Dsuke1998AEOS (talk | contribs) Tag: Reverted |
Undid revision 1127655920 by Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) it's actually pending closure and should probably be left up until a crat closes Tags: Undo Reverted |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ComplexRational}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ComplexRational}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Writ}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%;"> |
<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%;"> |
Revision as of 23:17, 15 December 2022
if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ComplexRational | 175 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Successful | 17:16, 21 December 2022 | 0 hours | no | report |
Extraordinary Writ | 248 | 2 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 23:55, 15 December 2022 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ComplexRational | 175 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Successful | 17:16, 21 December 2022 | 0 hours | no | report |
Extraordinary Writ | 248 | 2 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 23:55, 15 December 2022 | 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
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
ComplexRational
Final (175/0/1); closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 17:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination
ComplexRational (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, it gives me great pleasure to present ComplexRational as a candidate for adminship. ComplexRational came to my attention with his content work on elements with high atomic numbers. His one Featured article and four Good articles undersell his contributions; he has put in considerable effort as a reviewer at FAC and Peer review on similar topics, showing a commitment to prioritizing content quality over personal milestones. He has also done useful work patrolling new pages and recent changes, and at Articles for Deletion. His edits across all these areas demonstrate a nuanced understanding of policy. Equally importantly he has shown the even-keeled temperament that is essential to administrators. I believe he will be an asset to the mop corps, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
Today I am glad to support ComplexRational for consideration as an admin. Since registering in 2018, he has written on a variety of scientific topics, including taking up to Island of stability to good article and featured article status. The unifying theme I see in ComplexRational's editing is a common-sense and friendly commitment to high quality encyclopedic content. You can see this in his work reviewing articles at GA or FA but also in his work with recent change and new page patrols. Some who do this kind of work can fall into a mindset that is about keeping unwanted content and editors out. ComplexRational on the hand has, and please excuse the mediocre wordplay that is about to happen, a rational understanding of the complex nature of the project and acts accordingly in how he goes about doing the work. I think you will find him open to collaboration and feedback, with a good sense of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and with an understanding of what their limitations are and what that would mean for them as an admin. I hope you join me in supporting them here for adminship. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm glad to accept Vanamonde's and Barkeep's nominations and thank them for their kind words. I have never edited for pay or other forms of compensation. I have a legitimate alternative account, User:RationalSock, and also years ago, I had another account that I abandoned for concerns of privacy and inexperience; I have disclosed it to my nominators and ArbCom. Complex/Rational 16:12, 14 December 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
- A: Much of my behind-the-scenes work on Wikipedia is in new page patrol and recent changes patrol. These are two areas that are fundamental to maintain a high content standard, with which I have gradually gained experience. Although they have a number of dedicated editors, they could always benefit from having more active administrators. I would primarily focus on WP:CSD and WP:REVDEL (mostly RD1) within the scope of NPP and address reports to WP:AIV, especially when said noticeboard is backlogged. I'd also happily offer assistance at other venues as needed, though I intend to limit my use of the tools in less familiar areas. Complex/Rational 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My primary motivation for Wikipedia editing is content improvement, so I'm most proud of the Island of stability FA. This subject matter has always been a niche interest of mine – which also led me to do substantial work on similar articles such as unbihexium – and I had accumulated sources over many months to expand and refine the article. I began cleaning up a few sections, then decided to aim for GA, and was encouraged to keep researching and press on to FA. I was naturally proud to see it as TFA in March 2020, and I don't think I would have succeeded without the help of WP:ELEMENTS and feedback given at each stage of the review process. As far as behind-the-scenes work, I'm most proud of my contributions during the July 2022 NPP backlog drive. Although my final review count (127) is modest, I focused on doing thorough reviews rather than quick reviews, and learned a lot about its finer points. In doing so, I also discovered and cleaned up some less-than-clear copyvios (e.g., a word-for-word translation of a copyrighted foreign-language source), another important aspect of maintaining encyclopedic integrity. Complex/Rational 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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: Conflicts are inevitable in almost all aspects of editing, and I have disagreed with other users on occasion, but I have never been in a serious conflict. One close encounter, though, was a time I was called out for confusing two (closely related) technical terms; my response was to ask politely at said user's talk page, focus on content rather than the contributor, and disengage when there seemed to be a risk of escalation. In this and a few other cases where I felt frustrated or unable to resolve a matter, I found it helpful to take a break and mentally regroup. Such an approach works well for me in the vast majority of cases, and I intend to continue doing so, as staying focused on the specific (content) issue at hand and avoiding escalation are of paramount importance. Complex/Rational 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
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 User:Lightburst
- 4. I am happy that you have disclosed a previous account and I understand why you do not want to share the account name.
However can you share with usMy question is, roughly how much editing experience did the other disclosed account have? I noticed that your first days of edits on WP demonstrate Wikipedia proficiency. Day 4 reverting vandalism, Day 8 warning editors, Day 10 nominating an article for GA, Day 43 making a complex argument at AfD. Also thanks for volunteering.exactlywhat year when you began editing on Wikipedia? - 5. Without disclosing anything that might connect the old account, can you share what your editing experience was like under the old account?
- A. My previous editing experience comprised a few hundred edits within the span of a year or so. As I alluded to in my disclosure statement, I stopped editing because I realized I lacked skills and knowledge in several key areas for contributing to an encyclopedia project. Prior to registering my current account, I did brush up on basic WP policy, and waited to give editing another chance until a time when I felt I had a decent grasp on how to contribute formal, well-researched, encyclopedic prose. Complex/Rational 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Sarrail
- 6. Thank you for choosing to be a candidate. As you are primarily focused on WP:CSD (per A1) are you also goin' to focus on WP:PROD as well?
