launch |
→Related pages: adding nominator's guide |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
* [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/Nominators guide|Nominator's guide]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination]] |
||
* Requests for other user permissions can be made at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions]]. |
* Requests for other user permissions can be made at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions]]. |
Revision as of 17:17, 20 May 2021
if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less Unless | 160 | 4 | 4 | 98 | Successful | 04:14, 23 May 2021 | 0 hours | no | report |
Ashleyyoursmile | 224 | 6 | 4 | 97 | Successful | 15:15, 22 May 2021 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less Unless | 160 | 4 | 4 | 98 | Successful | 04:14, 23 May 2021 | 0 hours | no | report |
Ashleyyoursmile | 224 | 6 | 4 | 97 | Successful | 15:15, 22 May 2021 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Less Unless
Final (160/4/4); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 04:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 03:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination
Less Unless (talk · contribs) – I’ve been a longtime supporter of Women in Red, and it’s nice to see prolific editors in that project offer their services for adminship.
Less Unless has written over 200 articles and participated in several Women in Red contests, helpfully addressing systemic bias on Wikipedia. She’s also a regular at Articles for deletion, thoughtfully offering good advice on numerous debates on whether or not to keep an article, even when consensus doesn’t go her way like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Okure. She’s also participated in WikiProject Cleanup, which I didn’t even know existed, helping to fix up problematic articles.
One of the best things about Less Unless is she’s consistently polite, courteous and welcoming to everyone. She’s happy to admit when she might be wrong, and is always self-reflective and looking for feedback on how to improve as a Wikipedian. That’s a great trait to have an administrator, and added to her content creation and AfD skills, gives me the fullest confidence that she will be trustworthy and responsible with the tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Co-nomination by Barkeep49
I'm really excited to be able to present Less Unless to the community as the type of editor who used to be a regular at RfA but who has been rare in recent years. Namely she just goes about competently building the encyclopedia, in ways that Ritchie has already mentioned, and has a clear need for the tools, for reasons she'll explain below. I first became aware of her, when she completed New Page Patrol School and asked for the reviewer permission. I was pleased to see an editor eager to learn and who learns from mistakes. Since then I have seen an editor who wants to help others, who works hard to use tools responsibly and well, and who is unafraid to ask questions when she doesn't know something. LU has demonstrated more than sufficiently in her time here that she is here to build an encyclopedia and ready to be trusted with the administrative toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Ritchie333 and Barkeep49. It is an honor to be nominated, and I gratefully accept. I have never edited for pay. This is my only account. Less Unless (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Generally, I try to contribute to different areas – content creation, WP:NPP, WP:AfD, WP:RfD, reviewing pending changes and clean up are among the most frequent. Being an administrator, I see myself contributing mostly to AfD and RfD closures as I feel most confident in those areas. I can be of a good use in WP:REFUND having a solid experience in content creation. I will gladly help in other areas; however, I won’t intervene where I don’t feel completely confident – copyright and technical issues would be good examples of what is not my strength.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am most proud of the articles created, especially within the WP:WOMRED. I am a regular there and received several awards such as Mary Wollstonecraft Award and Precious Award. I am also a regular at WP:CLEAN and happy of my input there – a little pleasure of mine is to see an article without any tags which I also try to achieve while reviewing the new ones at WP:NPP.
- 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 think everyone who has been here at least for a while had people disagree with them. There were points of view that differed from mine – mostly during the AfD discussions, but the communication has always been very civil and we handled it in a friendly manner. Everyone makes mistakes, I’ve always admitted mine and learned from them, like with WP:Articles_for_deletion/Teresa_Okure or Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride#Flag_transgender_biography_created_this_month.
- Personally, I view any conflict as a possibility to understand each other better and grow. I have a set of personal do's and don’ts for such cases:
- Be respectful – treat others the way you want to be treated. Everyone does the best they can. We never know the reason of a person’s behavior.
- Discuss the subject, not each other.
- Don’t take it personally – it’s not about you. It’s not a place to nurture your ego, but a community of like-minded people with a bigger purpose. Act with regard to the purpose.
- I believe how you say things is almost as important as what you say, especially in written conversation. So, try to avoid jokes, satire, or phrasing that can possibly be misperceived. Be as neutral as possible in your language.
- It’s always important to clarify things that you feel you might have not understood fully.
- These are basically my guidelines in every misunderstanding and they have always worked for me.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Optional question from Mz7
- 4. Thank you for running! As a follow-up to Q2, are there any particular articles that you are particularly proud of contributing to?
- A:Thank you for the question. The most recent article that I am very satisfied with is Marita Napier - currently I am working on improving it even more to take it to GA. This was my first experience collaborating with another editor Gerda Arendt and I really enjoyed it. The others worth mentioning are Bessie Van Vorst, Ottilie Baader, Amy Mack. I also felt proud creating articles for Azerbaijan/Kazakh/Uzbek women who I feel are less represented. Apart from women's biographies I have also "adopted" Monaco-related topics after a suggestion made by Encyclopædius here. Within this topic I have created many articles among which almost all the biographies of the current members of the National Council of Monaco. Less Unless (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Tim Smith
- 5. If promoted, will you join Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
- A:Thank you for the question. I am definitely open to recall as I believe it is consistent with the core values of the community. Administrators are accountable as they are trusted with an extensive set of tools. If the community decides an administrator for certain reasons lost its trust or can’t perform to the benefit of the community, they should resign. If I am elected, I will list myself under the terms of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Less Unless (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from DanCherek
- 6. Thanks for running. Was this edit — one of the four times you've used rollback — eligible per WP:ROLLBACKUSE?
- A:Thank you for the question and pointing out this edit. When I rollbacked it I thought it was justified. I have checked the full lineup of the Jingle Ball Tour 2016 and Harry Styles wasn’t there. So, I took it for an act of vandalism. However, from today’s perspective it obviously looks like a hasty decision and a misuse on my part. For this past month I have been reading a lot about vandalism as I often come across problematic edits while reviewing pending changes. Due to this I have gained a better understanding of what constitutes vandalism. At this moment I think the edit was quite ambiguous (could be good-faith, a test, even if vandalism, it wasn’t destructive) but not the case where rollback would be considered eligible.
- Rollback is applied for obviously malicious editing, in one's own userspace or for reverting edits by blocked users - none of which applies to this particular edit. I think the most adequate decision would be to manually revert and provide a summary explaining the reasons. Also, I would drop a personal message to the editor explaining why I undid their changes and offering help and assistance in case they needed any. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from EpicPupper
- 7. Which of the 5 pillars would you, in your opinion, remark to me most important?
- A: Thank you for the question. In my opinion the five pillars are all intertwined to serve the bigger purpose. To me it’s a like a car - it needs everything - an engine, gas and breaks, steering and wheels and many other parts. Take any of the components away and it just won’t be able to do what it was meant for. So, I can’t say this or that particular pillar is the most important, it’s the combination that creates Wikipedia as we know it and makes it running. Take one pillar away and it will change everything.
- Being a Free Online Encyclopedia – is the purpose that every idea needs as it builds the direction, NPOV makes a logical follow-up – an encyclopedia without neutrality is an oxymoron. Free content is at the core of the idea – take it away and the community will change drastically. Respect and civility are the base for any type of relationship, especially in such a diverse community. Assuming good faith, acting polite and friendly not only secures more or less smooth interactions, but also helps engaging new valuable editors who may feel lost or even scared in the beginning. “No firm rules” means that discussion, consensus and common sense prevail, it’s not a dictatorship. The community has a set of guidelines as any endeavour should to function, but what’s crucial here is that anyone can join and help, and this what helps the project evolve. When I just started editing, I was really scared that I can unwillingly harm, but after receiving support from several editors who told me to be bold, I felt more confident to continue. Less Unless (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from EpicPupper
- 8. Just curious, what is the meaning/origin of your username?
- A:Thank you for cusiosity) My username is a creative attempt of mine to combine word-play with my life motto which is “Don’t look for excuses”, unless... kidding) no unless here). Less Unless (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from SunDawn
- 9. Hello! We never meet before but I think your works are great! I intend to ask this question to all admins. While we know that neutrality is one of the most important concepts in Wikipedia, how do you approach contentious situations that are on the opposite spectrum of your religious or political beliefs? (For example: Let's pretend you are Armenian and the case is about Armenian genocide, or pretend that you are conservative and the case is about liberalism) Thank you!
- A:Hello and thank you. The situation you described is very common as we are a very diverse community. The most frequent reasoning in such discussions in my experience is WP:TRUE. And, indeed that may be true, but one of the most important guidelines here is WP:Verifiability and if we drop it in favor of what one believes is true, Wikipedia will turn into a battlefield for truth (philosophers alone have so many different views!). In order to avoid such or similar scenarios, the community elaborated a set of guidelines that proved its efficiency. So, for me it’s the guidelines we should base every discussion on, not personal beliefs.
- Having said that I believe being involved doesn’t necessary mean being subjective. Although COI edits are discouraged on Wiki, having an “insider” can help a discussion if they are willing to put their emotions aside and help by, for example, providing IRS that contain alternative points of view thus adding to another important requirement - due weight. In such way we will be able to provide readers with objective verifiable information presented from a variety of perspectives.
- However, if a person feels they won’t be able to offer objective facts based on the guidelines, or their emotional well-being may be hurt, it’s better to refrain from the discussion. Therefore, it depends on context and a person.
- One of my principles – if you are not well informed about a topic or biased, be careful expressing subjective opinions. It may harm everyone involved – you, your opponent and the discussion. So, when I get involved in such situation, I ask myself if I know enough to provide thoughtful well-reasoned opinions, if not – is there another constructive way I can contribute (doing research, i.e), but also whether I can maintain my emotions and whether what I say helps the discussion.
- Sorry if I rambled for too long) Less Unless (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Nsk92
- 10. On April 27 you !voted 'delete' in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jaslyn Adams, with the "fails notability guidelines per above" rationale. If this AfD were open now, and based on the coverage of the event available now, would you still !vote 'delete'? When, if ever, is it appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this type of an event? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- A: Thank you for the question. With this particular article I would still !vote delete as the coverage in IRS in not the only prerequisite of notability in this case. WP:GNG in the majority of cases can be the only indicator of notability, but with articles about events or crime there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration i.e. per WP:CRIME and WP:EVENT.
- Regretfully, we live in the world where people get murdered every day but while creating an encyclopedia, we should keep a cool head and stick to the guidelines. Is this an event that has changed the society? Has it resulted into something bigger? This particular tragic case unfortunately has no lasting effect per WP:EFFECT. Another thing to remember with these types of articles is the duration of coverage per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Having conducted such an analysis I agreed with WP:NOTNEWS brought up by other users and I still hold to this opinion.
- As a comparison, this article Murder of Joanna Yeates meets the requirements for inclusion as it was not only extensively covered but sparkled a vivid discussion in the society and the government about ethics in media (legal action was taken against six newspapers, a new legislation proposed) which has changed the way such events are written about. Less Unless (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Elli
- 11. Would you ever invoke IAR in an administrative capacity, and if so, what potential situation could you imagine yourself doing so?
- A:Thank you for the question. I find it difficult at the moment to imagine a situation where I would definitely invoke IAR. The context, the details - there are so many variables that influence our decisions. Up until now the guidelines formulated by the community were quite comprehensive for me. Also, as one of the main pillars is consensus, I believe any new or alternative proposal can be brought up for discussion and accepted if proved effective.
- To me IAR is not a synonym to “do whatever you want” rather a stimulus to be creative, express your thoughts and offer alternative ideas. If the project is not willing to at least consider new approaches, it won’t grow.Less Unless (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- 12. As a (relatively) newer user, would you feel fully confident closing discussions involving, and potentially even blocking, users who may have many more years tenure, and hundreds of thousands of edits, than yourself on the project?
- A:When I read the reasoning of users under a deletion nomination, I don’t usually check their userpage or rights. First and foremost, it’s the rationale that should be taken into account. Years of tenure is definitely an asset as a lot of knowledge comes from the details and experience, however everyone can be mistaken (and it’s ok to make mistakes, that’s how we learn the fastest). Basing a decision on the fact that a user is much older than me would be a very subjective approach. I have seen articles nominated for deletion by admins and saved by other users. Does it mean the admin is a bad admin? No. It just means that everyone can be mistaken.
- In case of a possible block though, I would most definitely seek to involve several other admins to shape a better vision of what has happened and which steps are the most adequate. Less Unless (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from User:StarshipSLS
- 13.How will you deal with disputes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarshipSLS (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- A:Thank you for the question. I will first and foremost assume good faith, definitely use my do’s and don’ts guide stated in Q3 and stick to the guidelines. Keeping the discussion constructive would be my main focus. If needed, I will ask for help of other users as I believe it’s essential and appropriate in our community.Less Unless (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Sdrqaz
- 14. Hello, Less. Given your stated intention to work in AfDs, how would you close an AfD where there was a tension between the general notability guideline and the relevant subject-specific notability guideline? In your opinion, would meeting an SNG but not meeting the GNG automatically merit inclusion in the encyclopedia?
- A: Thank you for the question. My decision would depend on the subject of the article and specific arguments presented. SNGs should generally help determine if a subject is likely to meet the GNG, they assume the coverage exists and where specifically it is likely to be found. While in most of the cases SNGs are subordinated to GNG, there are exceptions like WP:NPROF, which is an alternative to GNG.
- Generally, all SNGs note that the subject is presumed notable if it can be verified by IRS. However, in some cases it’s the amount of WP:SIGCOV that may differ depending on the subject. For example if the subject meets WP:NPOL as being a member of Cabinet, they are considered notable even if there’s not much SIGCOV. However, if a politician ran for an office but lost and all the extensive coverage is build on this process only – a lot of users consider it a WP:ONEEVENT and !vote delete. These types of discussions in my experience were often closed as no consensus. Another example of discussions where things get heated relate to WP:NSPORT, and the question is if technically meeting a requirement is enough to pass.
- So, it’s really tricky and all about the nuances - every case is unique. There are so many variables here, that it’s quite difficult to answer the question without a specific case.
- As a new administrator, I would refrain from closing particularly controversial discussions, but observe and consult with more experienced sysops.Less Unless (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Steve Smith
- 15. Regarding Erica Rutherford, which you fairly cited in Q3 as a mistake you made, your response to the mistake was to say that you did not intend to insult anybody; I absolutely accept that, but it strikes me as an incomplete response. Can you now explain why what you did was in error, and what you've learned from it?
- A:Thank you for the question. I agree fully, my answer looks incomplete and kind of reserved as I was petrified when I read the message. I instantly forgot all the words and it was the best I could say in that emotional state. One of my biggest priorities in life is freedom - freedom to be who you are no matter what, and I always respect the choices people make. When creating the article, I was using my logic that quit on me. I used “he” for the time in life when Erica was male, and “she” after transition. Another mistake of mine was not to check the appropriate wording.
- What I’ve learned from this situation is 1) always familiarize yourself with the subject and the context; 2) consult with people who know more – I am a huge fan of WikiProjects; 3) double/triple check. Less Unless (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Celestina007
- 16. You already have my support and you are definitely passing this RFA, so congratulations in advance, however I do have a question, When you invariably become an Administrator do you see yourself getting involved in anti spam? that is, would you be willing to combat spamming and undisclosed paid editing?
