic by the RfA community because this looks like an edit war. It happened on 5 February 2014, which is roughly six months ago. (The editor you reverted, Werieth, was a sock of a banned editor. In retrospect, your reverts were exempt from the editing warring rules per WP:BANREVERT. But at the time, Werieth wasn't a confirmed sock so his being a sock was not your reason for reverting.) 3. On 28 January 2014, Werieth asked you to substitute archival templates when closing WP:NFCR discussions. He asked you at 16:36 to substitute the archive template, you declined on 16:38, he explained that the sections don't get archived correctly if the closure templates are not substituted at 16:47, you declined again at 16:50, he explained again at 16:52 that "[u]nless the archive template is subst'ed the section goes unarchived", you declined again at 16:54, he explained a third time at 16:58, and he explained a fourth time at 17:30 about a non-substituted NFCR close you made after three previous explanations at at 17:28. (The full discussion is in the "Werieth" talk page section.) The RfA community might consider this incident to reflect a stubborn attitude. You were told three times to substitute NFCR close templates to allow the bot to archive the closed discussions but you did not. 4. The RfA community might find problematic your responses to this 25 January 2014 post regarding your non-admin "delete" closes of XfDs. Some might think you are behaving stubbornly. Armbrust, you are doing strong work on Wikipedia (especially at ANRFC), but I don't think an RfA right now would be advisable. I recommend that you wait another 6–12 months, making sure that you avoid getting into edit wars and work on coming across as responsive and not stubborn. An RfA then would have a much better chance of succeeding. I may have come across as too blunt in my comments here, but I think it is better for you to hear this now from someone who considers you an excellent, devoted editor than at RfA where other editors will be much harsher. I wish you the best of luck whichever way you decide. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cunard: Thanks for your comments, but I will run for adminship now. If it will be ultimately unsuccessful, than that's not the end of the world. I can just contribute nicely without it too. Regarding your points: (1) I didn't make a statement regarding the Media Viewer (MV) arbitration request, because I'm really not interested in either that case or what the default state of MV is. Also AFAICS the RFC close isn't the subject of the arbitration request, and thus IMO I'm just marginally involved (if at all). If anybody has a problem with the close, than they can bring it up on my talk page. (2)-(3) Yeah, I'm the first to admit that my behaviour with Werieth wasn't optimal, and I try to avoid that in the future. (BTW I didn't know about this recent discussion at all.) (4) The problem with the MfD backlog is, that most admin's patrolling the page are (for some reason) unwilling to close discussions, where an other editor didn't endorse the nominator (although there are no quorum requirements in that process). I tried to cut the backlog back, and eventually all pages were deleted by different admins. @Crisco 1492:@TLSuda: The statements looks very good to me. ArmbrustTheHomunculus09:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Those statements do look good, and they pretty much summed up what I found in your contributions. Since you have to admin nominations, It hink it would make it awkward, and a bit redundant, to have a non-admin basically restate nom and co-nom. I've also heard of RfAs failing because of too many nomination statements. If you want me to still nom you, let me know, but I will give you my support.—cyberpowerChatOnline10:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an oppose with rational of having too many deleted edits. I would like to post statistics regarding your deleted edits. My edit counter can analyze those deleted edits and spit a report like it does with the live edits. It's only supported on its API at the moment, and it requires a special optin, which you are not. I can override the optin restriction when needed, but I would need your permission to post it on the RfA page. Do I have that permission?—cyberpowerChatLimited Access06:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Spydar007 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Spydar007 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armbrust 3. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Spydar007 did you not see in the section above where Armbrust said, "I don't think Spydar007 would be the appropriate nominator"? GBfan12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure why user:Taketa has relisted it; the process calls for the nominee or their nominator to transclude the RfA after the questions have been answered (or declined). User:Armbrust or their nominator(s) should be the one to transclude the RfA after the questions have been completed. –xenotalk15:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your RfA
Hi Armbrust. I really meant what I said about your RfA being the most reluctant oppose I've ever made. It seems my early vote has caused a number of pile ons, but believe me, that wasn't my intention, but on RfA it's kinda inevitable. Outcomes of RfA are sometimes unpredictable (like mine) and if by chance it does pass, then you will have my warmest congratulations. If it doesn't, there is a very strong chance that I will be nominating you next time round (and there will be a next time), so just bloody well keep your nose clean until then ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with your work on Wikipedia or you as an editor. There are a number of excellent comments on your RFA and a number of well respected and good editors and admin support you. However, my concerns are about your "form" answers and I don't know if you have decided my question is not important because I went ahead and opposed you even after saying I was in no hurry. But..... then neither are you. There is truly nothing wrong with taking time, but if you have no intention of addressing my question just let me know. The only reason I asked was because I am convinced a good demonstration of how you resolved a past dispute would be illustrative and may well change my !vote.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
RfA closed
Hi, Armbrust, I just wanted to let you know that I've closed your RfA, and I'm sorry to say that there wasn't a consensus for it to be successful. Thanks for volunteering to aid the encyclopedia as an admin, and thanks for your work to date; as you know, an unsuccessful RfA isn't a reflection of your value to Wikipedia as a non-admin. :) Cheers and happy editing! Writ Keeper⚇♔16:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry as well. Frankly, I'm only familiar with a subset of your contributions, but I know when I see something at CSD nominated by you, it is usually in good shape.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the outcome. I have a great respect for a lot of the work you're doing here, and I have had your RfA title watchlisted for some time. It is my hope that we will get the benefit of your mop-turbocharged help a year and a week from now, I believe it would be a great help to the community and its many processes. Take care, --j⚛e deckertalk21:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that you didn't pass yet. I've seen the good work you do keeping the move review stuff in order and had been kinda surprised you aren't already an admin, like Joe I actually had your RfA paged watched for while. Hopefully your next attempt will succeed as it would be of benefit to wikipedia. PaleAqua (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is many voters look at that block record and their mind is made up (whether it is now or six months from now), and unfortunately there is no record of all the "good" stuff that Armbrust has done. Wikipedia ideally needs some form of citation mechanism to add some perspective because I can't help but feel Armbrust's prolific clean-up work has been largely overshadowed by a few frustrating moments. Betty Logan (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Well that's life, things doesn't always happen as you planned. Hopefully it will be fourth time lucky next year (maybe July again, but certainly not before May). ArmbrustTheHomunculus11:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Stale nominations
Hi Armbrust,
I have removed your nominations of the following categories at WP:CFD/S:
Each nomination was opposed and had become stale (no activity for more than 7 days). I am leaving this notification in case you would like to take them to full discussions. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk)22:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Good day sir, You denied me of access to the AWB tool which will enable me to perform tedious task and filtered possible vandalism. I have made over 500 edit count and have reverting and reporting possible vandalism. Check my contributions for verification sir. Kindly grant me access sir. Thanks Wikicology (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Wikicology: No, I didn't decline your request for access to the AWB tool, I just asked a question which you should answer. (If a request is declined then the {{not done}} template is placed under it, which looks like this Not done.) Also while it's true that you made more than 500 edits, but from that only 205 were made to articles (the mains namespace), and that's the relevant number for AWB. ArmbrustTheHomunculus16:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Ebola Virus genetics.jpeg
@Armbrust: I really appreciate your nomination of the above file for speedy deletion. I want to let you know that the violation of section 9 is not intentional.I Will take enough time to read Wp:copyright policy so as not to commit the same blunder next time. Thank you sir.Wikicology (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