- A. Most of my deletion-related experience is in CSD, so I intend to focus primarily on that, though I might also work CAT:PROD from time to time. I have a relatively low number of WP:PROD taggings because in my experience with NPP, the creator is very likely to object (and is perfectly within policy to do so), so I generally prefer to go directly to AfD and seek community consensus if no CSD applies. Complex/Rational 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- (7.) withdrawn
- Optional question from Helloheart
- 8. What would you do in this scenario as an administrator: You look at an AfD discussion about an article about a book and only two people have commented on it. One of them !votes "Keep" and says "We can always find more citations. I found one (gives link to the citation)" and the other person says "Delete per nom." The nominator says, "Not enough citations to show that this article is notable." You look at the article and see that the book has been mentioned on the New York Times, but nothing else. You have to close the discussion. What's the verdict?
- A: I don't see consensus formed in this scenario: the keep !vote relies on weak logic ("sources may exist"), with the onus on the !voter to provide such sources if they do, in fact, exist; the delete !vote, meanwhile, brings nothing new to the discussion. Closing such a discussion would thus be a poor use of admin tools and reek of a WP:SUPERVOTE, so if admin action were required in this case, I would relist the AfD. Alternatively, I would take no administrative action, research the subject, and cast my own !vote. Complex/Rational 15:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Helloheart
- 9. What would you do in this scenario as an administrator:
An editor with over 2,000 edits nominates twenty important WP: namespace articles for deletion. Then, there is a consensus to delete those pages for no good reason. You're pretty sure that the editors that !voted "Delete" are sockpuppets of the nominator, but you don't have any evidence at all except for this deletion discussion.
- A: To my understanding, this question appears to ask about 20 project pages nominated for deletion (presumably at MfD), for which a "consensus" for deletion forms. I think this highly improbable because important project pages would not be deleted "for no good reason" – a deletion discussion is not a vote, and the lack of consensus-building arguments is a red flag. As such, there would likely be a rapid influx of keep !votes from established editors and so the discussions would close as WP:SNOW keeps before this scenario would come to pass.
- Nevertheless, such a voting trend does appear suspicious, especially if it occurs for project pages with weak arguments. A closer look at behavioral evidence and the accounts' edit history (i.e., clear evidence on which to base any accusations) would be required to potentially open a case at WP:SPI, however. Complex/Rational 17:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Lights and freedom
- 10. Suppose you see an account that is editing in subject(s) very similar to that of an indefinitely blocked editor. For example, chemical reactions, Nigeria, and NASCAR. The blocked editor was blocked for something that does not call into question their subject-related competence, such as incivility or Manual of Style errors. The new account is not demonstrating any of the negative behaviour that got the other editor blocked, and is making uncontroversial, constructive edits. What would you do in this situation, and if there is nuance involved, what factors would you consider in deciding?
- A: Having interest in similar subject matters is not enough evidence in itself to make accusations of sockpuppetry or block evasion, especially in the absence of repeated problematic behavior. If there isn't an obvious behavioral link, reason to suspect abuse, or a request for advanced permissions, there's no reason not to assume good faith and nothing would be actionable based on clear on-wiki evidence. Per WP:SPI:
When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected.
– if there's no concrete evidence, SPI is not the way to go.
- A: Having interest in similar subject matters is not enough evidence in itself to make accusations of sockpuppetry or block evasion, especially in the absence of repeated problematic behavior. If there isn't an obvious behavioral link, reason to suspect abuse, or a request for advanced permissions, there's no reason not to assume good faith and nothing would be actionable based on clear on-wiki evidence. Per WP:SPI:
- However, if there is reason to suspect abuse or block evasion, I see several important nuances worth considering, namely the timespan between the implementation of the indefinite block and the new edits in question, the exact reason for the block, and details outlined at WP:Signs of sock puppetry.
- If a longer time period passes before the new account edits and there's no sequence of possibly connected accounts, CheckUser would be essentially useless, so any conclusions would be drawn on behavioral evidence alone. Such an evaluation is best done by a team of experienced users, and assuming there are no WP:BEANS to spill, best done on-wiki. A first step would be to reach out to the editor and kindly ask whether they had previous accounts, especially if some of their habits might resemble the blocked account's behavior. Specific habits also must be considered because, for instance, WP:CIR issues are to my observation much more surmountable than chronic civility issues. (If civility were the reason for the block, lack of incivility would probably be evidence against block evasion, unless there's reason to believe said editor is exceptionally skilled at deception.)
- In a more urgent case, such as an RfA when there's reason to believe the candidate is a block-evading user, off-wiki communication with ArbCom or the CheckUser team may be necessary to avoid a repeat of this happening. And, were block evasion discovered, the standard offer is applicable in most cases after six months have passed without further socking. Complex/Rational 15:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Wugapodes
- 11. RfPP's backlogged and you decide to help out since you've got some spare time. You see a request for protection of wildly specific article relating to parity in mathematics. The request cites the typical "repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced information" boilerplate. You look through the page history and see two editors (neither are the reporter) reverting back and forth. The history breaks down something like this:
- Editor A inserts the claim that all square numbers are the partial sum of the arithmetic series of odd numbers (without an edit summary)
- Editor B reverts with the edit summary rv unsourced claim
- Editor A reinserts the claim, and adds a textual description of the geometric proof for the claim with the edit summary proof
- Editor B reverts with the edit summary rv original research
- Editor A reverts with the edit summary WP:SKYBLUE isn't OR the proof is trivial
- Editor B reverts with the edit summary you must provide a reliable source
- Editor A reverts, then B, and so on and so forth in a relatively slow-moving edit war (1 or 2 reverts per day for the last few days)
- My question is how you would evaluate this situation: what options would you consider to stop the disruption and how would you decide among them?
- A: I see two technical options worth considering here: temporary full protection of the last stable version before the edit war, provided that said version does not contain policy-violating content, and temporary partial blocks from that article for both users. I should also note here that because of the slowness of the edit war, 3RR does not apply.
- My inclination is to implement the requested protection. Considering that this is a "wildly specific" page, it probably is edited very infrequently, so short-duration protection would probably have minimal collateral damage in preventing constructive edits from uninvolved users. Additionally, my understanding is that blocking should be reserved for more severe cases to prevent disruption, more so when there are behavioral issues at play, which appears to not be the case here. After the protection is in place, I would contact both users at their talk pages and attempt to follow dispute resolution. If outside feedback is required (especially from uninvolved subject-matter experts, as this is primarily a content dispute), WP:WPMATH would be the logical place to ask, or alternatively WP:3O might be worth a try.