- A:Thank you for the question and the support. If I become a sysop I'm goint to take it slow. I want to study all the guidelines thoroughly, observe other experienced admins, ask questions I don’t feel quite confident about. To me being a sysop is a big responsibility and I will definitely act with triple caution. If at some point I feel I have profound knowledge in anti-spam and UPE activities (or if anyone agrees to adopt me on these particular issues), I don’t see why I can’t contribute. While spamming is content related and I am more confident about it, dealing with undisclosed paid editing would be new to me, as I am not familiar with the procedures, so I would definitely need some time. Generally, I am willing to help out in any area, provided I gained profound knowledge in it. Less Unless (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from 2409:4054:21D:BFD1:406A:4E8F:CBD4:16D
- 17. Somehow, you granted Mass message sender right to some user who has no need for it and who is not much active. Realising you did a mistake, what will you do? Will you revoke right from the user?
- A:Thank you for the question. If anything like this happens, I would first of all consult with other administrators on how to act as at the moment I am not familiar with all the specifics of granting\revoking user rights. Having made one mistake (granting the rights), I would try to avoid any others, so asking a more experienced admin(s) to help would be the best choice as I see it now. Less Unless (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- 18. A newly registered user edits your userpage many times. Everytime they write: You are a lovely admin, keep up your good work!. But they have received {{uw-harrass4im}} warning (after many user told them to not to edit other users userpage) and have been reported to WP:AIV. Suppose you are the first admin looking at the AIV after the request was filed, what will you do?
- A. Thank you for your question. As the user is new, I would definitely reach out to explain our policies regarding userspaces and offer them help. However, at WP:AIV I would choose not to intervene as an involved person – I don’t think it would be appropriate to use my admin tools as this could be perceived as misuse. Instead, I would wait for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the case. Less Unless (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Ineffablebookkeeper
- 19. I hate to seemed nitpicky, but this is something I feel I have to ask. Question 15 comments on your edits over at Erica Rutherford. I'm certain these were good faith, and that you, as a potential administrator contributing to the Women In Red project, have no wish but to improve Wikipedia's diversity of outlook and content. BLPs can be difficult; though Wikipedia policy does not exist to massage the egos of those it may have articles on, it does generally abide by the wishes of an article's subject when it comes to issues such as their date of birth and pronoun choices.
- Your answer to Q.15 included "I always respect the choices people make", but as I'm sure you're aware, a person doesn't get much choice over whether they're transgender or not; the choice is, instead, how they present this to the world, with pronouns being part of this presentation. (You can think of a person's presentation choices - pronouns, appearance, etc. - like a number of horses, wearing hats with 'he/him' and 'goth-femme' on them, tied to a number of posts labelled 'pronouns' and 'presentation', if it helps.)
- Presentation might change, but identity typically doesn't. And, though we have a rule of best thumb - refer to someone as their current pronouns, even when writing about the time before they came out - this can also vary, as personal preferences over pronoun choices and self-referential language can be influenced by, say, the time a person grew up and came out, and, for example, the language considered acceptable at the time having changed over the years, but the language used to describe their identity having stayed the same.
- So, my question is this: you're writing a BLP of an older trans person who has recently come out. They don't use neo-pronouns, but they do describe themselves with the older term "transsexual", and have openly spoken of the time before they came out using their previously-used pronouns. You consult with other editors, but ultimately, the decision on what to write and how to write it falls down to you, as everyone else is swamped under in differently articles and projects. Though you don't feel the need to lay out a precise outline before you start writing about this person, what angle do you approach it with?
- At the same time, you're working on a BLP of a younger trans person, who has openly stated that they commonly use slurs they have reclaimed to describe themselves, but do not use the term 'queer', as they believe it to be an unreclaimed slur, and offensive when used in reference to them. Though they have not spoken about how long they have identified differently - no statements on "I always considered myself to be X", "I started identifying as X at Y age", or "when I look back, I can see that I never identified as Z" - they have also not stated a preference for how they should be referred to when speaking of the time in their life before they came out. Again - everyone else is swamped under writing about ducks or something, criminally vital articles they just cannot put down. Without needing to write up the Iliad on the Talk page before yuu edit, what's your approach?
- A. Thank you for your question as now I have a chance to explain what I meant. I want to clarify this part: "When creating the article, I was using my logic that quit on me. I used “he” for the time in life when Erica presented as male, and “she” after transition." It was my logic when I wrote the article a year ago, it's not what I think now. I did learn back then that gender is not what you can chose but a core part of your personality.
- This whole misunderstanding made me so sad as I feel we have similar priorities and could be supportive to each other. Unfortunately the word "choices" was misleading, but I never meant that being a transgender is a choice. I hope we can work together in the future and create great content.
- As for the question - I would wait until someone replied because I can hardly imagine a situation where I’m the only person who could write that article if I’m a person who isn’t informed enough to do so and don’t have access to advice. Less Unless (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- 20. My other question is what I originally came on here to ask - accessibility. Would you, in the role of administrator and through your involvement with WIR, introduce and attempt to spread word of the basic edits and policies of the accessibility manual of style that other editors could incorporate into their average daily editing - things like the {{transl}} and {{lang}} templates, the removal of false headings and the improvement of using italics and bold where single or double quotes should be? (It would be nice to have more admins where these practices are baked in, is all(!)). Thanks!
- A: I am highly supportive of the accessibility focused efforts and see no reason why I would oppose helping. Basically, it’s what I pretty often deal with at Clean Up. However, I would have to study the technical part of it more precisely as things like modules, scripts, functions and codes are definitely out of my comfort zone.Less Unless (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Oshwah
- 21. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you handle these situations when they arise, and how would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?
- A: Generally, I don’t think admins, experienced, less experienced or IP users should be treated differently. It’s the guidelines that keep it all together, no one has a privilege, anyone can be blocked. But blocking should be the very last measure and should be supported by the broader community.
- I personally feel like at many times blocking can have the opposite effect, as people who repeatedly violate civility guidelines have definitely been warned before and if that didn’t work, why the block will. Especially with those who have been here for a while and know the policies. Moreover, if we block experienced users without doing our best to understand them, we can just lose them. If they cared enough to spend their free time here and contribute, why can’t be spend some time to really talk to them? I believe most of the cases can be resolved by means of communication therefore I would do my best to clarify the situation and discuss it with the user trying to see their point as well. It’s all about the context and details.
- At the moment I don’t have much experience in this particular field, so I before doing anything as responsible as blocking, I would need time to acquire sufficient knowledge and get grasp of details. Less Unless (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Less Unless: Less Unless (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Less Unless can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support Good editor JaiPogo0123 (Talk to me) 02:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- As co-nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - any candidate of Barkeep's ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I did not recognize this username, but the record speaks for itself. Sufficient tenure. Lots of good content creation. Nothing concerning in the talk page history, and the last 500 edits look good. And the activity at Wikipedia:Cleanup justifies a "need for the tools" by itself. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- A fellow Barkeepian candidate! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, this seems fine. BD2412 T 03:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks alright to me. Link20XX (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support--- Possibly (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Keep up the good work Glennfcowan (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 04:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a solid contributor. As a participant in the Teresa Okure AfD cited above, I particularly appreciate her ability to change her mind when new information is presented. In my view, that willingness to accept feedback is more than sufficient to assuage any "too few edits, no GAs, too new" concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Barkeep49 TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — They are a fine editor and a net positive to the project. I have no reason to trust them any less, unless presented with evidence contrary to that. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support respected noms, answers to questions ok so far, peeking at a few AfD discussions seemed to show no issues. No signs not to be trusted with tools. Hopefully no skeletons and in all events good luck. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Qualified candidate! Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per PMC. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 06:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms and PMC. No risk, net positive, etc. GirthSummit (blether) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, precious and trusted. We work on Marita Napier together, feel free to help towards GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support as clearly a good candidate who you benefit from admin privileges. Bibeyjj (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, good editor, net positive. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Nothing suspicious. --BonsMans1 𝑇𝐶 08:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Minorax (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Solid editor, good attitude to discussions, able to change their mind. Support. —Kusma (t·c) 08:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Weak support seems to be a good candidate, although there appear to be some deletionist tendencies with a number of the candidate's AFD nominations, with some recent examples being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Okure and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ture i Berg. However, the candidate has proven to be willing to admit they were wrong which is a good quality in an admin. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think a real deletionist would have argued to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Miranda, so perhaps we should resist trying to categorise the candidate as inclusionist/deletionist. —Kusma (t·c) 09:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. VV 09:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support being an admin is absolutely no big deal at all, anyone is capable of doing it and there's seldom any real risk to it. So happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support EN-Jungwon 09:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Pahunkat (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - no qualms here. Anarchyte (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support a fantastic contributer to the project (one I don't think I've seen much of before), who would be more than capable of handling the toolset. No reason to oppose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: good temperament, excellent content creation, need for the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - in my view, adminship should not be as big a deal as it is, and any quality editor who comes along, like this candidate, should be supported. Temperament is the most important thing, and this editor clearly has the right attitude to be an admin. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support not familiar with their work, but I respect and trust both nominators. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support yet another excellent candidate from the BK49/R333 franchise. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I haven't seen them around but LU seems reflective, & prepares herself before leaping into new areas. Not convinced of the need as stated but unconcerned since passing an RFA inevitably changes the focus of your attention. Cabayi (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- SupportVery impressed by the quality of the noms, and the candidate herself seems up to the task.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support for meeting my minimums and no big deal. I too do not recall seeing them around but there's nothing to oppose. Ifnord (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support While I have not personally had any interaction with this user, her qualifications speak for themselves and, Lord knows, Wikipedia needs more bold, level-headed editors like her in adminship. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms. AnApple47 (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for volunteering! Levivich harass/hound 14:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Experienced editor, don't see any reason why she cannot be trusted with the mop. - ZLEA T\C 15:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Candidate is a valuable contributor and I trust her with the admin tools. DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support - looks promising. Jianhui67 T★C 15:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Another Ritchie/Barkeep wombo combo! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks okay to me. We need more admins. Mosesheron (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy, good work all around eviolite (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Very efficient contributor and reviewer. Globg (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Corachow (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support a review of their edit history and talk page gives me every confidence. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support a solid qualified wikipedian who is eager to take responsibility and do more... positive --Kemalcan (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good answers to questions and, in Ritchie's words, "consistently polite, courteous and welcoming". No concerns. — The Earwig (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support If all it takes is a slightly panicky thread on WT:RFA to get Ritchie and Barkeep to find some strong candidates to nominate, we can do that more often ... but seriously, a well-qualified candidate who has demonstrated good judgment and is here for the right reasons. Go Phightins! 19:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Not bad! Thanks for volunteering. Deryck C. 19:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Q6 seemed nitpicky to me first, but it has resulted in an answer that made me support. Not because of the rollback thing, but because of the response to this type of criticism. That's exactly the type of criticism one will experience as administrator, and exactly the type of answer that is needed when it happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Candidate has said that she will be open to recall under that standard offer. That's really all I need to know -- saved time! After all, in the unlikely chance there's a problem, we can look at various ways of addressing that -- recall being a last resort, but necessary to have. Not only that, but in the vanishingly unlikely chance that the candidate gets too full of themself -- not totally unheard of, people change -- we can maybe make them think "uh-uh... maybe I better cool it." Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I've seen her around at WP:cleanup - competent, civil and reflecting, from what I've seen. Definitely does not shy away from janitor-type work, and could use the sysop tools to do more of such. I think she can be trusted with them. PJvanMill)talk( 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think I've encountered them before but the response to Q6 is excellent. Guettarda (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Another editor I've never come across. Looks acceptable to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support clear net positive - competent and willing to reflect on her contributions. The AfD votes in the oppose don't trouble me. --Find bruce (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Content creation? Building the encyclopedia? Exactly what I look for. NYC Guru (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- And this person definitely drives home the point -- "Be respectful – treat others the way you want to be treated. Everyone does the best they can. We never know the reason of a person’s behavior". Someone with that attitude certainly knows what it takes to be here and will get a lot of pleasure from their wikipedia time. NYC Guru (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - no issues at all. Tolly4bolly 01:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns. I think this candidate will do a great job. -- Dane talk 04:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support an excellent candidate; I've never seen her before, but a look at contributions and linked discussions show that she is competent/trustworthy (and especially willing to accept critical feedback) and has a reasonable need for the tools. Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support a good candidate. No concerns. --Bduke (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Unlikely to delete the main page. Based on a reasonable search, it appears this editor can be trusted with the larger toolset. BusterD (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support A good candidate, no concerns. Acroterion (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support A very good candidate, though the concern brought up in opposition by Willbb234 deserves to be addressed if I am going to indicate my support. I don't think that the editor's editing in non-controversial areas would result in many talk page discussions due to disputes anyway, which would reduce the number of talk page comments significantly. While the user is newer in terms of age, the user's edits show experience and nothing appears to be concerning to me. Additionally, the significant activity at WP:CLEANUP shows that the user may have a compelling reason to be granted the admin tools. The lack of editing in controversial areas has led to fewer content disputes, and the lack of ability to see the editor's behavior in a prolonged content dispute provides some uncertainty regarding how they would handle disputes as an admin. Overall, however, the editor has shown consistent good faith, an earnest willingness and competence to improve the encyclopedia, and a compelling reason for why and how the admin tools would be particularly helpful in having this user positively contribute to our encyclopedia in new ways. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Keep up the good work.. Powerful Karma (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - endorsed by editors I trust, and based on what I've seen of her contributions, she is an excellent candidate. Atsme 💬 📧 12:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support After spending some time looking through contributions and question answers, I'm quite impressed! I think Less Unless would make a good admin. FlalfTalk 12:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- full Support. I think Less Unless will make a great sysop.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, looks good. SVcode(Talk) 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support looks like an excellent candidate. She is endorsed by Barkeep, she is consistently polite and courteous, she has done great work at Women in Red project, and she has answered all of the questions satisfactorily. Impressive candidate. SunDawn (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Certainly. —-Jack Frost (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Qualified candidate, here for the right reasons and has a good grasp on our principles. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I trust the noms; no concerns that I could find.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Looks like this user would be a good admin.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support based mainly on support by people whose opinions I have come to trust, and what a fairly superficial check can show. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support --- an excellent candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support --- No concerns. Keresluna (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - A net positive candidate nominated by 2 trusted users JW 1961 Talk 20:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I see nothing to oppose here. Candidate seems unlikely to run with scissors, and I particularly liked "Don’t take it personally – it’s not about you. It’s not a place to nurture your ego, but a community of like-minded people with a bigger purpose. Act with regard to the purpose." – Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I have been impressed by the nuance and depth to the answers by Less Unless, and I echo Athaenara's words – it's certainly something worth keeping in mind as we build the encyclopedia. Mixing up significance and notability was a slight concern looking through the archives, but the way Less handled that (not to mention it was six months ago) showed she is willing to learn from her mistakes; a trait all Wikipedians (but especially administrators) need. I wish Less the best in her adminship. – Sdrqaz (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - exactly the right attitude, and a good mix of contributions (perhaps a little more Keep in AfD, intervening to rescue, for example, would be even better). Also nominated by experienced trusted figures. I note the well-articulated “need for more experience” point below, but think this can be over-stressed. More hands on the toolset are needed and this looks like a safe pair. Good luck! SeoR (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- - Astrophobe (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support for a qualified candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I don't see any issues. — Ched (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support them being an admin here would be a clear net-positive for the project. User has common sense and can justify their thoughts reasonably, and has a decent wiki-philosophy. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Handful of encounters I've had with the candidate are positive, I see support from several users whose judgment I trust, and no obvious red flags. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - good work at AFD in addition to content creation work, I am happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Would improve wikipedia TigerScientist Chat > contribs 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - After research, I've found that this candidate has a clue and a positive attitude toward the project. Having this candidate become an admin would be a clear net-positive for the project. I'm happy to pile on my support! - tucoxn\talk 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support My default position for any RfA co-nom by Barkeep49 and Ritchie333 is to support, and I see no reason to make an exception with Less Unless. Seems well qualified to wield the mop. JGHowes talk 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Seems fine. Why not? ♟♙ (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - seems to be a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Experience and range of expertise is light. Admin role needs to be bifurcated and this would be for basic admin work, staying out of the heavy and behavior-related stuff for several years.North8000 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, seems perfectly qualified and uncontroversial, I do not see anything to indicate she would be anything other than entirely responsible with the tools. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- No concerns. --JBL (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Seems sound on policies. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support based on excellent nominator and candidate appears to have clue. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- the wub "?!" 10:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I don't remember seeing this editor previously, but the excellent responses to the questions above (especially the willingness to acknowledge and reflect on minor mistakes) and solid contribution history indicate that she will be a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support who engages in clean up and likes tag free articles... go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- No reason for me to oppose. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Good editor, net positive. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Competent and will be a great boon to the project. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Their thoughtful answers to the questions, combined with a good temperment, and content creation skills would make for an great administrator. Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seems sufficiently chill and trustworthy to me. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support What's not to like?--agr (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Because I love piling on. Also, she does good work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent to see qualified people being nominated! Daniel (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - yes, no problem, we need more admins, especially women. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 08:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nominators and the quality of her edits. Wario-Man talk 09:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support—Eminently qualified. Kurtis (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support – seems totally alright, good luck --Vacant0 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- No problemo! Objections below are respected; however, they seem insufficient to hold back the tools, especially when good admins are needed for the project. This is an obvious no-brainer, and this candidate is a high-quality choice. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. No issues. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for volunteering and good luck. Vexations (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Very happy with her answers and contributions. Uses x (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well-rounded editor; will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 03:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Top-notch editor with the skills and aptitude to become a great admin. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per her user talk archives; no concerns. — Wug·a·po·des 06:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - 1.5 years of consistent high quality editing is sufficient tenure, if on lean side. Trusted by Ritchie333 and Barkeep49. Shows CLUE, takes advice, seeks to learn, interacts well with others. About what I look for in an admin candidate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good. Best of luck in your new role! – Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Also, Mausebru (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support community has shown they support and nothing leads me to oppose. Preemptive congrats for gaining the tools. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine, and the candidate has agreed to be open to recall. Tim Smith (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Sounds good, good quality edits Erik Sergeant
- Support. Great editing at Women in Red and reading her replies to questions above shows a thoughtful, considered, reflective contributions. We need admins like Less_Unless. Yes please. Victuallers (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support good candidate. JavaHurricane 09:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Definitely. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Thumbs up. LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 13:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms and above. Welcome to the corp! --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Good answers and the support of these noms gives me confidence you'll do great. Best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kirbopher2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I am happy to support because no significant problems have been identified. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose AfD participation is very much underwhelming. Despite approximately 200 AfDs participated in, remarkable for the time period, they seem to nearly always be single line agreements with other !votes ([1], [2], [3], [4], to list a handful of some of the recent AfDs in which they have participated). They have nominated a few AfDs, the most recent of which resulted in a speedy keep ([5]). Their talk page participation is also underwhelming, with only approximately 500 edits to both user talk and article talk pages. For me, this demonstrates that this user has not as much user-to-user discussion and involvement as I would expect from an admin. The user has only been at Wikipedia for a little over 18 months which, while being consistently active throughout, strikes me as barely enough. As Barkeep says, she just goes about competently building the encyclopedia. Whilst this is certainly a trait which I would look for in a candidate, a user needs more than this to become an admin, more specifically, to have an ability to understand different situations which require different thoughts and approaches, something which I don't believe this use has demonstrated. The user has also only had the NPP right for less than eight months and two other rights for less than six. I don't believe this is sufficient experience to be granted the admin tools to be helping out in the areas stated in answer 1. I will mention that I have seen this user performing solid work in chess-related articles and a look at their other contributions shows they really are doing great work to build the encylopedia. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Aside from the usual issues with arguments that somehow Wikipedia is so hard to edit that users need years of experience, I'm curious what you think the user should've voted with on those AfDs (maybe you can give some examples of what you'd expect)? As you may know, most AfDs are obvious keep or delete cases and do not require paragraph arguments, especially when we're talking about the absence of sourcing (i.e. blatant GNG failures). I'd like to know how one makes a High Quality Contribution (TM) when Googling the subject just gives no results except IMDb & FB/Insta/Linkedin[6]. ProcSock (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcSock: to be fair to Willbb, I don't think it's really the "single line answers" that are their main issue - you're right that in many cases, more isn't needed. However, for someone indicating interest in AfD activity as an admin, you do want to see evidence of new thought - good 1st responders and nominations are traditional, but being the first to disagree with those above, even if it puts you in the minority, so long as they're well reasoned, that's what I like to see. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- ProcSock, I haven't looked into this particular case, but surely one goes beyond a Google Web search when assessing notability? Nosebagbear makes a very good point here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- A quick Google is the requirement per WP:BEFORE. And for a modern-day actor in an English-speaking country, I'd be surprised if they were notable but nothing but PR stuff popped up on Google. But my point is more that IME these kinds of AfDs lend themselves to short responses (whereas the POVFORK/BLP variety of AfDs require longer ones). In many cases the editor comments early on and seems to be doing their checks.[7][8][9] Fundamentally, I don't really see how those AfDs could be replied to differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know if you mean to be implying that a normal Google search only is the full requirement of WP:BEFORE, but it is actually
a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search
(other search engines are available). Almost everyone reading this also has The Wikipedia Library access and I hope you're all doing ProQuest searches in there and using any specialist search that you know is subject-relevant. BEFORE is only required for the nominator, but participants should be doing it too (at least until it's clear someone else has). — Bilorv (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes, but the point of my question wasn't Google (I don't know what LU's review process is anyway), it was what exactly is expected on clear GNG failures (which is a large bulk of what hits AfD), for which (for that specific person's AfD) I used no results on Google as an example. I would personally see it as a waste of time to try to write a paragraph argument in such an AfD (if even possible) when it can be summarised in two sentences. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know if you mean to be implying that a normal Google search only is the full requirement of WP:BEFORE, but it is actually
- A quick Google is the requirement per WP:BEFORE. And for a modern-day actor in an English-speaking country, I'd be surprised if they were notable but nothing but PR stuff popped up on Google. But my point is more that IME these kinds of AfDs lend themselves to short responses (whereas the POVFORK/BLP variety of AfDs require longer ones). In many cases the editor comments early on and seems to be doing their checks.[7][8][9] Fundamentally, I don't really see how those AfDs could be replied to differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Aside from the usual issues with arguments that somehow Wikipedia is so hard to edit that users need years of experience, I'm curious what you think the user should've voted with on those AfDs (maybe you can give some examples of what you'd expect)? As you may know, most AfDs are obvious keep or delete cases and do not require paragraph arguments, especially when we're talking about the absence of sourcing (i.e. blatant GNG failures). I'd like to know how one makes a High Quality Contribution (TM) when Googling the subject just gives no results except IMDb & FB/Insta/Linkedin[6]. ProcSock (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Is having good AfD stats and uncontroversial content creation our only requirement for adminship? I hate this obsession with AfD stats at RfA as all it really does is measure how good someone is at agreeing with others and dogpiling onto easy keeps/deletes. I'd prefer to see productive involvement in disputes given that admins are often called upon to resolve such. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC) - Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Until recall is a binding procedure, and pledges to be open to recall are binding, the first and only step to recalling an admin is convincing them to resign, which is the first and only step to removing an admin in any circumstance except for RFAR. As such, all admins are equally open, and not open to recall. Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, is the substance of your vote that you oppose any candidate who indicates that they are open to recall? --JBL (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- For everyone else: having looked through Hipocrite's past participation at RfA, I see that this is at least the fourth time they've offered a variation on this oppose ([10] [11] [12], and of course the currently-running [13]), it leads to a long pointless discussion every time, and I'm sorry I started that already so please let's not. --JBL (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disagreeing with JayBeeEll to an extent on this as it should quickly be treated as an extended discussion and clerked to the talk page is where it belongs. I'd simply AGF for any candidate and reckon only if either myself or maybe Hipocrite might answer no to the question if we ran for RFA.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Hipocrite that the glib acceptance of recalls without the proper leg-work to make a genuine process is concerning; I am particularly skeptical of any candidate who agrees to it without previously being involved in the effort to create a recall process, since it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are simply bowing to pressure. No one who would do so to pass an RFA should be an administrator. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. This is probably closer to a support than to an oppose, but I find the Erica Rutherford business a bit troubling, and the candidate's response to it in Q15 not all together satisfactory. The candidate—acting in what I have zero doubt was good faith, and as part of a noble effort to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia—misgendered an article subject for a good portion of the article. While accepting that she erred, the candidate's response refers to using male pronouns for "the time in life when Erica was male", which largely replicates her initial error and suggests a failure to learn from it. I'm also a little bit unsettled by her reference to "respect[ing] the choices people make", which is further evidence tending to suggest that her misunderstanding of trans issues persists. You might fairly ask what a proper understanding of trans issues has to do with being an administrator, to which I would respond that it's not completely irrelevant, but perhaps more troubling is that after making a mistake in good faith and being called on it, the candidate superficially accepted responsibility, without really taking the effort to understand what her mistake was. I don't think all of that adds up to a reason to oppose an otherwise good candidate, but I can't quite get myself to support. Steve Smith (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Steve Smith: so that the candidate can actually see a bit more explicitly what the problem is, do you think the following is a fair representation of your issues?
- Many/most transgender people don't consider themselves to have "used to be male/female", in the same way most gay people don't think that they "were straight and are now gay"—it's like they were always that gender or always gay, but just didn't realise that about themselves or go public with it for a while. (Particularly older generations of trans people sometimes do think in terms of "I used to be a man and now I'm a woman", but some people find that idea very disrespectful.)
- Many/most transgender people find it to trigger gender dysphoria when they are referred to by pronouns other than their currently-identifying set(s).
- Like how being gay isn't "a lifestyle choice", neither is being trans, so though there is still some sense in which a person is choosing to be themselves, there's also some way in which it isn't a choice at all—it's just the way they are.
- In terms of policy, MOS:IDENTITY says:
Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources
. (In this case, use "she/her" not "he/him" throughout the given article.)
- — Bilorv (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that about captures it; thanks. Steve Smith (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Steve Smith: so that the candidate can actually see a bit more explicitly what the problem is, do you think the following is a fair representation of your issues?
- Neutral. Not voting nay because I want to see more editors stepping up if they are interested in the mop, and I reject admin qualification inflation on general principles. But that said, there are some potential issues with the candidate and the high acceptance pct. that has developed surprises me. This is a very new editor by our usual standards with under two years experience in the community. There are some other things that make me concerned about judgment and maturity like typos on their user page, and TWA badges, when that page can be expected to be scrutinized. Kind of generic replies to question 3, and selection of the generic recall mechanism, are uninspiring – are we seeing an unwillingness to grapple? Others have pointed out non-nuanced AfD arguments where ideally we would see, again, more grappling with issues demonstrating potential admin mindset. I agree with Chess on this, but not strongly enough for an outright "nay". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- What, you can't have a TWA badge on your userpage now if you want to become an admin? Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)- I don’t have hard and fast rules like that, rather would prefer to evaluate the whole package of candidate characteristics as an ensemble. Some characteristics suggest naiveté and a cautious response, that’s all. A candidate should be self aware enough to know what message they are sending out with their userpage during an RfA. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- What, you can't have a TWA badge on your userpage now if you want to become an admin? Chess (talk) (please use
- Neutral, though could change based on what the candidate may later state; I originally jumped on here to ask a question about the candidate's approach to accessibility vis a vis templates and the promotion of understanding, but what Steve Smith brings up here, though potentially a "minor" issue to some, does, as a trans person who's seen this kind of thing before, lead me to wonder. Being transgender is something to be respected, as an immutable part of a person's identity - not a "choice".The choice is to come out, I suppose, but coming out is a relatively new concept, and transgender people have existed for far longer than 'coming out' has. Though odd to some, it is the respectful, and I would say editorially correct decision, to refer to someone within their BLP with the correct, present-day pronouns, unless the article subject in question has openly stated no opposition to being referred to differently when writing of the time before they came out.There's also, as Steve Smith has pointed out, the oddity of referring to someone before having come out as "the time of so-and-so's life when they were male". Cisgender editors may struggle to grasp, having never faced gender dysphoria, the fact that for a trans person, there is often no time in their life when they consider themselves to have been the gender they were born as; certainly it's the case for myself, and having been out for 5 years, I've seen few identifying differently, and those themselves typically older members of the trans community.Obviously, learning about minority issues is never an open-and-shut, yes-or-no thing; it's a continual process. However, I would like to see these concerns wrapped up before casting a vote, as this will affect how the candidate may go on to treat certain articles in future, should their application for adminship be successful. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral Though I admire Less Unless's awareness and willing to learn from experienced admins when granted the tools, the noted laissez-faire attitude to diversity issues is uninspiring, especially with Wikipedia seeing many edit wars (and civil edit conflicts) on the subject. However, relating to diversity issues, I see Less's positive and frequent WiR contributions. So, I find myself neutral here. Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
General comments
Vote for him— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: To avoid propagation of this gender identity here I would note nom. seems to identify the gender of the candidate as she in the introduction. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Djm-leighpark, For the record, we asked Less Unless what preferred gender should be used in the nomination, and were unambiguously told “she”. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: My question (Q6) was described above as "criticism" but it was not intended as such and I apologize if it came across that way. As I indicated above, I thought Less Unless's nuanced answer was fantastic and I hope it will strengthen this RfA even more. DanCherek (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, StarshipSLS, is there something you're trying to get at in your Q13 that wasn't dealt with in the answer to Q3? —valereee (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Just asking about dealing with disputes. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @StarshipSLS, yes, and did you read the answer to question 3, which is "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?" The candidate provided quite a lengthy answer. I am asking if there is something specific you didn't find in that answer which you still needed clarification on. On a related note, this is the second time you've asked questions in an RfA which are almost identical to questions the candidate has already answered. An RfA is a stressful experience for candidates, with seven days of multiple questions to think about and provide answers for. We try to make it less stressful by not asking them to answer questions that have already been answered. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: What I am talking about how will the user deal with disputes which they have not been part of. In other words, how will the user deal with disputes between other users. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @StarshipSLS, yes, and did you read the answer to question 3, which is "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?" The candidate provided quite a lengthy answer. I am asking if there is something specific you didn't find in that answer which you still needed clarification on. On a related note, this is the second time you've asked questions in an RfA which are almost identical to questions the candidate has already answered. An RfA is a stressful experience for candidates, with seven days of multiple questions to think about and provide answers for. We try to make it less stressful by not asking them to answer questions that have already been answered. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Just asking about dealing with disputes. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Are all the questions regarding Erica Rutherford really relevant? It seems quite a lot at this point - they made a mistake in writing about a topic that admittedly is confusing for many people. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I count two questions about her. Obviously, the extent to which they're relevant will be decided by the participants in this RFA. Speaking only for myself, my concern was less the initial mistake--as you say, a lot of us cis-types have some history with misgendering/deadnaming/etc. trans people--and more the fact that the candidate's response to the error (both at the time, and in this RFA a year later), while accepting that she did err, did not demonstrate that she had educated herself on what she did wrong. Indeed, they suggested that she hadn't. That's not a great trait in an admin. It wasn't enough for me to oppose. It hasn't been enough for anyone else to oppose, either. But I don't agree that it's irrelevant. Steve Smith (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair. I wasn't so against your question - it seemed reasonable to ask - as I was by Ineffablebookkeeper's, which felt a bit excessive. (I think if we asked all of the current admins to answer it, with the same "locked in a room alone" criteria, 90% would probably get it "wrong") (also, not particularly cis-type myself, though that isn't really relevant) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I count Q19 as one which seems to insist that, having made a mistake over a year ago, Less Unless in order to gain support for getting a few extra tools now needs to prove she understands the finest details and points of how to refer to any trans person in any situation. IneffableBookkeeper, unless you actually believe no one who understands those points at that level of detail should be an admin, you probably should just go to Less Unless's user talk and drop a link to something she can use to improve their understanding next time they write an article about a trans person. The question itself is asking her to provide an answer without being able to do what she clearly has said she would do, and that's consult with other editors. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh, @Ineffablebookkeeper —valereee (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee - it's a valid question, and I'm not in any way disparaging that Less Unless made a mistake - which I pointedly note as being in good faith, as I hold no opinion that she would be unpleasant on purpose - for which she later apologised.
