|This is a Wikipedia user page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at
|I am somewhat semi-retired these days. I occasionally log on and tweak things in keeping with my wiki-gnomish instincts, but I should not be relied on for anything which requires urgent attention. That said, I will (eventually) get back to anyone who posts on my talk page.|
A bit of personal wiki-history
Hi there. I have been a contributing editor on Wikipedia since November 10, 2006, although I was a reader for much longer before that. After a few months of editing, I dropped into reader-mode for the better part of a year, but started editing again in late 2007. After that, I became pretty intense about it, performing a few hundred edits a month from the spring of 2008 to mid-2009. On November 15, 2008, the Wikipedia community accepted me as an administrator. I was quite active as an admin for a while, but recently life has led me away from Wikipedia, although I continue to use it incessantly and make small changes where I see the need.
Areas of focus
In my time on Wikipedia I have participated in a number of areas. My main focus as a new admin was on CAT:ADMINBACKLOG, and anything in there. I particularly enjoyed evaluating consensus in WP:DRV, WP:RM, WP:MFD and WP:RFD deletion discussions. I'm rarely active at WP:AFD, because there's almost never a backlog there anymore. In the past I was very active in WikiProject Orphanage, de-orphaning the immense backlog of orphaned articles. I don't write many articles, which was an issue in my request for adminship, but I think I sufficiently proved I could handle the responsibility without that qualification. I almost never participate at WP:AN and WP:ANI, because I like to avoid the drama that crops up on those pages. I was also briefly involved with investigating allegations of sockpuppetry towards the end of my active period on Wikipedia.
On asking me for help: Do it!
Feel free to ask me any questions you might have about any aspect of Wikipedia, although I'm probably not as knowledgeable and up-to-date on policy as I used to be. Also, since I'm not logged on all the time anymore, I may not see a message for a bit. But I'll try to get back to you as soon as I see the message.
If you have any problem with any of my actions, it is not necessary to talk to me first, although a polite note telling me the reason for the reversion is always appreciated. I try to hold myself to the one-reversion rule, but I don't expect others to follow it. If I feel strongly about the issue, I'll discuss it and develop a consensus before auto-reverting.
On evaluating discussions
Here's my general method for evaluating discussions:
- First, I read the discussion, trying to ignore the various bolded "support"/"oppose" votes and focus on the actual arguments.
- Once I've finished reading the discussion, I make a tentative decision based on my impression of consensus.
- Once I've got that in mind, then I go back and look at the numbers. If they reflect the same impression I've already formed, then my decision's done.
- If the numbers are close, or are weighted in the opposite direction from the impression I'd formed, then I have to re-read the discussion and determine exactly how to weight the arguments versus the numbers. This might involve outright ignoring !votes that contradict establish Wikipedia policy. For a discussion I closed that went against the numbers, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_18#Normal_114788_6298_ful.jpg, which resulted in a delete closure, despite the numbers being 6-3 in favor of keeping the image. I've seen even more lopsided decisions made by other administrators and bureaucrats in the past.
- However, in my experience, most discussions close with the numbers, just because that's how WP:CONSENSUS works: one has to be able to convince other people that one's argument is valid. If you can't do so, then maybe it's not such a good argument after all, no matter how convinced you may be yourself.
- In sum, while it would be a lie to say that numbers of !votes are meaningless, they can certainly be ignored with a good enough rationale. However, you do this at your peril: very few closes against the numbers go unprotested.
Things I am proud of
- Reducing the size of the administrative backlog; when I was an active admin, I prided myself that the pages I was active on were never backlogged for more than a day. (Note: As I've gotten busier in real life, I haven't been able to help out with the backlog so much. But I still chip in when I can.)
- Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it (shortcut:WP:AINT) - An essay about not wasting people's time on stuff that doesn't matter. A few other editors have seen fit to reference it in their discussions, and it's always flattering when people agree with you.
I've seen you closing a lot of deletion discussions, doing requested moves, and doing other (usually boring) administrative tasks. I know that it can feel as though nobody notices or appreciates your work, but I wanted to drop a note saying thanks. Efforts from people like you keep this place running smoothly. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
|Two beers on me!|
|For all that effort to finish off the Republic of China Requested Move I think you deserve two beers! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)|
|The Admin's Barnstar|
|Aervanath, I present you the Admin's barnstar (together with Graeme Bartlett and Jc37) for finding consensus in the unreasonably big and nasty discussion of the ROC -> Taiwan move. Many thanks! Mlm42 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)|
||The Multiple Barnstar|
|For your work on drafting the close here. - jc37 22:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)|