- In the case that protection and/or dispute resolution fail, partial blocks would be the next step, though at this point I would consider myself WP:INVOLVED (for having attempted mediation and already taken administrative action) and so bring the matter to another administrator's attention – at WP:DRN if it remains primarily a content dispute, or at WP:ANI if user conduct issues enter the picture. Complex/Rational 14:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from User:Paradise Chronicle
- 12.Thanks for volunteering. My question concerns deletion discussions. A deletion discussion is on and so far all voted delete. An editor appears and expands the article significantly and votes keep. You appear at the scenario and the vast majority has voted delete before the expansion happened. Do you decide to keep the article, delete the article, leave the discussion running or do you have another solution?
- A: I would leave the discussion running (relist it) because the article would no longer be in the same state as when the discussion began, and thus the original deletion rationale might no longer apply. AfD is not a tally, and articles absolutely have the potential to be improved as a deletion discussion is running. Conversely, with the only keep !vote being from the user who expanded the article, I feel that the discussion would benefit from assessment of the added content by other users, so as to provide a clearer consensus on whether the article's expansion is enough to justify keeping it. Complex/Rational 14:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
- 13. You've mentioned that you have an interest in handling WP:RD1 tags. To what extent would you plan to involve yourself with Contributor copyright investigations, Copypatrol, Copyright problems, or any other venues on Wikipedia where potential issues relating to copyright are frequently discussed?
- A: I already have a bit of experience with copypatrol from NPP work, and would be willing to handle RD1 requests in CCI and copyright problems, so long as infringement is blatant enough to qualify for REVDEL. I have less experience with more sophisticated cases, and have not done so much in CCI, though I believe that those can benefit from multiple users working on them simultaneously, seeing as there may be less-than-obvious infringement and/or a large number of affected articles. While I would not single-handedly take administrative action in such cases (e.g., complex CCIs) with my current level of experience, I would be willing to offer some assistance within my capacity. Complex/Rational 14:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Quantum XYZ
- 14. Would you be open to recall? If yes, under what criteria?
- A: I would be open to recall, though I don't believe that detailed personal recall criteria are necessary. Any editor is welcome to inquire on my talk page about administrative actions I perform, in line with WP:ADMINACCT. If there is widespread belief among established editors that I am no longer capable of exercising proper judgment or have lost the community's trust, I would resign the tools and/or stand for a reconfirmation RfA. Complex/Rational 14:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Dreamy Jazz
- 15. Thanks for standing for RfA! Let's say you come across a user who has nominated a article for G5. You see in the history of the page that the user who created the page is blocked for using multiple accounts inappropriately. You also find that the article was created before any blocks were made on their accounts. What would you do in this situation?
- A: Assuming that no other editing restrictions (e.g., a topic ban encompassing the article's subject) were in place at the time of the article's creation, I would decline the speedy deletion request. G5 only applies to pages created in violation of a block/ban – per WP:CSD#G5,
page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked
– not pages created by a now-blocked user or sockpuppeteer before the earliest block was implemented. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- A: Assuming that no other editing restrictions (e.g., a topic ban encompassing the article's subject) were in place at the time of the article's creation, I would decline the speedy deletion request. G5 only applies to pages created in violation of a block/ban – per WP:CSD#G5,
- 16. Let's assume instead that the article was created after the first active block on one of their accounts. You also notice that a different person has improved the content added by the blocked account. What would you do in this situation? Feel free to skip these if you don't intend to review WP:G5 CSD nominations
- A: Per WP:CSD#G5,
any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban
with no substantial edits by others are eligible. In general, because the criterion only applies to pages with no substantial edits by others, the article described in this scenario would be ineligible for G5. The exact course of action depends on the extent of other (non-sock) users' edits to the article, though. A large-scale content expansion by another user – which I imagine is a fairly common instance of such a scenario – would mean that the bulk of the content is no longer authored by a block-evading user, so I would decline the request in this case. However, smaller improvements such as copyediting or addition of a couple of footnotes, which do not significantly change the page's authorship, would not save the article from a G5 deletion. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- A: Per WP:CSD#G5,
- Optional question from Kashmiri
- 17. When closing deletion discussions where you see a roughly equal strength of arguments between keep and delete !votes, which way would your closing statement go: Keep, because those nominating and arguing for deletion failed to prevail, or No consensus because, well, there was no consensus? — kashmīrī TALK 18:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- A: If both sets of arguments are indeed roughly equal in strength and solidly rooted in policy (and/or the discussion had already been relisted, such that a closure is required), I would close as "no consensus" because there is no clear consensus. While I'm aware that "no consensus" defaults to keep (status quo ante), such a closure would avoid giving the impression of favoring the keep !votes and suggest "no prejudice against a subsequent AfD" much more clearly than the alternative. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from FeralOink
- 18. I am impressed and pleased with your enthusiasm and expertise about chemicals & materials science. You have the template, "This user is busy IRL and might not respond promptly" on your talk page. I noticed that you responded to some inquiries on your talk page by mentioning that you were very busy right now and didn't have time to help further. I'm not being critical! I ALSO noticed that you gave careful, detailed responses regardless. Is being too busy due to other commitments an anomalous state for you? (For example, because of the time this RfA is occupying, the holiday season, IRL exigencies). My question can be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No" if you would prefer. Thank you!