- You state that "unless you actually believe no one who understands those points at that level of detail should be an admin" - when that isn't the case, and is not something I stated. I did literally say that learning about minority issues is a "continual process", and not a "black-and-white" issue.
- My concern, my only concern, is that a response detailing "respecting everyone's choices" can be read two completely valid ways, as I have seen both countless, witheringly countless times: a), the respondent isn't too clued up on trans issues. B), the respondent thinks being trans is a "choice", and is hedging any potential transphobia behind a veil of deniability. I live in the UK; we're stupidly transphobic here, and everyone's favourite pasttime seems to be dunking on transgender people on Twitter. It is not a stretch of the imagination. Maybe you think it is; it isn't, it really, really unfortunately isn't.
- Clearly, Less Unless' response was not in bad faith, but as I said in my Neutral vote, it's best to clear these things up before going either way. It's a minor point to cleanup, but cleaned up I merely wanted it to be. I'm not "insisting" anything. I'm just asking for a potential administrator to consider a situation wherein they may have to go down to a level of detail they might not elsewhere, as part of what I see as the candidates' clear and beneficial contributions towards diversity on Wikipedia through their involvement in the Women In Red project.
- I get it, and I do not in any way think it's a stretch that tons of people do believe being trans is the choice here (rather than how one presents.) And here in the US we are also transphobic; I don't know how Caitlyn Jenner thinks there's any possibility of getting elected as a Republican for god's sake. Trans Allies for Trump could hold their meetings in a phone booth. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh, yes, transphobia is sadly common. However, I know that for a while, my solution to "how do I manage to not screw anything up" was "don't talk about/write about/be friends with" trans people - and that's, in my opinion, far worse than occasionally getting it wrong. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I held off for weeks on moving to article space White gaze, which while I believed was a crucial missing article, I as a white person felt very uncomfortable creating. I finally decided it was worse to have it missing and created, hoping others would improve. Was it a mistake? Did I do it wrong? I don't really know. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I felt similarly when recently creating Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars. I'd love to be doing a GAN review for a trans person who wrote the bulk of it, but such a person doesn't exist, so here I am submitting it to GA myself. The standard I set myself is: is this better than nothing? A non-trivial bar to cross—it needs to have a high degree of factual accuracy and wording sensitivity and be worth someone clicking on instead of whatever else would turn up on Google. But at the end of the day, I write it or no-one does. I'd rather get shouted at for a failure, like at Talk:Pickle Rick#Problematic racism so typical of Rick and Morty, than not try. At least that gives me some feedback and way to improve. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I felt similarly when rescuing Ika Hügel-Marshall and Annie Yellowe Palma from deletion. In both cases, I thought, "These are black women with a story to tell, we've absolutely got to keep the articles here at all cost", (realising completely that's not an argument that you can use at AfD) but also, "Am I, a straight[dubious – discuss] white middle-age middle-class male, the most appropriate person to write this story?" Was I over-doing it? Was this just glorified mansplaining? Still, as Bilorv says, I'd rather at least know I had a go at doing it, instead of sitting back and thinking systemic bias is somebody else's problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv and @Ritchie333, thank you both. I finally came around to the idea that writing is hard, but editing is easy. If I put something out there, it makes it easier for all those non-creators out there to look at it and say, "That's not correct! I can fix that!" —valereee (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I felt similarly when rescuing Ika Hügel-Marshall and Annie Yellowe Palma from deletion. In both cases, I thought, "These are black women with a story to tell, we've absolutely got to keep the articles here at all cost", (realising completely that's not an argument that you can use at AfD) but also, "Am I, a straight[dubious – discuss] white middle-age middle-class male, the most appropriate person to write this story?" Was I over-doing it? Was this just glorified mansplaining? Still, as Bilorv says, I'd rather at least know I had a go at doing it, instead of sitting back and thinking systemic bias is somebody else's problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I felt similarly when recently creating Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars. I'd love to be doing a GAN review for a trans person who wrote the bulk of it, but such a person doesn't exist, so here I am submitting it to GA myself. The standard I set myself is: is this better than nothing? A non-trivial bar to cross—it needs to have a high degree of factual accuracy and wording sensitivity and be worth someone clicking on instead of whatever else would turn up on Google. But at the end of the day, I write it or no-one does. I'd rather get shouted at for a failure, like at Talk:Pickle Rick#Problematic racism so typical of Rick and Morty, than not try. At least that gives me some feedback and way to improve. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I held off for weeks on moving to article space White gaze, which while I believed was a crucial missing article, I as a white person felt very uncomfortable creating. I finally decided it was worse to have it missing and created, hoping others would improve. Was it a mistake? Did I do it wrong? I don't really know. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh, yes, transphobia is sadly common. However, I know that for a while, my solution to "how do I manage to not screw anything up" was "don't talk about/write about/be friends with" trans people - and that's, in my opinion, far worse than occasionally getting it wrong. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I get it, and I do not in any way think it's a stretch that tons of people do believe being trans is the choice here (rather than how one presents.) And here in the US we are also transphobic; I don't know how Caitlyn Jenner thinks there's any possibility of getting elected as a Republican for god's sake. Trans Allies for Trump could hold their meetings in a phone booth. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Elli - I wouldn't propose all admins answer it; I'm not the Transgender Inquisition, I don't have the outfit. My question was honestly just to clear up a few uncertainties, as my Neutral vote shows. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ineffablebookkeeper: fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ineffablebookkeeper, generally questions at RfA should be ones you think need to be answered before you can support or oppose, and you're currently neutral, so yes, you're sort of insisting here. LU has said she'd need to consult with other editors. Your question is using as a given that she doesn't yet know what those other editors would say and can't simply not make those edits, and it's asking her to make her best guess as to what someone familiar with the situation would advise. How is that a reasonable question? And I'm not even sure what "What is your approach" means or how I'd even go about starting to answer that...are you looking for something like "I'd call them what they currently call themselves unless it's generally considered offensive, like transsexual, or unencyclopedic, like queer." or are you looking for something else? And do we need an RfC on whether queer is no longer unencyclopedic or offensive? It's just...it's a huge question, actually TWO huge questions since you're asking about two different and very specific situations to research on, think about, and compose answers to. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am worried that only 4% of her edits are on talk pages. Administrators should be very familiar with consensus and related things. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) Note: I will be taking a vacation in July and August. I won't edit during my vacation. 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee (courtesy ping) StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) Note: I will be taking a vacation in July and August. I won't edit during my vacation. 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am worried that only 4% of her edits are on talk pages. Administrators should be very familiar with consensus and related things. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) Note: I will be taking a vacation in July and August. I won't edit during my vacation. 22:19, 22 May 2021 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Ashleyyoursmile
Final (224/6/4); ended 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC) — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination
Ashleyyoursmile (talk · contribs) – So, it’s been three months since the last RfA and people are wondering when there’s going to be another one, and if we can get the “class of 2019” more involved. Well, here’s one for you to take a look at, who in my view has just the right mix of content creator and vandal fighter.
I first became aware of Ashley earlier this year, when they asked for my administrative help on a few things, and to give a second opinion on Pay Your Way in Pain’s good article review. I then noticed they’d written a whole bunch of other good articles, mostly on the subject of pop music, which is no mean feat when those sort of articles frequently need attention. On top of that, Ashley’s a regular vandal fighter, and has contributed a lot to Articles for deletion debates and vandalism and username reports; despite getting attacked by attention-seeking trolls, they have kept a cool head, are unfailingly polite to everyone, and never rise to the bait. That gives me confidence that Ashley has the required skills and temperament to be a good administrator, and I hope you share this view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Co-nomination by Barkeep49
When I examine someone for RfA I am hoping to see at least one area where the editor demonstrates a mastery of Wikipedia that would make them a good candidate for administrator. With Ashley there are several. They clearly know how to create high quality content with 17 good articles, 2 featured lists, a bucketload of did you knows and all sorts of plans to add to those totals. They have taken those skills into project space through their work at AfD and with speedy deletions. I particularly admire how they bring the same level of thought and care to music (their main editing area) as they do to other areas. On top of this, Ashley also has experience in more traditional vandal fighting areas like AIV and UAA. And wherever you encounter them, you'll find the same calm, helpful, friendly editor. I am excited to be able to co-nominate this versatile Wikipedian for adminship and hope you will join me in supporting Ashley. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie333 and Barkeep49 for the kind words. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay and never will. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Since I’m a regular contributor to the Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) and Usernames for administrator attention (UAA) noticeboards, these are the two administrative areas where I intend to take part. I would also like to help out at the Requests for page protection (RfPP), where I have made some requests of protection, and assist in closing Articles for deletion discussions and deleting pages tagged under criteria for speedy deletion. I take part in Did you know and would be willing to build queues and promote hooks. Since the admin tools come with a lot of responsibility and ultimately, everyone is accountable for the actions they perform, I do not intend to take any administrative action without having proper knowledge and understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: On Wikipedia, I primarily work on music articles, especially those on pop songs. Out of the several good articles that I have worked on, I am proud of "Lights Up", "Black Swan", and The Fate of Fausto. The current version of "Lights Up" is the result of efforts of numerous brilliant editors who have participated in the peer review over the past few months. I'm really grateful to them for the time and effort they have spent to make the article better. I plan to take it to FAC soon. "Black Swan" is my very first GA and I remember taking it from a stub-class article to good-article status. Although The Fate of Fausto is not a song article but a children's picture book, it is the first article that I've created and taken to GA. I'm also proud of the two featured lists that I have helped in promoting- List of awards and nominations received by Harry Styles and Harry Styles discography, both are part of a current featured topic nomination.
- 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 believe since people are volunteering their time to help the project, it is important to promote the spirit of collegiality by always assuming good faith and maintaining civility. Normally, I have found I can remain calm and civil even when I'm disagreeing with people. I do understand that performing actions using the admin tools could probably result in me having some displeased people to deal with. From my observation, I feel it is important to take some time off to think about such issues, and then articulate and discuss it. A few days ago, I had NAC'd this AfD and closed it as Keep, and when another editor objected to the NAC, I self-reverted the close. It was later closed as Keep by an admin.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Optional question from StarshipSLS
- 4. How will you deal with disputes between users? For example, in DRN?
- A: Hi StarshipSLS, thanks for the question. I admit that I do lack experience in dispute resolution, having spent much of time contributing to other areas. But here's roughly what my approach would be: If editors are engaged in dispute over about some content matter, I would first check if they have discussed it thoroughly on the relevant article's talk page and there was no unambiguous consensus in favour of the issue raised. After analysing the dispute, I would ask questions to all the involved editors and listen to what they have to say. I would check that the issues proposed comply with Wikipedia's WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP policies. In some cases, it might be that a new editor is seeking dispute resolution, and might not be aware of our policies and guidelines. I would have to make sure that there are no misunderstandings in these cases. I would encourage the involved editors to assume good faith, remain calm, civil, and not make personal attacks or threats towards other editors. At the end, we are always looking towards consensus and once that is attained, the dispute should be resolved keeping in mind that it is an improvement to the article in question. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ashleyyoursmile: Great! I occasionally help in DRN and hope to see you there one day! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
5. What will you focus on if and when you become an admin?
- Optional question from Sdrqaz
- 6. Given your stated interest to work in CSD, what are your thoughts on the G5 criterion for speedy deletion? Would you apply it to an otherwise unobjectionable page?
- A: Hi Sdrqaz, thanks for the question. From my understanding, G5 applies to all pages which have been created by a blocked/banned user in violation of the block/ban, and such pages have substantial edits of the user. If this user has created the page(s) before they had been blocked/banned from the community, then G5 should not apply. Since the purpose of block/ban is that the user is not able to contribute to the project, using sockpuppets to violate their block and creating pages to contribute is not acceptable and such pages are normally deleted under this criterion irrespective of the quality of the pages. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Follow-up: You've given the policy basis behind G5. Is there any circumstance where you would decline that nomination in the spirit of IAR and taking responsibility for that content?
- A: I think that would depend on the page that has been tagged. It's difficult to say whether I'd delete the page or decline the nomination without seeing its content. As far as the policy goes, all edits including good and bad made by a user in violation of their block/ban should be reverted. It could be that this user has created some strong, productive encyclopedic content and deleting this under G5 might prove to be counter-productive to this project. In such cases, IAR could be invoked. However, this defeats the purpose of the block/ban, which was imposed in the first place to stop them from contributing. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Follow-up: You've given the policy basis behind G5. Is there any circumstance where you would decline that nomination in the spirit of IAR and taking responsibility for that content?
- A: Hi Sdrqaz, thanks for the question. From my understanding, G5 applies to all pages which have been created by a blocked/banned user in violation of the block/ban, and such pages have substantial edits of the user. If this user has created the page(s) before they had been blocked/banned from the community, then G5 should not apply. Since the purpose of block/ban is that the user is not able to contribute to the project, using sockpuppets to violate their block and creating pages to contribute is not acceptable and such pages are normally deleted under this criterion irrespective of the quality of the pages. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from EpicPupper
- 7. Which of the 5 pillars would you, in your opinion, say to be most important?
- A: Hi EpicPupper, thanks for the question. I do understand that all five pillars are important to keep the project running. Specifically, I think WP:5P2 is more important since all information added should be written from a neutral point of view, and should be verifiable. Our job here is to simply present what reliable sources say about a subject rather than editorialising. This should be kept in mind especially when we are editing WP:BLPs, and adding any controversial information, since such content could constitute as potentially libel when there are no reliable sources to verify such statements, and could affect the subjects in real life. At the same time, since we are here to contribute in a collaborative way, WP:5P4 is important. We should always assume good faith and approach others cordially, remain calm and civil, and not engage in personal attacks, since these could prove to be harmful and disruptive to the project. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful response! EpicPupper (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- A: Hi EpicPupper, thanks for the question. I do understand that all five pillars are important to keep the project running. Specifically, I think WP:5P2 is more important since all information added should be written from a neutral point of view, and should be verifiable. Our job here is to simply present what reliable sources say about a subject rather than editorialising. This should be kept in mind especially when we are editing WP:BLPs, and adding any controversial information, since such content could constitute as potentially libel when there are no reliable sources to verify such statements, and could affect the subjects in real life. At the same time, since we are here to contribute in a collaborative way, WP:5P4 is important. We should always assume good faith and approach others cordially, remain calm and civil, and not engage in personal attacks, since these could prove to be harmful and disruptive to the project. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from NightWolf1223
- 8. How will you handle an angry unblock request?
- A: Hi NightWolf1223, thanks for the question. Like how angry users should not be blocked unless they have demonstrated sufficient disruption on their part to justify a block, a user who is angry and thinks they have been wronged, should not be unblocked if their appeal does not address the reason of their block. Threatening admins to unblock rather than providing proper rationale and not engaging in any attempt to discuss, is not going to help their case. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Vaticidalprophet
- 9. I'm super enthusiastic to see this RfA, and hoping to land thoroughly in the support column -- I see you around at DYK all the time and really like your work, and believe we really need to be recruiting content creators to the corps. However, last night I was reading through some discussions about speedy deletion criteria, and I was concerned by some of your statements here that inspired this RfC, which closed with the position G2 didn't apply in the way you had been applying it. What do you understand as the use case for G2 speedy deletion?
- A: Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks for the question. I admit that a few drafts that I'd applied G2 to were somewhat borderline cases, and led to the RfC. From my understanding, G2 applies to pages that have some content that typically look like test edit(s), edits made in good faith to see if they can actually edit Wikipedia. Blank drafts should not be speedied under G2, just because they are blank; we should let them get deleted under G13, if there are unedited for six months. In other words, pages that eligible for G2 should sufficiently demonstrate that they look like test pages. Ideally, any page is not potentially harmful to the project, such as pages with no blatant vandalism, negative, unsourced, and potentially libellous about living persons, spam, advertising, promotional, and copyrighted material could be left alone for sometime. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Explicit
- 10. Your first edits to Wikipedia show an incredible amount of familiarity with how this project works, including formatting references. Have you previously edited Wikipedia using another account or as an unregistered contributor?
- A: Hi Explicit, thanks for the question. I had edited Wikipedia previously as an IP, before deciding to register an account. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- 11. You recently created View (Shinee song), where you used Korean-language references. You provided translations for the reference titles, but some of them are quite awkward ("'M Countdown' SHINee, was it 1st Normal charge for 2 weeks in a row", "Hun-Hoon"). Are these machine translations or do you hold some proficiency in Korean?
- A: While I work on foreign language articles, such as Korean, Japanese, and Swedish, I'm not proficient in these languages and try to rely on machine translations. Google translations often come about awkward, like what happened with "View", and I try to revise them accordingly later. Since I created this article recently, I haven't been able to look into these properly. I will try to rephrase them in a manner which makes it easy for the readers. Apologies for any inconvenience. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Tim Smith
- 12. If promoted, will you join Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
- A: Hi Tim Smith, thanks for the question. Yes, if promoted, I'd be open to recall. If the community feels that I no longer deserve to retain the tools and wants me to resign, I'd be glad to step down. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Giraffer
- 13. Have you ever invoked IAR, and if so, could you give some examples?
- A: Hi Giraffer, thanks for the question. I haven't invoked IAR although editors do cite it at some instances. Personally, I think our guidelines and policies are thorough and process plays a big part in building consensus and helping this project to run. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- (optional follow-up question) In that case, Ashleyyoursmile, how would you interpret IAR, and could you give an example of when to invoke it? Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- A: From my understanding, IAR represents how consensus determines the rules that are going to be enforced on Wikipedia. If editors generally agree upon some law, it is then enforced. But consensus can change, and IAR shows how no rule is fixed and can be subjected to changes. Whether to invoke IAR in a particular situation depends on that situation and is difficult to say hypothetically. IAR might be invoked while closing AfDs, for instance where the subject is a musical band who are yet to debut. So the band might become notable once the recording they release charts or receives substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. So deleting the article in this case might not be the right choice, rather it seems reasonable to draftify such an article. See this AfD where I've voted in a similar fashion. Also, you might want to look at my answer given to the follow-up part of question 6 above. It is also about IAR. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- (optional follow-up question) In that case, Ashleyyoursmile, how would you interpret IAR, and could you give an example of when to invoke it? Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- A: Hi Giraffer, thanks for the question. I haven't invoked IAR although editors do cite it at some instances. Personally, I think our guidelines and policies are thorough and process plays a big part in building consensus and helping this project to run. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- 14. What is your weakest area on Wikipedia, and how do you intend to act in an administrative capacity there?
- A: I'm not well-versed in templates, scripts, codes, and bots, so these are my weakest areas on Wikipedia. I do not intend to take administrative actions in these areas and would leave such cases for admins who have experience in technical fields. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Vaticidalprophet
- 15. Second question from me, after a lot of thought -- don't worry, rules mean you won't need to see any more of me after this :) I mentioned in my support (#94) that while it didn't trouble me so severely as to oppose the candidacy of a dedicated content creator, I'm not entirely comfortable with the canned/boilerplate sense I get from your answers. I've decided to give a bit of a tougher question -- sorry! -- to outline a situation you might run into as an admin, and get your response to it.
- Let's set the scene. You're looking at CAT:G3, out to perform the noble task of uprooting hoaxes and vandalism before they can blight the project. You encounter a draft about a video game, written by a user who registered a couple of hours before he created it. It's a solid length (somewhere around 800 words, to throw out a number); the spelling and grammar are inconsistent and the formatting belies unfamiliarity with wiki-markup, but the work was clearly built on love. (Think "ugly Christmas jumper/sweater", maybe.) The game is vaguely described, but the lead defines it as a "child friendly gta" (sic). There's a slightly botched infobox and four image uploads (hosted on Commons, described as CC-BY-SA 4.0 own work), one of which is obviously a copyvio from Roblox, another obviously a copyvio from Grand Theft Auto V, and the other two of which appear to be genuine own work made of freely licensed game dev assets. The db-hoax assessment is correct; the game gets no hits on your preferred search engine(s), and the article claims the game is "best seling", "very popular with everyone", and "favrit game of tylr the creator", all of which are blatant fiction.
- The draft's talk page has three separate contested deletion messages, made using the boilerplate structure for them. The first has, following the boilerplate, "please do not delete my wikipedia artical I worked very hard on this". The second has "please mods dont delete it please Ill fix it". The third has "I just wanted to write a wikipedia artical please do not delete this i worked so hard i was writing for hours I just want people to no about my game and write about it on the wikipedia please help me fix it".
- You delete it, as you should, because it's a blatant hoax. An hour later, you get a new talk page message from the creator. The header is "WHY THE HELL DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICAL???". The body is "I just wanted to make a wikipedia artical and I didnt no it was going to be deleted so quickly. I saw the sign to delete but i thoght i was stopping ti from being deleted and a mod would tell me how to fix. now the mod has come but youve deleted the entire artical?? Im so sad why did u do that??? you got rid of it forever and now i can never write it and it took me so many hours!! you could of just told me how to fix it!! why did you get rid of all my work?? i wrote it on the wikipedia and now its gone forever because it's not saved anywhere why did you do that?? why are people on wikipedia so mean?? I thoght I was doing what im ment to." How do you respond?
- A: Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks again for the question. I would explain to the user that we have some guidelines and policies about what kind of information can be added to Wikipedia, and hoaxes do not belong here since these violate our verifiability policy. Since you mentioned in the question that they had used "inconsistent" grammar, spelling and "botched" infobox, etc., so I'd advise them to use sandbox to practise editing and get familiar with the wiki-markups. I would also refer them to take the help of Articles for creation in future, if they decide to contribute here constructively and actually write about encyclopedic topics. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Blablubbs
- 16. Do you plan to participate in sockpuppet investigations in an administrative capacity?
- A: Hi Blablubbs, thanks for the question. I have contributed to several SPI cases, including: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which I've filed based on behavioral similarities. I'm willing to participate in SPIs in an administrative capacity, when I have gained more experience there. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from NightWolf1223
17. What is an area of this project that you feel you lack experience?
- Optional question from EpicPupper
- 18. Just curious, where does your username come from/what is the meaning of it?
- A:
- Optional questions from Elli
- 19. Why do you think people enjoy editing Wikipedia?
- A: Hi Elli, Wikipedia is an open source of knowledge to millions of people across the world. I think people feel sharing knowledge is a great way to contribute to the platform and enjoy doing so knowing that the information they add can help other people know about a particular topic which was previously unknown to them. I think editing Wikipedia also teaches us many things and helps us to respect views of others. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- 20. As an admin, would you consider participating in any outreach to attempt to recruit new editors?
- A: I always value people who are volunteering on this project and am thankful to them. I'd be inclined to participate to help new editors join the platform and contribute towards building the encyclopedia. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from 2409:4054:89:8312:4E1C:1FD4:A2F5:17B3
- 21. An editor who has been here for about 11 years with nearly 2000 edits edited an article writing in the summary this is accurate, please don't change this. But a brand new user edited the page changing some content, without an edit summary. The first user reverted changes using rollback but new user kept reinstating his version of the page. The first user reverts back leaving a talk page message on new users talk page: "What the hell are you doing, don't you read my edit summary (pointing to the diff)". As an admin, what will you do. What will be your admin action?
- A: Firstly, 11 years and 2000 edits does not matter if the content which the first editor has added violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. Let's assume that the edits made by them are valid and can be included. Secondly, brand new editors are not expected to know that they are required to use edit summaries whenever they make changes. Since you have mentioned that the new user "kept reinstating his version of the page"- I'll assume you mean to say that both editors have reverted each other multiple times on the page. Now to answer your question, it could be that the second editor's edits were actually vandalism in which case, the usage of rollback by the first editor is justified, since rollback does not warrant an edit summary. If the edits of the second editor were indeed vandalism then I will check if the second editor has been adequately warned. If they had been warned adequately and still they have continued to make consecutive vandalism edits, I will block the second editor for vandalism.
- Now assuming the edits made by the second editor are not vandalism but this is a content dispute, then rollback edits by the first editor to revert the edits of the second editor constitute WP:ROLLBACKABUSE. Both editors have been edit warring on the article trying to reinstate their preferred version. If they have reverted each other on the page more than three times within 24 hours, both have violated WP:3RR. It does not matter who is correct because such a behaviour is disruptive. I might partially block both of them from editing the page in this case for violating 3RR and warn the first editor for misusing rollback. Now it could be that both editors have not violated 3RR. In that case, I would suggest them to discuss their changes on the article's talk page in a civil manner without making personal attacks and come to an agreement. I would also warn the first editor on incorrectly using rollback. If both editors have not engaged in any conversation on their changes and still continue to edit war and revert each other, blocking may follow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from SunDawn
- 22. First of all, glad to see you here! I see you lots of times on my anti-vandalism runs, and you did a very great job. However, I have a question. A majority of your edits, in my opinion, are in less contentious areas. You also have stated you will work at WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:RFPP, which in my opinion, also areas that are less contentious areas. My question: If you become admin, will you also work on more contentious areas? (For example: RfCs about areas under sanction, AfDs that are contentious, etc.). Thank you!
- A: Hi Sundawn, from what I've seen, any editor who becomes an admin could get involved in areas they were previously unfamiliar with. So maybe eventually I'd work on more contentious areas, but not anytime soon. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- 23. And sorry, one more question that I intend to ask to all admins on their RfAs. While we know that neutrality is one of the most important concepts in Wikipedia, how do you approach contentious situations that are on the opposite spectrum of your religious or political beliefs? (For example: Let's pretend you are Armenian and the case is about Armenian genocide, or pretend that you are conservative and the case is about liberalism) Thank you!
- A:
- Optional question from Mikehawk10
- 24. I've noticed that many of your articles have been in the general area of popular music. What is your general philosophy in determining what genre(s) to attribute to a particular song, and how would you approach mediating content disputes between editors who have a disagreement about a song's genre(s)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- A: Hi Mikehawk10, yes genre disputes are quite common on music articles. Generally, I have come to agree with what Template:Infobox song has to say that we should add the genre which best describes the song to the infobox. To determine this, I have come to follow what most reliable sources have to say about the song's composition. So if I have found one source which calls the song R&B and eight sources which call it pop rock, I would mention pop rock as the song's genre. Some people would disagree to this and try adding a genre which they feel fits the song well- without majority of the reliable published sources citing such a genre or per their own synthesis or try to list every possible genre to the song, and that is disruptive. I would ask the involved editors to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page to reach a consensus on what genre should be included. Such a discussion should proceed in a civilised manner without personal attacks. During this time, I would ask them not to edit the article and add genre until they have come to an agreement. If the involved editors have not engaged in conversations on the topic, and still continue to alter the genre without a proper consensus, blocking or protection of the article could follow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Parnaval
- 25. As I see from your timecard that you are active whole day, How will you prevent any small kid (your child/young sibling) from mistakenly using your account when you move away for some work. You see, it is very important to prevent, because if for fun they use block/delete/move you may get desysoped.
- A: Hi Parnaval, I understand the responsibility that comes with becoming an admin and would keep to the necessary personal security practices so that my account is not compromised. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Striking per general comments —valereee (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Cwmhiraeth
- 26. In your answer to Question 10, you stated that you had "edited Wikipedia previously as an IP, before deciding to register an account". Have you ever had another account?
- A: Hi Cwmhiraeth, apologies for any confusion. This is my only account. Ashleyyoursmile2 and Ashleyyoursmile3 have been created by blocked users/LTAs to impersonate me, and have no relation to me. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Optional question from Oshwah
- 27. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you handle these situations when they arise, and how would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?