- A: As per my userpage, being busy correlates with academic commitments. Over the course of a year, my free and busy periods are fairly predictable; I generally have more free time during break periods (such as the present) and less during the academic term. Moreover, when I have a lot on my plate IRL (which happens sometimes, but less predictably), it can happen that I'm unable to write a detailed, well-thought-out response for several days. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Ilovejames5
- 19. Have you had any warnings of vandalism in the past 6 months? If the answer is yes, please also inform on the amount of warnings you received for vandalism. Ilovejames5 13:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for ComplexRational: ComplexRational (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for ComplexRational 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
- As nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically! DanCherek (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support, the nominator statements have accurately captured my experience at FAC, FAR and PR with ComplexRational, who digs in to the very toughest reviews with solid judgment and feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Cabayi (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- As nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns here. BD2412 T 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No issues. Sarrail (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Meets my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- support Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Vacant0 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I've always had positive interactions with ComplexRational. Legoktm (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support good candidate, should make a good admin, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 18:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I'm pleased to see a nomination for an editor with a sound grasp of chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, two concurrently open RfAs with two-word usernames; how many more can our nominators find? And, Support, certainly, on SandyGeorgia's recommendation in particular, and others'. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 18:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive for the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- My decision to Support is rational, though not complex. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I was familiar with CR through WikiNYC events before I recognized the name on-wiki. My impression is of someone with not just subject-matter expertise and skill at building encyclopedia articles, but of someone with the kind of judgment/approach to collaboration that would make for a good admin. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support We always benefit from more content contributors as administrators. ceranthor 18:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support We want more WP:NETPOS admins. Sheep (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. Best of luck! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- — Trey Maturin™ 19:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to support... Volten001 ☎ 19:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Adminship is no big deal and I think this user would be a net positive. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I think NYB took put it best ;). In all seriousness, NOBIGDEAL and not a jerk. HouseBlastertalk 20:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Nominee doesn't have the deepest record and isn't the most active contributor. However, their contributions are clearly beneficial and their expertise could be used best with with admin privileges. Thanks for giving a darn! Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid content creation experience and subject matter expertise, good NPP and AfD records, new article creations e.g., Piero Gardoni appear to be well-written, and overall certainly a WP:NETPOS. VickKiang (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 21:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have seen the candidate around and have been impressed by his contributions, especially to Long Island Rail Road-related articles such as Montauk Cutoff and East Side Access, but I've also noticed his contributions to element-related articles. I'm also familiar with CR through Wikimedia New York City. My impression is that he is trustworthy and that there's no reason not to give him the tools. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- LGTM Andre🚐 22:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. ComplexRational knows what's up, clueful and responsible editor. SnowFire (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support , per all above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I am satisfied with the candidate’s answers to questions 4 and 5 above. My own requirements for admins are that they will protect content and content creators. I believe this candidate will do both, and I thank Vanamonde93 and Barkeep49 for nominating them. And apologies for the initial poorly worded question. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support jengod (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Being an admin should not be a big concern. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Checks all of my boxes, which consist of "probably won't break the wiki or go rogue" and "will probably make productive use of the tools." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Trustworthy, has my full support Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per my faith in the nominators as well as the rationale set forth by them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I put a lot of weight into the nominators who support a candidate and so I have no reservations if they don't. I am interested in seeing additional questions posed over the next week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. All signs point to high quality. El_C 01:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, an easy decision. Graham87 07:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support:joining in the support concert now. The question was made mainly out of curiosity.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC) And great answer to my question.16:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No obvious issues. Gusfriend (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- An easy support, it ain't nuclear physics. No such user (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Leijurv (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. No problems. SethWhales talk 09:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support as a trusted user and have GAN reviews, without any problems. Thingofme (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support—Kurtis (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per SFR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a decent candidate. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 11:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Matt Parker. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I see no issues. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Excellent contribution history, no concerns about giving them the mop. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per much of the above, on review Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Net positive, have seen good things.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid contributions. Bruxton (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, trustworthy use with experience in content creation and areas of need. SpencerT•C 20:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support because we need more administrators to take wikibreaks...(joking of course). Support per the nominators, and ComplexRational's potential adminship seems to be a net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to have good judgment and has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Stephen 21:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support A solid candidate. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - no issues. Net asset.Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support How can I not support someone who is both complex and rational? Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Helpful, clueful and trustworthy, good attributes for an admin. I have no doubts they will be a positive member of the mop corps. Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. No concerns. Miniapolis 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom and based on responses to date. ZsinjTalk 01:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, a solid candidate. MB 04:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks legit. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good job.Ruy (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Looks qualified. No concerns. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. As per noms. Loopy30 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with the person above me, including the person above that person and so on and so forth. It don't take nuclear physics to see he's got potential and could do some real stuff soon enough Angerxiety 17:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. --Zlata Night (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Great answers to questions, great contributions to articles. Here's a mop :-) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – no concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Great answers. — Wug·a·po·des 23:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Wikipedia could always use more qualified admins. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No concerns as per noms and Q&A. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
- Support - After reviewing the editor and their answers I have no problem supporting them. - Aoidh (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. Girth Summit (blether) 11:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, excellent candidate in the areas that matter, and who gives a damn about the stuff that doesn't? jp×g 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Solid candidate. Best of luck! DB1729talk 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, no worries. Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Fully qualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns, best of luck! --Malerooster (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Solid editor with plenty of clue and no red or yellow flags. Clearly a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per noms ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Would Make A Good Admin! Im Following The Username Policy 19:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support While I don't believe I've interacted with him before, I came across his RfA candidate poll a few weeks ago. It shows that he's a well-rounded and mature editor. And almost 100% edit summary usage? Sign me up! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - All the best! User:TwentyTwentyTwo2022 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: excellent content creations with a wealth of expert knowledge in their preferred subject areas; no temperament concerns; and plenty of experience and competence in backlogged areas like NPP. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Candidate seems level headed and articulate, which are both great admin attributes. Happy to support. — Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Lots of good, credible supporters; wasn't totally familiar with him but the editor interaction tool (for which I am grateful for the link) shows we have common ground on antivandalism and other work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Gave good answers to both of my questions. ComplexRational obviously has a lot of experience on Wikipedia and I've seen this editor around. Also, a while back I created an article titled "List of s-block elements" and ComplexRational had it converted into a redirect. [1] I wasn't pleased at first, but I see this was the best thing to do. This editor would make a good admin. Helloheart (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support A great editor with great contributions in different areas. Will do good with the sysop toolset. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good solid history. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good nominations, civil. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Chlod (say hi!) 13:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support; I've seen them helping out around recent changes, quite often reverting before me — Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I have observed this editors good editing and administrative contributions. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good choice. scope_creepTalk 21:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Obvious support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Per noms. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Glad to see another good candidate. Equineducklings (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, generally a net positive to the community. Strong nominations and a strong candidate. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 08:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, with thanks for the answer to Q17. A no consensus outcome leaves more room for a re-nomination, and is also my preferred way in such situations. — kashmīrī TALK 10:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. unequivocally Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support- Absolutely. Solid candidate IMO. Good Luck! Aloha27 talk 13:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support good answers to my questions and trust the nominiators. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Should've been an admin already! The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ) (chat) 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good answers. DFlhb (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support = Satisfactory answer to my question, see #18 below. Further rationale for support provided there.--FeralOink (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I see sufficient content work, good experience with project-space processes, and a general indication of sufficient clue to support this candidate for admin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Modussiccandi (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support It has been a long time since I last saw an RfA with this much unopposed support, Impressive PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I wavered, because maybe there are too many reasonable people supporting and there's not even a single token petty and childish oppose, but eventually landed here. Seren_Dept 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I'm here for the excellent username, but the GA and FA content creation on highly technical topics is what really sold me on this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Good answers, good experience and will work in areas in which new administrators are needed to compensate for attrition. Proficient administrators in technical areas are always needed. Sandy Georgia's unqualified endorsement, as someone who has worked with the candidate and is familiar with the candidate's work is also persuasive. Importantly, the candidate appears to have the necessary temperament to handle administrative tasks and maintain civility. Donner60 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I see no issues. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support We need more admins, and this seems like a fine candidate. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Let's make it unanimous! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Don't see why not. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I trust this editor to be a fair judge and enforcer of consensus casualdejekyll 12:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support With the majority of users supporting this editor, i trust this user. Ilovejames5 13:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Salvio 14:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I appreciate the reasonable answers. Never hurts to have one more admin with a good head on their shoulders. Blue Edits (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No indication that they'll try to delete the main page /j or have temperament issues that could cause harm to the community. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns. -- Dane talk 16:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- LGTM 👍 ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Great candidate, great answers to questions. Net positive. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support All evidence is positive. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks a good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - No reason not to support, and reasons to support. This candidate was asked a lot of hypothetical situation questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – thoughtful answers to the (many) questions. –FlyingAce✈hello 06:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No doubts. Jingiby (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Unnecessary late support. —Kusma (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Another unnecessarily late support, but appears to be a very good candidate. VegaDark (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Great content work overall and a good demeanor as well.Wikipedia will greatly benefit from having admins like ComplexRational. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- Neutral. I never ran into this user before. I look at tons of articles per day but I've never seen this user. I would say support if I had seen this user in other parts of the project like AFD or Teahouse.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @HelpingWorld: In case you are curious, here is the list of all the pages you and the candidate have both edited: [2]. --JBL (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @User:JayBeeEll, you can clearly see all of those are popular places and the chances of me seeing them on it is really rare.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @HelpingWorld: In case you are curious, here is the list of all the pages you and the candidate have both edited: [2]. --JBL (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
General comments
- Q4: "Please provide information you have chosen not to provide." Q5: "Please provide information you have chosen not to provide."
Q7: "Please provide information that is completely irrelevant to adminship."[withdrawn, Merci] I guess it would lead to unnecessary drama if I just removed these, but it would certainly be an improvement to the question list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)- There's more on Q4 & 5 on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, I thought I saw one of those hilarious, irrelevant questions on other RfAs, and it wasn't on the question list, (especially on the WP:RFA#Expressing opinions, so I assumed it was "legal" to post an unrelevant question. If it is illegal, am I going to court? Sarrail (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's forbidden, it's just pointless. And that is also fine with me personally in general, unless the list of additional questions is 3/4 unnecessary. That's annoying then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be in favor of removing Q4. Q7, while pointless, isn't harmful. Q4 can be. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I sure hope it does not come to that kind of manipulation and gerrymandering. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, I thought I saw one of those hilarious, irrelevant questions on other RfAs, and it wasn't on the question list, (especially on the WP:RFA#Expressing opinions, so I assumed it was "legal" to post an unrelevant question. If it is illegal, am I going to court? Sarrail (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the desire to "protect" the candidate from questions. Particularly someone who appears to be a clueful confident adult; surely they have the gumption to politely refuse to answer a question, and not care if LB opposes? Indeed, on the rare occasion that a candidate tells a questioner they aren't going to answer, my opinion of the candidate usually increases. Plus, it's so much easier to ignore rude/dumb/prying questions than to amplify the silly behavior by arguing about it. Finally, are you all unfamiliar with LB? They will never change their mind. Just let the small stuff go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's more on Q4 & 5 on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam hey that is not true, but I am just not here to rubber stamp. And I want to support the candidate. I also want to know how much experience the previous account had, - apologies for the clumsy wording of my original question that got the hackles up on four admins here. if you think I was being rude and dumb I am surprised. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- For me it isn't so much protecting candidates from questions as discouraging large numbers of silly questions that, even if silly, still require time and thought and sometime research to answer. And while your opinion of a candidate who refuses to answer silly questions may increase, I suspect you aren't everyeditor. I've seen opposes because a candidate ignored or dismissed a question. If a candidate has some reason that large numbers of editors might oppose for but which they can't come right out and say is their reason for opposing, something as minor as that can provide the excuse for pile-on opposition. Sorry if that's clear as mud, I'm reluctant to be clearer. But I've seen it happen. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Valereee I thought my question was necessary based on the candidate's acceptance statement where they said they abandoned the disclosed account for "concerns of privacy and inexperience". When I saw the proficiency/experience of the new account I wanted to know how they got experienced. My initial question was clumsy and a discussion on the talk page was somewhat helpful. Floq's statement above is just Floq being Floq - snarly, dismissive etc. I told Barkeep 49 on their talk page that "...admins are of of smattering quality and some gleefully diminish other editors to make their points" But I appreciate admins like yourself and Barkeep49 because they do not diminish editor volunteers. Happy holidays to you and to CM! See you around the project! Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Floq's statement above is just Floq being Floq - snarly, dismissive etc. I told Barkeep 49 on their talk page that "...admins are of of smattering quality and some gleefully diminish other editors to make their points"
Just amazing. Bravo. JBL (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)- That's what I thought, JBL, initially. I re-read and realized that Floq responded to LB with this,
Finally, are you all unfamiliar with LB? They will never change their mind. Just let the small stuff go
so LB defended themselves. Yet Floq is being 100% supportive of the substance of LB's original question of the candidate! I agree with the rationale for the question given by LB initially, and likewise, with Floq:I don't understand the desire to "protect" the candidate from questions... surely they have the gumption to politely refuse to answer a question, and not care if LB opposes?