- A: Hi Oshwah, I think policies like civility and no personal attack are requirements for all editors- experienced and inexperienced. We are here to build an encyclopedia and so must assume good faith in dealing with editors. Any kind of harassment or insulting and condescending comments is disruptive for the project and should not be tolerated. To answer your question, I would like to discuss with the involved experienced editor and properly warn them about their behaviour. I don't want to block someone immediately unless their behaviour falls under zero tolerance. I want to make sure that they understand where they are wrong and why their attitude is not acceptable by the community and could lead to blocking. If they have continued with the same conduct even after sufficient warnings and discussion, I will carefully analyse the situation and block the editor temporarily from editing. Again, the length of the block would depend on the situation- it could be 72 hrs, or a week, but should be enough for them to reflect on their behaviour. If the problem lies with two experienced editors accusing each other and being uncivil over an extended period, then that is again problematic. If proper discussion and warnings to both fail to work, an interaction ban may be imposed. If the problem is arising due to some content dispute on a specific article, then the involved editors may be additionally subjected to a topic ban. But again, blocking/IBAN/TBAN are last resorts and I personally feel discussion should be used first to educate the editors, who are ultimately here to volunteer, and help them contribute productively. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Ashleyyoursmile: Ashleyyoursmile (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Ashleyyoursmile can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support Still, Great! JaiPogo0123 (Talk to me) 02:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- As co-nom Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Seems competent enough, +1 from me. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- though now that their username's explanation involves Justin Bieber, I may need to reconsider... GeneralNotability (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I think that Ashleyyoursmile would be a great admin.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've worked with Ashleyyoursmile before, and am confident that they can be trusted with the tools. Good luck :-) Pahunkat (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support To steal a phrase from an eminent functionary, "not a jerk, has a clue". ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- SupportEN-Jungwon 15:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — Impressive content creation. Equally impressive anti-vandalism work, where I have ran into edit conflicts with them probably a dozen times. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. Seems like a good fit. ~Awilley (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - my interactions with them have been positive. No reason to doubt their ability. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I've seen their work and am impressed, and I cannot thank them enough for fighting vandalism on music articles. I knew it was only a matter of time. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great anti-vandalism work! AnApple47 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support as Ashleyyoursmile has shown a good track record of editing, and would also benefit from admin privileges. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support No reason to be concerned and shows great potential to be a valued admin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- * Pppery * it has begun... 16:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - demonstrated content creation ability + demonstrated good judgment in various areas, including some that can grow contentious + willingness to participate in administrative tasks = an easy call here. Go Phightins! 16:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I process Ashley's AIV reports. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. — csc-1 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- —Kusma (t·c) 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Could use the tools and no reason to think they'd be abused. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: brilliant content and maintenance work, thoroughly capable and no temperament concerns. I've worked with them on reviews a couple of times and have always enjoyed doing so. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a well experienced editor with a concious mind 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: clear support, with no hesitation or reservations whatsoever. Very fair, from what I've seen. Would make a great admin. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support We haven't crossed paths before but seems to be a highly capable, well-rounded Wikipedian. I'm sure they'll do fine with the tools – thank you for volunteering, Ashleyyoursmile! – Joe (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I feel comfortable with Ashley as an admin. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Ashleyyoursmile does excellent work with vandalism, and shows good judgement. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Good stats, has clue & tact, trust the noms, and it will be nice to have another active admin on music AfDs who knows their stuff. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I have often seen Ashley reporting to UAA. It is chronically backlogged so more Admin help there is welcome. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Fab content creation, they've achieved a great deal in a short time. Plus with Richtie AND Barkeep as noms, that's a rousing endorsement. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Their reports at UAA are consistently accurate and easy to assess. I was not familiar with their content work until now, but the three GAs mentioned are all well written and well referenced. As a grandfather who loves to read to my granddaughter, The Fate of Fausto was a great find. A well rounded candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I thought that AYS seemed relatively new, but then I looked and realized I was being an idiot, and they were just relatively new to areas I frequent. If 1.5 years, 33k+ edits, content creation (including good and featured work), solid anti-vandalism work, and interacting politely with others isn't enough, I don't really know what would be. I don't want to give too much oxygen to the (currently) lone oppose, nor come down too hard on them. But I feel compelled to say that the issue there might be worth a talk page message, or (at very worst) a comment in the neutral section, but if every candidate gets opposed because of doing something imperfectly once - or, potential admin candidates see others getting opposed because of doing something imperfectly once - then perhaps that's a reason why there are so few RFA's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Every time I've seen this candidate's name at the various admin noticeboards, especially WP:AIV, they've been exceptionally helpful. This may come as a surprise for some of the old-timers here, but at this point, this project could actually use more admins who are active in the counter-vandalism areas of the project because of chronic backlogs at AIV, RFPP, and UAA—the exact areas in which this user intends to participate. They clearly have sufficient experience outside of just counter-vandalism, as exemplified by their quality content work in Q2, and a stroll through their user talk page demonstrates maturity, collegiality, and a willingness to help new users. I suspect Ashleyyoursmile is the kind of administrator this project sorely needs more of at the moment. Mz7 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Thank you for volunteering to help administer this project. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms, and I consider Ashleyyoursmile to be a thoughtful and thorough participant in AfD discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Impressions have always been good. Also, not enough admins currently. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support A well-rounded candidate with a good blend of content work and experience in "adminny" areas. I don't understand the oppose at all. Why is it necessary to relist and ping everyone if you revert your AfD close? P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support They tackle vandalism fast and write good articles. -BonsMans1 𝑇𝐶 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support good vandalism work, content creation, can be trustworthy with the mop. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - nominations are convincing, a review of their contributions shows their commitment to the project, and overall seems like a stellar editor.
One quibble - the user's talk page is approaching 300 sections and it doesn't seem to be getting archived. It's a pet peeve of mine, but hardly a big deal.(Note: struck out this part of my comment as it was a technical issue and not a choice by the user.) Happy to support. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC) - Support - Very good anti-vandalism work, and good content work as well. I'm sure they'll be of great help at the noticeboards. ~ANM🐁 T·C 18:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- - Astrophobe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Level-headed with a great track record of anti-vandalism work that would benefit from the use of admin tools. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Excellent anti-vandalism work. NonsensicalSystem(error?)(.log) 19:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my minimums, has always appeared pleasant and collegial. Ifnord (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent anti-vandal work and an all around experienced user... plus we need more admins. - ZLEA T\C 19:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support on the grounds that I'm not familiar with their work, but I trust both their noms. SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I only recently became aware of Ashley, and upon review I found top-tier content editing, thoughtful commenting, and a very nice person to interact with. I'm very glad to see this RfA. sorry for the minor unplesantness found below — Ched (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I see her on RCP occasionally and think that she wouldbe perfect. LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great anti-vandalism work and great content creation too. --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- support -- -Shakil Hosen Talk 19:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Yup! That's what we're looking for. Favonian (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support A competent editor and I have no concerns about them misusing the tools. --Trialpears (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great anti-vandalism work! --Vacant0 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with views previously expressed by others. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - clearly competent, great content creator and I've only ran into a few times, but temperament is exemplary. Great candidate and we should be looking for similar candidates to run Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support this competent and unfailingly civil editor's request for the tools. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support passes my criteria. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, I've seen this editor around and they generally are competent and pleasant. A spot check of contributions shows no cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Happy to see this candidate put forward. Good attitude, good history, good contributions. I see little downside in trusting this editor with additional tools. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support They'll be a great admin. DanCherek (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - anyone who Barkeep noms is a yes from me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen their work and I think they will use the tools responsibly and to Wikipedia's benefit. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support As someone who is arguably partly responsible for this RfA I am of course happy to support it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — Checked contributions; can be trusted with "the mop". --littleb2009 (talk page) 22:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, prolific editor, trustable with the mop. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- No concerns. — The Earwig (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, looks fine. EpicPupper (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, prodigious vandal fighter. I think I see their username more than any other reverting unconstructive edits on my watchlist, and always even headed about warnings. POLITANVM talk 23:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — I’ve worked with them and I can say for a fact that they do a stellar job. They know what they are doing, they are honest, fight undisclosed paid editing, fights vandalism. I could go on and on but I have made my point. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongly Support – Excellent candidate, with outstanding contributions. They have also done a decent amount of anti-vandalism work. I think that they'll make a great admin. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - excellent anti-vandalism work, I'm happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Does anti-vandalism work and brought articles to FA or GA status. They also do some other things which make it perfect for an admin. SVcode(Talk) 01:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support User can be trusted. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support It is self-evident how this candidate, Ashleyyoursmile, has tackled persistent vandalism head-on, so it's of no surprise that they been awarded the anti-vandalism barnstar.—SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support We need more admins. Looks fine to me. Mosesheron (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns. BD2412 T 03:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms, Izno, Floq, etc. In response to Willbb234's concerns, I note that six-months of project space experience is sufficient experience, especially when the editor spent the year before that writing content. Ashley has done more work in six months at AIV and related pages than many admins have done in a decade. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- A fellow Barkeepian and Ritchiean candidate! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, trustworthy and good work all around eviolite (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Link20XX (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support: I'm a bit divided here. Nowhere near divided enough to land in neutral, let alone the ludicrous oppose column, but enough to feel the need to qualify my statement and write without brevity. I feel Ashley's answers to the questions are quite canned, particularly Q6, which reads to me as just restating the CSD without discussing personal views, planned application, or the substantial range of views (that have been extensively discussed lately) that people can hold on G5's application and exceptions. Q8 similarly feels rather boilerplate, a simple description of "policy says we should only block when A and unblock when B" without considering why a user might be angry and what an angry unblock request means to the person making it -- let alone that "angry unblock request" can mean anything from a recalcitrant vandal trying to screw up the system to a newbie being bitten relentlessly by shoot-first-ask-questions-later applications of rules to an irascible established editor having a bad day. Although I have qualms about the canned nature of the responses, I think the project would be better to have Ashley as an admin than not, and even moreso I think the project would be better with people like Ashley encourage to run RfA than not -- I can think of two more DYK regulars I think should've run yesterday, and seeing Ashley sail through, as I expect her to, is what would encourage people like them to take the plunge. I think Ashley should have the mop, and as she wields it, she should take particular thought to her communication and self-expression. I hope to see many more RfAs from prolific content creators, and I hope to support as many as I can. I'm happy she's doing well here, and I hope she can take these concerns to heart without getting distracted by things like the frankly ridiculous oppose statements. (Inexperience, really?) Vaticidalprophet 04:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reaffirming both the support and its caveats in light of Q15. A bad answer could have moved me to neutral, but I wasn't particularly expecting a Ritchie nom to give a bad (read as 'clearly unsympathetic to the complainant') answer. It doesn't really assuage my concerns about boilerplate, though. I was worried I was signalling too clearly the thing I expected to be picked up on -- that the article the complainant was so upset about permanently losing, having not saved anywhere, wasn't actually permanently lost and could be returned to him via e.g. email so long as he realized it wasn't appropriate to reupload to Wikipedia -- but it was apparently missed, and so the other guy here would remain under the impression he'd permanently lost hours of work that might have been appropriately repurposed into, say, a short story. I was also heavily signalling that the complainant was a child -- that is, someone who needs to be treated gently, who might not understand having PAGs written with the assumption they'll be read by an educated and verbose subset of adults dumped on him, and who probably isn't going to be converted into a productive Wikipedia editor right now. Rather, it's a matter of whether someone like that becomes a productive Wikipedia editor in a few years or if they're left long-term with the impression it's a place that randomly deletes stuff with explanations they don't understand. The question was based -- quite dramatized and with the kid made more parodic -- on an experience of my own around age 10-11, and the way I was treated at the time feels, with an understanding of Wikipedia's internal culture, like a case of people failing to understand how to communicate with someone well outside the site's expected remit. Speedy deletion is for us routine maintenance, but for a lot of people it's their work suddenly vanishing, and it's important to communicate well across that bridge. Vaticidalprophet 13:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: seems competent and trustworthy; no issues here. Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support user has been an editor for almost 18 months and has performed approximately 26,000 of their 33,000 edits in the past 6 months or so, indicating a deep engagement with the project. I believe they could help out in administrative areas requiring attention, and am willing to place my trust in the hands of someone with such experience in Wikipedia <3 Folly Mox (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, trustworthy and competent. - Ïvana (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I've encountered Ashley in many places on Wikipedia in spite of my growing inactivity on enwiki; I'm sure Ashley will be brilliant as a sysop. All the best! JavaHurricane 06:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support good work. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seen 'em around, no concerns, safe pair of hands. GirthSummit (blether) 07:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, precious and trusted --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - thanks for volunteering! Levivich harass/hound 07:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seen them around doing good for the wiki, acknowledging their mistakes, coping with the vandals' pushback. Ashley will make good use of the mop. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be competent, and more importantly, a decent person. Exactly the type of person that should be an admin. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Minorax (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support best! VV 09:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support looks great — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support being an admin is absolutely no big deal at all, anyone is capable of doing it and there's seldom any real risk to it. So happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I see nothing of concern raised so far, and candidate ticks all the right boxes, so happy to support. Good luck to you! — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Happy with this. Deb (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, The user makes tremendous efforts to make Wikipedia free from Vandalism.signed, Iflaq (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Support I agree very heavily with @Vaticidalprophet:'s !vote in both reasoning and scale. The candidate's stated interest in CSD makes me expect a more in-depth answer to the relevant questions. G5, for example, specifically allows for exemptions - above and beyond that of IAR. I've unblocked a couple of angry individuals, one "common" category are those who are mistargeted. Being an admin necessitates nuance. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Experienced and very active user, and no obvious issues.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Jianhui67 T★C 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Have seen this editor around, seems good. I'm happy with the answers to the questions, especially the answer to Q7. Also we need help in the areas where the candidate plans to participate. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I think it is important to support volunteers who offer to do the generally dull and thankless work of the admin role. I understand the concerns about lack of experience but we can all grow into a role and as this candidate is open to recall, we have some recourse if things don’t work out. I don’t think any candidate ought to explain why they ‘need’ the tools now: they don’t personally need them - the project needs them. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support My few interactions with this editor had all been positive. Corachow (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have had nothing but good interactions with the candidate, a review indicates my experience is indicative of their broader behaviour and activity. Clearly competent and trustworthy Eddie891 Talk Work 18:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- 'Support I'm confident based on my own experience with this user that they would make a fine admin. They are a regular reporter at UAA and the reports are always on-point. I also recently reviewed their request for the autopatrolled permission and was impressed when reviewing their content contribs. Looking forward to seeing them on the admin side at UAA to help with the regular backlogs there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. We've been complaining about RfA drought, haven't we? This is an experienced candidate with good answers to questions. I particularly appreciated the point about disengagement from conflict. Thank you for volunteering. Deryck C. 19:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I look forward to Ashley's help at AIV. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seen them around quite a bit. Well-rounded so can be of help across different areas, including the chronically backlogged noticeboards such as AIV, etc. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Although I've had limited interaction with the candidate, I don't think they will abuse the tools. Miniapolis 22:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Candidate has said that they will be open to recall under that standard offer. That's really all I need to know -- saved time! After all, in the unlikely chance there's a problem, we can look at various ways of addressing that -- recall being a last resort, but necessary to have. Not only that, but in the vanishingly unlikely chance that the candidate gets too full of themself -- not totally unheard of, people change -- we can maybe make them think "uh-uh... maybe I better cool it." Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support—Eminently qualified. Kurtis (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Never interacted with the candidate, but so no reason to believe they wouldn't make a good admin. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - don't see any reason to oppose. Guettarda (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks OK for me.----Rdp060707|talk 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Tolly4bolly 01:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. --Bduke (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, I have seen Ashleyyoursmile around on UAA, AIV, and CSD. They have a cool head and could help with the backlog that often builds up.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, has been consistently helpful and sane. Acroterion (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy and positive interactions. Very happy to support. Fieryninja (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Ran into Ashley at the recent changes. Competent, helpful and offers to contribute to areas in need of additional admins. JBchrch (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor. Good interactions with editors. Ashley even thoroughly checked some of new pages. KittenKlub (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - absolutely! Thorough...thoughtful...open-minded...knowledgeable...I can't say enough about this candidate to do her justice. Atsme 💬 📧 11:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Her answers to some earlier questions were lackluster, but after seeing more of her writing in response to later questions, I'm not particularly concerned. Having her as an admin around here would certainly be a net positive for the project. Also, glad to see newer users stepping up for RfA. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seems qualified for admin tools, good luck! FlalfTalk 13:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Very responsible editor.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - My three criteria (keeping WP:NOBIGDEAL in mind) are that 1) the user isn't a jerk 2) the user has a demonstrable requirement for the tools (by having shown involvement in matters which might require the tools) and 3) the user has shown they can be trusted with the tools. As far as I can see, from the answers to the questions, their edits to places like AfD, AIV, and so on, Ashleyyoursmile unquestionably meets all of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - having read the 7 oppose and 3 neutral votes, I do not find the issues they raise compelling. (I mean, some of the answers do feel a bit canned, but in the absence of any substantive concern, who cares?) --JBL (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Net positive, and oppose / neutral comments aren’t particularly persuasive. —-Jack Frost (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support A net positive and very considerate. Good luck! --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support — I've seen Ashley around and can attest to her good judgement. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support- As has been said, I've observed Ashley's work and I have no concerns whatsoever giving the mop. Good luck! Aloha27 talk 17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support—User has markedly more experience than I did when I became an administrator, so I'm not persuaded by the WP:NOTYET opposes. Q11 does demonstrate something short of perfect judgment, I think, but my threshold to support RFAs is lower than "invariably perfect judgment". Steve Smith (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Familiar username which does not evoke misgivings. Supported by people I trust. No reasons found not to support. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen this user around doing the right things. No issues here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent candidate, the type of person we need in Wikipedia! Keresluna (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Great editor, definitely deserves adminship. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Very good candidate, noticed their work around UAA and AIV, another admin interested in those areas would be a great benefit JW 1961 Talk 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I've seen Ashleyyoursmile around Wikipedia too many times to count. While some people may be concerned with her being a newer user, I think that she has the proper judgement needed to be a good admin. In short, she's a net positive. We should have more editors and admins like her. codingcyclone advisories/damages 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I don't see anything to oppose here. Some opposes seem to be candidate made a mistake once so I can't support, candidate is too new so I can't support, answers to questions are perfect so IDontLikeIt, etc. I made lots of mistakes after I started editing and got what a steep learning curve gives anybody who doesn't give up: gains in skills and experience. I was given the tools after editing for barely one year. The fundamental question is always: will the candidate protect the encyclopedia? I honestly don't expect anything terrible to happen if this candidate becomes an administrator. – Athaenara ✉ 21:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor, experienced with anti-vandalism. gobonobo + c 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support Why didn't anyone tell me about this RFA? She will be an amazing administrator. She is one of the most professional anti-vandals I have ever come across. The people opposing do not make strong arguments because they do not provide any proof that she will misuse the tools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I'm late Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, while keeping in mind the reasons listed above by Vati and Nosebagbear, with a side of WP:NOBIGDEAL. Ashley is an incredibly active user (our paths have glanced off of each other when it comes to music GAs), and has a demonstrated need for the tools. Yes, many of the answers have been blanket reiterations of Wikipedia policy, but I don't think that's the worst thing. The way I see it, nobody is perfect, there's going to be a learning curve associated with any jump in permissions, and we should be treating it as a given that there will be bumps along the way. When those bumps come, an honest mistake that was rooted in the editor or admin's understanding of Wiki policy will be easier to work around than someone going with their gut, so to speak. Ashley clearly has a strong grip on the scaffolding, and that should make the hands-on work esaier to grasp. Kncny11 (shoot) 05:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: (Moved from Oppose): Related to events of candidates Answer 3. Call it a pet hate of mine but AfD's are fairly stressful and re-listing a closed AfD without making an explicit visible re-list entry about why is a no-no.[14] I would not expect any other part of the discussion to be changed to alter history and a close/re-open is a significant part of that history and discussion. I have big issues with immutable discussion logs being changed; and a silent re-open due to an off-AfD discussion is without an explicit re-list is a problem to me, and this was 48 hours later, albeit I'd want a relist 48s later. I know its in the edit summary but I don't expect to look at an edit summary to determine the course of an AfD. Sufficient for early !keep voters to have this off their watchlist. I fully support the candidate's decision to choose to relist (without looking at the strength of such a reason). I know admins have disagreed with me on this point but I feel strongly about it. However I do wish the candidate best of luck generally, note they have quality nominators, and from other comments look safe with the tools. While concerned about one direction but will not hold that against them. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Noting a neutral !vote and answer to Q11 and related article I note someone who (a) knows importance of using trans-title in foreign cites (which should be mandatory IMO) and has recognised the importance of ensuring archives are in place for their sources rather than leaving in laps of the bots to prevent link-rot. These pet-hates neutralize my other pet hate so moving to support. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I've seen them a few times when I'm doing anti-vandalism work, and I am always impressed by their ability to recognize potential vandalism accurately and deal with possible vandals fairly. I remember checking out their user page out of curiosity, and I was impressed to see that they've worked on raising several articles to "good" status too. Solid work on both the vandalism and content creation sides of Wikipedia seems like a good sign to me! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 07:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support.TheSkinsAdded (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I only know the nominee from the few times our paths have crossed at DYK but their maintenance and content work looks convincing. Happy to support. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Tenure is a bit short but this editor has displayed the competence required for admin tools.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 13:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Impressed with candidate's anti-vandal work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support While I haven't directly interacted with Ashleyyoursmile as my topic interests are different from theirs, I am very impressed by the good judgement they have demonstrated in the admin noticeboard areas. I also see that this user has generally kept their cool and has never to my knowledge bitten anyone. I'm not afraid of giving this user the mop. Looking forward to a new addition to the janitorial team! BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 17:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, as wikipedia needs new and young admins. Yay! my first RfA !vote. -- Parnaval (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, very impressed with the answers, above (e.g., #21). Will make a good sysop. JGHowes talk 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Seems fine. Why not? ♟♙ (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I think that despite the blanket answers and concerns brought up by Vati, Ashleyyoursmile will learn as she goes with the mop. I don't have any concerns, and I believe that the discussions have been productive. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I haven't interacted directly with this editor, but I've seen their work on various venues on enwiki. They seem very competent and have an excellent temperament. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- a very courteous and polite editor, will do well with the mop. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Ashleyyoursmile is a reasonable, experienced, and courteous editor, and I have faith that being an admin won't corrupt her like it did me and so many others on this list. No, EdJohnston, not you. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - some of the answers are perhaps a bit milquetoast, but Ashley has a history both of good contributions and of good judgment, which really is all that matters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support: None of the answers stick out as a reason not to, and it's WP:NOBIGDEAL. Seems to have been doing good anti-vandal work, and I think that the project would be made better if the user would be able to act autonomously in making anti-vandal enforcement decisions while an administrator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, it will be good to have more admins who are not members of the "Old Boys Club", so to speak. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks like user can be trusted, and do proficient anti-vandalism work. -BriLila (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Candidate seems sound and question 23, in passing, is silly. If you're sorry about saying something, then you wouldn't be saying it. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, candidate appears to have clue. A number of people have cited issues with question 11, but this holds no bearing on the candidate's capability to be an admin as it relates to normal editing. In any event, perfection is not a prerequisite for admins. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Solid anti-vandalism work, sure they will make good use of the tools. To-the-point answers drawing on relevant policy seems like a positive to me. I'd far rather see that than reams of waffle. the wub "?!" 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support polite, appears to be self reflective, appropriately cautious about areas of experience, has a clue. Likes Bieber, but nobody's perfect. --Find bruce (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Find bruce, wait - hang on here. THIS Bieber? Oh man ... I might have to rethink my support now. — Ched (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- It is a yes from me. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms and my own experience with the candidate. Has CLUE, interacts well with others, and although I support NOBIGDEAL having a demonstrated need for the tools is a plus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support in general as their edits & interactions that I've seen have been good, but also per the answer to the followup portion of 6. Have just been in the middle of one of those complicated G5s and appreciated Asheley's nuanced take. StarM 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great anti-vandalism efforts. Appears knowledgeable of policies and procedures. Pleasant and polite attitude. Confident Ashley will excel as an admin. --DB1729 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Excellent candidate, would love to have Ashley on board! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - A trustworthy candidate with the right temperment; thoughtful responses to the questions. Would make a good administrator! Netherzone (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Committed contributor with judgement.--agr (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support due to a) the respect I have for the nominators and b) how the candidate has kept their cool while being personally attacked innumerable times by vandals & trolls. Many editors would have retired after becoming such a consistent target but you kept up with the work. It makes me think that you will be able to handle the challenges dished out to you as an admin while remaining civil. While some evaluators focus on AfD participation or content creation, I think one of the most crucial aspects of adminship is being able to cordially communicate with editors when problems arise. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Yep go for it! :-) Good Luck! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Daniel (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I browsed Ashley's user talk history and have the same opinion as Liz. — Wug·a·po·des 04:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - will help even more with tools in vandalism clean up. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 08:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have seen this user dealing with vandalism and disruptive edits. Looks fine and has the potential. Wario-Man talk 09:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have seen her doing tons of anti-vandalism works, and that is more than enough. As an admin I hoped that she will work beyond those scopes and work more in more contentious areas. Also knowledgeable of policies and procedures.SunDawn (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have also seen this user doing anti-vandal work. Definitely deserves adminship. -Justiyaya (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Sensible, helpful and very competent editor who will absolutely be a good admin. No hesitation. DBaK (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, yes! Opposes below seem to indicate a "too soon" objection, and that is a concern; however Liz pretty much said it all and well. This candidate will make a fine addition to an admin corps that needs good editors. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- – Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Would have co-nommed if I'd seen this earlier. I've worked closely with Ashley over the last few months and been very impressed. Glad I logged back in in-time to support, even if it's the last minute nad the result is not in doubt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support no issues with me Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support wikiyouth per se should not be a barrier. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I've come across her anti-vandalism work in the past, and she has always been decisive and collegial. She's also a good contributor in an area that always needs help. Clear support from me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Definitely because Goldsztajn's supports. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Consistently has quality AIV reports; has my trust. SpencerT•C 03:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Ultimately, Ashleyyoursmile seems like they would be able to handle the tools. ✗plicit 06:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen plenty of good AIV reports from Ashleyyoursmile and have always been impressed with their work whenever I run into them. Definitely someone who'll make good use of admin tools. ~ mazca talk 11:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - From what I have seen this is well deserved. They have attempted to answer every question and done so truthfully from their perspective. That is commendable. A precious and positive addition to the encyclopedia and I believe would make an outstanding admin. Ashley's contributions are faithful to the guidelines of Wikipedia and their work against vandalism is not only necessary but integral to the future of our shared work here. I am thrilled that will continue to operate in those areas. --ARoseWolf 14:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom, good anti–vandalism work. MainPeanut (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support community has shown they support, and seeing no red flags I am happy to support. Preemptive congrats for gaining the tools. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support While I've only seen Ashleyyoursmile's work in passing, reading the questions and answers above I am satisfied that she will make positive contributions as an admin. Though largely adherent to the word of policy, sometimes an impersonal approach is a good approach, and I would opine that having a variety of admins with different approaches is a general plus. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine, and the candidate has agreed to be open to recall. Tim Smith (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Why not? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per noms. I was wondering why there were so few RfAs while we've lost several admins as of late. Welcome to the janitor leagues. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I do agree a bit with Vaticidalprophet, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Congrats, Ashley!! Sro23 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
# Oppose: (moved to support): Related to events of candidates Answer 3. Call it a pet hate of mine but AfD's are fairly stressful and re-listing a closed AfD without making an explicit visible re-list entry about why is a no-no.[15] I would not expect any other part of the discussion to be changed to alter history and a close/re-open is a significant part of that history and discussion. I have big issues with immutable discussion logs being changed; and a silent re-open due to an off-AfD discussion is without an explicit re-list is a problem to me, and this was 48 hours later, albeit I'd want a relist 48s later. I know its in the edit summary but I don't expect to look at an edit summary to determine the course of an AfD. Sufficient for early !keep voters to have this off their watchlist. I fully support the candidate's decision to choose to relist (without looking at the strength of such a reason). I know admins have disagreed with me on this point but I feel strongly about it. However I do wish the candidate best of luck generally, note they have quality nominators, and from other comments look safe with the tools. While concerned about one direction but will not hold that against them. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC) #:::*Extended discussion moved to talk —valereee (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC) (Moved to support) Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per answers to questions. Sorry, but I cannot support at this time. NYC Guru (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose user has been an editor for less than 18 months and has performed approximately 26,000 of their 33,000 edits in the past 6 months or so. The user has performed only 6,600 non-automated in the mainspace, equal to about 20% of their edit count. While I believe they could help out in administrative areas requiring attention, I am unwilling to place this kind of trust in the hands of someone with such little experience and time on Wikipedia (WP:NQY). Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, WP:NOTYET there. While I appreciate their calm attitude, there is a certain lack of experience showing from their answers. Several answers avoid answering the question and instead resemble canned responses that quote general policies (Q6, Q8, Q13, Q15). The surprisingly low editing experience highlighted by Willbb234 right above is another worrisome aspect. I am open to reconsidering in 6 months' time, after the editor will hopefully have gained more experience in non-automated, non-canned participation in this complex project. — kashmīrī TALK 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm concerned with many of the answers to questions, for reasons well expressed by Kashmiri and Cwmhiraeth. I'm especially worried about the answer to Q11 where the candidate states they use machine-translated sources when writing articles - particularly machine translations from Korean and Japanese, which are often very poor and riddled with errors. I appreciate the candidate's anti-vandalism and content work, but I don't feel ready to support their RfA at this time. Spicy (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Especially in the scope of Korean articles, using machine translation services are often unavoidable as domestic Korean sources most often contain more information than what international English sources put out, especially when trying to produce broad and in-depth coverage for GAs. Those translations, aside from awkward phrasing, still allow for the main ideas to be kept, so it is not so drastically inaccurate that it deems one unfit to make a good admin. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, no information is better than inaccurate information.[16] If quality information is not available, it doesn't help the project at all to add machine translations. From an admin, I do expect attention to quality. — kashmīrī TALK 16:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kashmiri, Per WP:RSUE, there has been no discussions of inaccuracy regarding the use of Korean-language sources in her articles. Using machine translations are acceptable in non-contentious topics as long as there are no reasonable doubts that the translation is accurate and the sources are appropriate. WP:KO/RS lists out all of the reliable and unreliable sources that have been deemed fit for the project, compiled by a consensus of editors over the past few years. There has been no assertion that quality has been compromised. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, no information is better than inaccurate information.[16] If quality information is not available, it doesn't help the project at all to add machine translations. From an admin, I do expect attention to quality. — kashmīrī TALK 16:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I really like your counter-vandalism efforts, but I feel it is a little to early for you to have the mop. I feel the answers to the questions are restatements of policy, and while there is nothing wrong. I echo Will's concerns about not enough manual editing. NW1223 | Howl at me 01:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)(restored and struck originally removed comment)
- Especially in the scope of Korean articles, using machine translation services are often unavoidable as domestic Korean sources most often contain more information than what international English sources put out, especially when trying to produce broad and in-depth coverage for GAs. Those translations, aside from awkward phrasing, still allow for the main ideas to be kept, so it is not so drastically inaccurate that it deems one unfit to make a good admin. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - It feels a bit too early and like others, it struck me how some of their answers seemed to be restatements of policy rather than the type of response i'd expect from an admin. Not opposed to reconsidering this candidate in the future, but I think there needs to be a bit more experience. -- Dane talk 04:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Until recall is a binding procedure, and pledges to be open to recall are binding, the first and only step to recalling an admin is convincing them to resign, which is the first and only step to removing an admin in any circumstance except for RFAR. As such, all admins are equally open, and not open to recall. Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just curious, what does all of that have to do with the suitability of the candidate for adminship? Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnnie Bob: Possibly helpful, from the other currently running RfA: [17] --JBL (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- A naked "pledge" to be open to recall either means the user in question makes pledges to things that they don't fully understand, or that they make pledges that they know are toothless in the exact instance they would be used. Either of those circumstances is disqualifying. Hipocrite (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Only were you to assume that those were the only two options, @Hipocrite:. Most would argue it's a false dichotomy. Many pledges are "toothless" in the sense that they cannot be externally enforced (otherwise they're more like contracts). Instead, they're compelled by the individual's sense of rightness and obligations. That necessitates neither a lack of understanding nor an issue with toothlessness - a third option. Of course, if you think that they're willing to deceive in order to pass an RfA that would certainly be grounds to oppose, and feeling they have a high chance of feeling that way now but changing their mind later could also be grounds, but neither of them was what was cited. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just curious, what does all of that have to do with the suitability of the candidate for adminship? Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
- I recognize the name, saw polite conversation, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was wondering whether this user, how ever well-meaning, lacks the competence to be an administrator. There is the matter brought up by Vaticidalprophet in question 9 and the confusion in the answers to questions 6 and 8.