Also, I agree with Floq about this,on the rare occasion that a candidate tells a questioner they aren't going to answer, my opinion of the candidate usually increases
. I welcome an instance of someone (Floq) taking a strong stance against coddling, i.e. by being supportive of both LB's inquiry and ComplexRational the candidate. I am dismayed to see the petty bickering ("casting aspersions"?) between two editors who are in agreement about substance... then others, who further stir the pot. I am not chiding you, JBL. Seems like there's a lot of unresolved resentment. It is discouraging.--FeralOink (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, JBL, initially. I re-read and realized that Floq responded to LB with this,
- Thanks Valereee I thought my question was necessary based on the candidate's acceptance statement where they said they abandoned the disclosed account for "concerns of privacy and inexperience". When I saw the proficiency/experience of the new account I wanted to know how they got experienced. My initial question was clumsy and a discussion on the talk page was somewhat helpful. Floq's statement above is just Floq being Floq - snarly, dismissive etc. I told Barkeep 49 on their talk page that "...admins are of of smattering quality and some gleefully diminish other editors to make their points" But I appreciate admins like yourself and Barkeep49 because they do not diminish editor volunteers. Happy holidays to you and to CM! See you around the project! Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Q9 strikes me as a multi-part question that should probably be struck. See WP:RFA#Expressing opinions ("
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)
"). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)- What would you do in the following scenario?
- An editor asks exactly five questions masquerading as a single question at an RFA where they are limited to two questions, and have already asked one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ilovejames5, could you explain your question (Q19) to the candidate? It doesn't make any particular sense to ask an RFA candidate if they were ever warned for vandalism. Vandalism is not something that any good faith editor would ever engage in. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- +1. It seems like an unnecessary question. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ilovejames5 – Primo, you can check yourself all the warnings that the candidate has received by going through their Talk page history; and secundo, the number of warnings has zero relevance to the admin job, since any editor can warn any other editor at any time and an unlimited number of times. It's a different thing to enquire about past conduct, which however you have not done. So, better cross our that question of yours, or it may haunt you in the future. — kashmīrī TALK 13:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
it may haunt you in the future
...? Is this sort of comment really necessary? Kashmiri, you have been acting like the overlord of RfA suitability recently, and it is not your place to do so, especially with inappropriate comments such as this. Please reconsider your attitude towards other participants at RfA in the future. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2022 (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.
Extraordinary Writ
Final (248/2/2); closed as successful by ϢereSpielChequers at 23:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination
Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Extraordinary Writ for adminship today. Since registering in 2020, he has been a regular contributor to a number of parts of the project. Most notably has been their work on legal articles, amassing 2 featured articles, 3 good articles, and a handful of Did You Knows. He has also helped out in a number of project related places, including all three kinds of deletion (speedy, PROD, and AfD) and by serving as a mentor for new editors. I want to draw particular attention to his work as a mentor on his talk page. I think you'll find knowledgeable and friendly answers to questions from newer editors. It's for this combination of skills and disposition that I ask you to join me in supporting Extraordinary Writ. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Co-nomination
It is an honor for me to be able to co-nominate Extraordinary Writ for adminship. He has shown a good eye for content across various levels of article creation and assessment, including up to the featured article level. Whether at FAC, FAR, in guiding new users, or in closing discussions, he has demonstrated good sense and judgment, a calm and understanding demeanor, and an understanding of what it means to build and encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ has the right combination of demeanor, good judgment, and experience to make an excellent administrator. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to Barkeep49 and Hog Farm for their kind words. I've never edited for pay, and I've never edited logged-out or from any account other than this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
- A: In short, because I often find myself in situations where having the tools would enable me to contribute more effectively. The number of admins continues to fall, and I want to help counteract that trend by working on administrative tasks in areas where I can be useful. In particular, I'd be willing to work in fields where I already have experience as a non-admin, such as by closing AfDs, actioning WP:PRODs, dealing with inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA, and responding to requests for speedy deletion. I may end up branching out to other areas as well, but in all cases I'd move cautiously, frequently consulting policies/guidelines and listening to advice from other editors.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm most proud of my work on articles about justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, including two featured articles (Wiley Rutledge and Melville Fuller) and three good articles (Thurgood Marshall, David J. Brewer, and Howell Edmunds Jackson). Writing about these oftentimes-controversial figures in a comprehensive and neutral way can be challenging, but the fact that real people can benefit from that work makes it all worthwhile. My userpage also lists a number of other (mostly law-related) articles that I've written, many of which have appeared at DYK; although they may not be as nice and shiny as my GAs and FAs, I'm proud of my work on them nonetheless. In projectspace, I'm most proud of my work involving deletion, such as nominating pages for speedy deletion, PRODding and dePRODding articles, and contributing to AfD discussions.
- 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 typically don't find editing to be too stressful, but there have certainly been times when editors have disagreed with my closures (example) or other actions. When that happens, I always try to recognize that the other user might just have a point and to find for a mutually agreeable solution. If that isn't possible, I look for other ways to defuse the conflict, such as explaining my reasoning in greater detail, getting input from uninvolved editors, or simply taking a step back.
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 JPxG
- 4. Got anything else to say about the whole deal of it?
- A: I'll probably have some more thoughts once everything is over and done with, but for now I'd just like to say that I'm very grateful to everyone who's taken the time to weigh in so far. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional questions from Idoghor Melody
- 5. Thanks for volunteering, will you be open to recall?
- A: Yes, I'd be willing to use User:Worm That Turned/Recall process, which I think strikes a good balance between accountability and fairness. Now, I do think optional recall is a poor substitute for a standardized community-based desysop procedure, and I'd be happy to support any such proposal with appropriate safeguards, but until that happens I don't have a problem with using WTT's process instead, which I think is at least better than nothing. And if I ever felt that I'd lost the community's trust, I sincerely hope that I'd resign the tools on the spot, even if the recall procedure hadn't been invoked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- 6. Are there any Wikipedia policies or guidelines which you disagree with? If so, why?
- A: There are a few little things (for instance, like many RM participants, I'm not too fond of WP:USPLACE, which in my view leads to non-concise titles for very little benefit), but generally speaking I'm fairly happy with our policies and guidelines as they stand: we've been debating many of them for the last twenty years, and that's led to an equilibrium where most policies are at least reasonable, even if there are minor things I'd change. Although I'll advocate for changes to policies and guidelines that I think could be improved, if I become an administrator I'd do my best to follow consensus even when I disagree with it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Sarrail
- 7: As you are dealing with inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA, will you be also willing to participate at WP:AIV if possible?
- A: I have less experience at AIV than I have at UAA and other places, so it isn't an area I'm planning to focus on (although I'm sure I'll block a vandal or two every once in a while). If I ever decide to get more involved there, then (as I said in A1), I'll be sure to move slowly, check relevant policies and guidelines, and be especially receptive to feedback. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from JPxG
- 8. Now this one is very optional. You are minding your own business, looking at some recently-created user accounts, when you see the following: "DSFARGEG", "Tingas Pingas", "My Sweet Neko Ass", and "Jimothy Sniffingsworth at Raytheon LLC" (who has a COI template on his user page). What, if any, actions do you take in this situation?
- A: Points for creativity. Assuming all these accounts have already edited, and with some help from the Urban Dictionary:
- DSFARGEG – seems to be a meme that was used for spamming purposes back in the day. I wouldn't block based on the username alone (probably just a humorous reference), but I'd keep my eye out for any vandalism/trolling/other problematic behavior that might warrant action.
- Tingas Pingas – from what I can tell, seems to be a mildly unflattering nickname for a certain basketball player. If the account was editing constructively I might warn or soft-block (some new editors don't realize that we're stricter than most other sites when it comes to usernames), but I'd probably hard-block if there was any whiff of disruption.
- My Sweet Neko Ass – looks like sexual slang. I'd probably hard-block as an offensive username.
- Jimothy Sniffingsworth at Raytheon LLC – "X at Y Company" usernames are permitted under the username policy, and the COI template shows the user is at least trying to work within the rules. Based on what you've told me there's no reason to block; I'd probably leave Template:Welcome-paid to welcome the user, provide links to relevant policies/guidelines, and encourage him to make the paid editing disclosure if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- A: Points for creativity. Assuming all these accounts have already edited, and with some help from the Urban Dictionary:
- Optional question from NYC Guru
- 9. Looking at unblock requests, do you think admins tend to be overly cautious when they deny these requests for the most part? Many of these are users that are new to the site.
- A: With the caveat that I don't have a ton of experience in this area, I think the small number of admins who patrol CAT:UNBLOCK generally do a very good job at what can be a very draining task. That said, I don't doubt that some meritorious appeals are incorrectly declined: you can never know for certain how a user will behave when unblocked, and it's often easier to err on the side of caution since a bad unblock can lead to a significant amount of disruption. There's no easy answer, unfortunately. I do think we can sometimes afford to be a bit gentler when it comes to inexperienced users (vandals, folks with promotional usernames, etc.) who make a reasonable-sounding unblock request: giving them a second chance tends to be fairly low-risk since it's easy to reblock if disruption resumes. Ultimately, though, striking the right balance in this area can be really tricky, and I have only respect for the admins who are willing to work there on a regular basis. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from Robert McClenon
- 10. What experience do you have in trying to resolve any sorts of disputes between editors?
- A: The honest answer is that mediating disputes between other editors isn't something I have much experience in: I haven't spent much time at, for instance, WP:30, WP:DRN, or WP:ANI. I will say that I've closed discussions that stem from disputes (this one comes to mind), and when I do that I try my very best to write a statement that both sides of the conflict can respect. As an administrator, if asked to help resolve a dispute, I'd first look for any conduct issues that might require intervention; if the issues were purely content-based, I'd look for possible compromises and, if necessary, point the users toward relevant steps in the dispute resolution process. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from HelpingWorld
- 11. Which parts of the project are you going to do most of the work in? I regularly see you in AFD, is there any other Discussion-related projects you intend on working on?
- A: I think I answered most of that in question 1, but please feel free to ask a follow-up question if there's something else you're looking for. As for other discussion-related projects, I'm fairly active at requested moves and hope to continue some of that work as an admin. I might occasionally venture into other areas (for instance, I closed a number of CfDs earlier this year when the backlog had gotten especially bad), but AfD and the other places I discussed in Q1 are probably where I'll be spending the most time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from PerryPerryD
- 12 What do you wish to achieve with the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Project as a whole?
- A: To improve, both directly (through content creation) and indirectly (through maintenance processes), the value that readers get out of our encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Optional question from HelpingWorld
- 13 How long do you think you will be a administrator? After, do you think you will continue editing less then you usually do?