There is also an apparent inability to archive his/her own talk page.The answer to question 1 does not show a need for the tools but seems to be saying "I would like to be an administrator, let's see, what might I do if granted the mop?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)- Cwmhiraeth, The talk page archiving is my fault. I gave Ashley a copy/paste of my own settings, saying "use this", but forgot to change the counter so the archive numbering is all wrong. I've fixed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to take this opportunity to extol the benefits of manual archiving over bot-based archiving, due to the control you have over it. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm totally sold on the simplicity of one click archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to take this opportunity to extol the benefits of manual archiving over bot-based archiving, due to the control you have over it. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- If technical competence inserting templates is required for adminship someone should start Wikipedia:Requests for desysopping/Valereee now. I can't count how many times I've screwed up subst:. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- You're way too hard on yourself. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Let's just say I'm 98th percentile for personal insight. :D —valereee (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is the whole reason the template editor user right even exists. Too many admins were not able to reply to requests for edits to protected templates. The solution was not to make "good at template stuff" a prerequisite for adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Let's just say I'm 98th percentile for personal insight. :D —valereee (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- You're way too hard on yourself. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, The talk page archiving is my fault. I gave Ashley a copy/paste of my own settings, saying "use this", but forgot to change the counter so the archive numbering is all wrong. I've fixed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral. I came here wanting to support: after all, how many vandal-fighters with an interest in K-pop nominated by Barkeep can you find? But I can't shake my sense of unease following the answer to Q15 and I echo Vaticidalprophet's concerns in their entirety, although I've fallen in this column. The draft creator was probably a child, going off the 14 question marks and four exclamation marks. Given that the page was written in draftspace, the poor markup, grammar and spelling should not matter; draftspace is built for things that aren't polished. Since the hypothetical creator was agitated, reiterating the policies and guidelines would not have the desired effect. It may have been wiser to email the contents of that draft to them, with a note pointing out alternate outlets for their creativity.It's hard for newcomers to "break into" Wikipedia's culture and understand how it truly works, more so for a child. While the answer may have been sound in terms of application of policy, I expected something a little more. As the Prophet said in support no.94 –
Speedy deletion is for us routine maintenance, but for a lot of people it's their work suddenly vanishing, and it's important to communicate well across that bridge.
Given I fully expect Ashley to pass this RfA, I wish them the best as an administrator and I hope they can prove me wrong. – Sdrqaz (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC) modified 01:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- @Sdrqaz: I agree that someone would ideally recognise that the draft is written by a young child, but not that a REFUND (even via email) is necessary. Some children are mature enough to contribute, but the ones that aren't have intractable CIR concerns (in the short-term) and if you tell someone "here's your work but don't put it back on Wikipedia" then it's a bit BEAN-like advice. I think that I would point them to Fandom or some other appropriate place (does even Fandom allow completely fabricated things though?), but not give them their work back to send the message "this is what happens when you try to write on Wikipedia—don't do it again". I'm not bothered by a young child having "wasted" a few hours of their time. Having them work at Fandom for a few years is actually the best way to get them to be a Wikipedia contributor in future, as they won't get scared off but will learn some relevant skills. But a child who likes hoaxes is an LTA-to-be if you let them get obsessive about re-entering content into Wikipedia. And for the record, I contributed at Fandom (then-Wikia) as a young child, joined Wikipedia in 2013, still as a child, and have been contributing (net-)positively since that date (IMO), so I've no vendetta against child editors. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thanks for engaging. As feedback for the candidate, I didn't need there to be a refund, just an acknowledgement that this was probably a child in distress and how they'd deal with it. I respect and understand what you mean about beans and it's a fair assessment, but I guess I wanted a little more sympathy in Ashley's answer.I came at it with using a different perspective, weighing up risks: the kid's upset that their work is gone and all they care about at that point is getting it back. I feel that refusing a refund makes the "LTA-to-be" behaviour you talk about more likely: the child's loss may make them want to vandalise Wikipedia out of spite/anguish. Moreover, not all hoaxes are equal. I've nominated a fake biography of a serial killer but with the names swapped out and replete with references. The example in the question felt close to a "good-faith" hoax (if they even exist), like something a student may have come up when designing their own video game.Refusing a refund to make a point that hoaxes aren't acceptable, even after extracting assurances that they won't repost it to Wikipedia, feels unnecessarily punitive and leaves the young would-be editor with a bad taste in their mouths. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a difficult choice to make and a reasonable perspective to have so I understand where you're coming from. — Bilorv (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a scenario where I'd be willing to give out my email address to someone who is abusing Wikipedia by adding hoax content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen some admins get around that with a link to Pastebin or similar websites, though that's a fair point. This'll probably haunt me, but not all hoaxes are terrible: I've CSD'd a draft about someone who invented time travel and had an IQ of 300 or something like that Sdrqaz (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a scenario where I'd be willing to give out my email address to someone who is abusing Wikipedia by adding hoax content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a difficult choice to make and a reasonable perspective to have so I understand where you're coming from. — Bilorv (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thanks for engaging. As feedback for the candidate, I didn't need there to be a refund, just an acknowledgement that this was probably a child in distress and how they'd deal with it. I respect and understand what you mean about beans and it's a fair assessment, but I guess I wanted a little more sympathy in Ashley's answer.I came at it with using a different perspective, weighing up risks: the kid's upset that their work is gone and all they care about at that point is getting it back. I feel that refusing a refund makes the "LTA-to-be" behaviour you talk about more likely: the child's loss may make them want to vandalise Wikipedia out of spite/anguish. Moreover, not all hoaxes are equal. I've nominated a fake biography of a serial killer but with the names swapped out and replete with references. The example in the question felt close to a "good-faith" hoax (if they even exist), like something a student may have come up when designing their own video game.Refusing a refund to make a point that hoaxes aren't acceptable, even after extracting assurances that they won't repost it to Wikipedia, feels unnecessarily punitive and leaves the young would-be editor with a bad taste in their mouths. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: I agree that someone would ideally recognise that the draft is written by a young child, but not that a REFUND (even via email) is necessary. Some children are mature enough to contribute, but the ones that aren't have intractable CIR concerns (in the short-term) and if you tell someone "here's your work but don't put it back on Wikipedia" then it's a bit BEAN-like advice. I think that I would point them to Fandom or some other appropriate place (does even Fandom allow completely fabricated things though?), but not give them their work back to send the message "this is what happens when you try to write on Wikipedia—don't do it again". I'm not bothered by a young child having "wasted" a few hours of their time. Having them work at Fandom for a few years is actually the best way to get them to be a Wikipedia contributor in future, as they won't get scared off but will learn some relevant skills. But a child who likes hoaxes is an LTA-to-be if you let them get obsessive about re-entering content into Wikipedia. And for the record, I contributed at Fandom (then-Wikia) as a young child, joined Wikipedia in 2013, still as a child, and have been contributing (net-)positively since that date (IMO), so I've no vendetta against child editors. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral While I had come across their work in various music related articles and appreciate their work, I sadly have withhold my support vote primarily due to the response to Q11. If the facts which the non-English sources are used as supports for in the article in Q11 are more complex/complicated ones, I would have put my foot down and voted no. There are times where I had come across edits introducing machine-translated titles, that can be downright wrong, into non-English refs. The one that is highlighted here is not as egregious as what I saw before. However one would expect any editor using non-English references to be of some level of proficiency or familiarity with the language as it is the burden of that editor in verifying the information being introduced. At the very least, a manually (and yet understandable) translated title from the get-go would demonstrate that proficiency/familiarity of the language. – robertsky (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
General comments
- Could an administrator tell me what happened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lakshmi321? It seems like it was created by Ashley but subsequently deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- StarshipSLS, is there something you were looking for in Q5 that wasn't dealt with in the answer to Q1? —valereee (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ValereeeI wanted to see what are his main goals. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @StarshipSLS, do you think the answer to Q1 tells you enough about that? If not, can you elaborate what you're looking for? —valereee (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: What I am looking for is details about what things will be most important for that user. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Like is he going to focus on one thing more than another? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- They've said: Since I’m a regular contributor to the Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) and Usernames for administrator attention (UAA) noticeboards, these are the two administrative areas where I intend to take part. I would also like to help out at the Requests for page protection (RfPP), where I have made some requests of protection, and assist in closing Articles for deletion discussions and deleting pages tagged under criteria for speedy deletion. I take part in Did you know and would be willing to build queues and promote hooks. Since the admin tools come with a lot of responsibility and ultimately, everyone is accountable for the actions they perform, I do not intend to take any administrative action without having proper knowledge and understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies. If that doesn't answer your question, please elaborate. It's they. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I did not notice that. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- They've said: Since I’m a regular contributor to the Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) and Usernames for administrator attention (UAA) noticeboards, these are the two administrative areas where I intend to take part. I would also like to help out at the Requests for page protection (RfPP), where I have made some requests of protection, and assist in closing Articles for deletion discussions and deleting pages tagged under criteria for speedy deletion. I take part in Did you know and would be willing to build queues and promote hooks. Since the admin tools come with a lot of responsibility and ultimately, everyone is accountable for the actions they perform, I do not intend to take any administrative action without having proper knowledge and understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies. If that doesn't answer your question, please elaborate. It's they. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Like is he going to focus on one thing more than another? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: What I am looking for is details about what things will be most important for that user. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @StarshipSLS, do you think the answer to Q1 tells you enough about that? If not, can you elaborate what you're looking for? —valereee (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ValereeeI wanted to see what are his main goals. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've asked a follow-up to my Q13 which I believe is relevant, although I've already hit my two question limit. I'm new to RfA, so if someone with more experience thinks it should be removed then feel free to remove it. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- NightWolf1223, was there something that wasn't covered in the answer to Q14 that your Q17 is trying to get at? —valereee (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Valereee I didn't see that one, sorry. Can I remove it? NW1223 | Howl at me 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not opposed to this, also not !voting one way or another; just saying this: my learned colleague's registration date of 2019-12-13 gives me slight jitters and makes me feel like an old hand (which I'm emphatically not!), and I wouldn't dream of requesting/accepting adminship for the foreseeable future, if indeed ever. I guess some people just mature faster than others — I mean, Napoleon was a young turk when he became First Consul, and that all went swimmingly... ;) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many editors actually view this as a positive. One of the concerns that has been raised is that most of our admins started editing more than ten years ago and many longer than that, which means the admin corps may be aging. Someone who started editing in 2019 is unlikely to be 80. —valereee (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes! Ashley finally archived her talk page! Panini!🥪 12:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I just wanted to mention (without calling-out any individuals) the concept that Ashley seems to be parroting what's said on policy pages in her response to questions as a reason to oppose. IMO, this is an indication that she knows where to look for answers, and she's able to understand what the policies tell us. While I'm sure there's a very few number of editors that can quote from memory - I think it is a positive attribute for someone to actually look and research before posting some "shoot from the hip" type of responses. For me this is a "net-positive", and a reason to Support rather than a reason to oppose. Just my 2 cents worth. — Ched (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was just thinking the exact same thing. I keep an eye on oppose votes, as maybe I missed something on my initial review. I am simply floored by an oppose vote which seems to be, "The candidate was asked about a policy and correctly answered it but since it looks too much like the policy I won't support it." The candidate should be lauded for getting it right. Ifnord (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Same. I don't know why we'd require admin candidates to sound like they've been admins for ten years already. There's a reason this is an open-book test. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mm, I also agree with this sentiment. I think the concerns that Vaticidalprophet expressed are fair—the answers to the questions could indeed have a bit more depth to them—but I have tremendous respect for the fact that he is still in support because he recognizes that these concerns do not disqualify Ashleyyoursmile from the toolset, but rather are useful things for them to keep in mind as they take on their additional responsibilities. We do not demand perfection of our admins—if we did, at best we would promote only one or two RfA candidates every year (and even that would require a loose definition of "perfection"). A lot of this stuff is learned on the job, through encountering new situations that you didn't encounter as a non-admin and observing or asking how other admins handle those situations. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think a !vote was removed outright (rather than striking)? It looks like there's one oppose fewer than there used to be. Vaticidalprophet 00:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: see here. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I had gathered it was a change of vote, but so far as I'm aware those should be struck, not removed outright. Has that changed? Vaticidalprophet 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a huge deal but you are correct that per WP:REDACT it's best practice to strike rather than remove, to avoid confusion such as this. Presumably NightWolf1223 was unaware of this.P-K3 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't know that was a bad thing. Thank you for letting me know. NW1223 | Howl at me 21:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a huge deal but you are correct that per WP:REDACT it's best practice to strike rather than remove, to avoid confusion such as this. Presumably NightWolf1223 was unaware of this.P-K3 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I had gathered it was a change of vote, but so far as I'm aware those should be struck, not removed outright. Has that changed? Vaticidalprophet 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Vaticidalprophet: see here. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is first time I am seeing a RfA happening. Also, I know a lot less policies than candidate, that's why I asked Q25. Is that question good and valid to ask here ? -- Parnaval (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Parnaval, in general, unless a question is crucial to you deciding whether to support or not, or you think the answer to it would be crucial for others to make that decision, it's kind of irrelevant. Because RfA is extremely stressful for candidates, we try to minimize irrelevant questions. Thank you for asking. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2021 ETA: since you've already voted, I'm going to assume your question is not crucial to your vote and strike it. Please let me know if you'd like me to unstrike. —valereee (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee:I agree my question doesn't have anything to do with my support but I saw Q18 and 19, that two questions are also not affecting anyone's !vote as they are not regarding policy. Also, keeping our device out of reach of kids is important. So, unstrike my question, i mean, only if you feel like that it is not too much irrelevant. -- Parnaval (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Parnaval, I agree Q18 and 19 are not questions anyone is going to use to inform a decision on whether to support or oppose and therefore are irrelevant to an RfA. I was going to ignore your question too, as (also like Q18 and Q19) it's at least a question the candidate doesn't actually have to give much thought to, or do research on, or work carefully to compose the answer. They're all just throwaway questions. There are multiple other irrelevant questions up there, too, questions asked just because when people are told they can ask up to two questions, they try to think up a question.
- Then you asked whether yours was a good question, and I answered you. Yes, all editors should try to keep their accounts from becoming compromised, and a compromised sysop account can do more damage more quickly. So it's something for new admins to think about. But it's not a good question for an RfA because it's not relevant to the RfA.
- The issue here is that if everyone who !votes in an RfA decides to ask a question or two just because they can, RfAs could include hundreds of questions. And in fact in this RfA, we've got 26 questions, which feels a little excessive. Which means many experienced editors find irrelevant questions unhelpful. I've unstruck. —valereee (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee:I agree my question doesn't have anything to do with my support but I saw Q18 and 19, that two questions are also not affecting anyone's !vote as they are not regarding policy. Also, keeping our device out of reach of kids is important. So, unstrike my question, i mean, only if you feel like that it is not too much irrelevant. -- Parnaval (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Parnaval, in general, unless a question is crucial to you deciding whether to support or not, or you think the answer to it would be crucial for others to make that decision, it's kind of irrelevant. Because RfA is extremely stressful for candidates, we try to minimize irrelevant questions. Thank you for asking. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2021 ETA: since you've already voted, I'm going to assume your question is not crucial to your vote and strike it. Please let me know if you'd like me to unstrike. —valereee (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I want to comment on Q11, having had a closer look at View (Shinee song). The specific complaint addressed in the question is about using direct Google translations for the reference titles, which is a slightly different nuance. There was no suggestion that Ashley was actually putting machine-translated gibberish in the article prose at any time. I think an equivalent in my own editing is this edit in Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 19 May 2021 (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.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Nominator's guide
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.