- A: I think I'd give the same answer to both parts of the question: although I don't know how many months or years or decades I'll spend editing and, if this RfA is successful, administrating, I do know that I only want to be doing those things for as long as I find them meaningful and enjoyable. "He who kisses the joy as it flies / lives in eternity's sunrise." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Extraordinary Writ: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Extraordinary Writ can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Editor writes content, seems to have the temperament for working in a collaborative environment, and has put in a significant amount of both article and administrative work. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- As nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- No issues from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support extraordinarily! DanCherek (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No issues. Sarrail (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Strongly. --Enos733 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Don't be ridiculous, he's been an admin for years. BD2412 T 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Thought they were already an admin! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've read some of the articles that E. Writ has worked on (Particularly Thurgood Marshall), and I have to say they've been pleasant to comb through. Also, a cool 8/9 on my RFA criteria. Happy to support. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Significantly valuable quality content contributor, good temperament, has a need for the tools and knows where they want to help out, but intends on easing into the role, willing to help out new users, strong nominators and nomination statements. We need more editors like this taking up the mop! ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support one of those where I had to do a double take, because I thought Writ was a long time admin. Happy to make reality match perception. Star Mississippi 23:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. A name I recognize with positive associations, and the nomination statements/question answers give me no concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I've seen his mentorship work and thought he was already an admin. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 23:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good egg. Girth Summit (blether) 00:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems fine. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support strongly. The candidate has excellent AfD stats and CSD log (I've encountered Extraodinary Writ at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter-Telling Stories and was impressed), significant content experience with two FAs and three GAs, new articles such as Shelton v. Tucker appear to be solidly written with little problems, and anti-vandalism experience (e.g., WP:UAA work) and participation in requested moves also are solid. VickKiang (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 00:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Has some great contributions to the project, impressive history of content creation and has a clue, not a jerk! echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Adding my name to the list of users that think this is a long time coming. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Clueful, quality editor. Endwise (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support no reason not to. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support WP:NETPOS, we need more admins. It's very likely we'll fall below a thousand by the end of 2022. Sheep (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Thanks for being willing to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- This community seems to have a solid mandela effect of thinking longtime users are admins... happy to support, despite an absolutely brutal chess shellacking he gave me :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Hell yes. Solid, knows the policies and guidelines. All-around asset.Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 01:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - is neither cumbersome nor worthy of disfavor. Beccaynr (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose already an admin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Easy support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Extraodinarily Written Support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I know this is old-school, but I've seen them around a bunch, they seem to do good work, and never seem to be in any trouble. Not to mention that they support the oxford comma. Those are the kind of people we need to recruit, retain, and promote. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support jengod (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support based upon interactions with the user. I was hoping to see this RFA at some point. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I thought they already were an admin. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me Andre🚐 01:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I trust them to determine and implement community consensus. casualdejekyll 02:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Bumped into them in a few places, mostly AfDs, RMs, and Featured Article Reviews. As a participant or as non-admin closure, their contributions have been thoughtful and knowledgeable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I have had the pleasure of briefly interacting with ExtraordinaryWrit at DYK, and it was truly a pleasure! I am totally in favor of this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Yes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Sort of familiar with his name, and nothing bad there; very impressed with the other supporters. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, one of those people one assumes is already an admin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I fully trust the judgment of the two nominators. Also I reviewed EW's GA nomination for Thurgood Marshall and found EW's work to be thorough, and found EW to be thoughtful and responsive. Ajpolino (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – I've seen EW around and they've always seemed like they were an admin already :P . ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Have had a few encounters with Extraordinary Writ over the past couple of years, all positive, and their article creation work is very good. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support This user has my strongest possible support. Curbon7 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, no problems here. Graham87 04:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Have seen the editor around. Ovinus (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Complex/Rational 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Gusfriend (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has a clue, and uses the serial comma. The three most important adminship qualities after all. J947 † edits 05:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to support a strong RfA candidate. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ferien (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Per noms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Barkeep sums it up nicely, great contributor already, also has the attitude and temperament that shows the candidate will be a helpful and excellent administrator. Donner60 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support after seeing their content creation and reviewing their AN/ANI comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Legoktm (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support based on what I’ve seen at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Good candidate. More like EW please! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has clue Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problems supporting this user in my first ever RfA vote. Schminnte (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Not a jerk, has a clue, all the rest of that malarkey. Good luck and welcome, and let's have more candidates like this to restock the admin room! — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. No red flags = ok to hold the mop. — kashmīrī TALK 10:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. They've been doing great work for 2+ years without significant conflict and showing good judgment. Easy call for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said. This guy clearly knows what he's doing. jp×g 10:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Strong candidate with a focus on admin tasks as well as writing quality articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support As above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 10:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, I thought he was an admin already. Ticks all the right boxes. No such user (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Just over two years active editing, yet has achieved in that time what takes most users much longer, and some never do. Good involvement in high level content creation as well as community and policy issues. Good range of Barnstars awarded. And was approached in March about becoming an admin, though decided to wait, which shows clue, patience, and caution. Damn fine candidate. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- support I thus far have no less than pleasant encounters on the project. Should be a valuable and fine addition to the admin corps. – robertsky (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. --Zlata Night (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support EW is an asset. I've seen his tremendous support at the RMT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Without a doubt. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the reasons I stated in October and in November. The candidate is competent. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support seems like they will be a good admin to me. Terasail[✉️] 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- EN-Jungwon 12:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support good candidate, has a clue KylieTastic (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Thought they already were an admin. (Seems I'm not the only one with that thought.) Good candidate and thanks for stepping up! Cheers! Geoff | Who, me? 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - fine with me. Deb (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Tol (talk | contribs) @ 13:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Absolute no brainer for me to support. They do good work and I have no concerns about them picking up the mop. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - yep, the obvious. Don't let it blind ya. Atsme 💬 📧 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I've been impressed with what I've seen of this editor myself, plus he's co-signed by nominators whose judgment I trust and he clearly has the chops for content work. All-around great candidate for the mop. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate, should make a good admin Josey Wales Parley 15:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and trusted user. Thingofme (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be sensible and reasonable. I trust the candidate with the tools. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate, best of luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- SUPPORT: EW has no blocks, over 60k edits throughout all projects, 3,367 pages created, and 347 new pages patrolled. Search history shows knowledge of WP policy and procedures. It's me... Sallicio! 16:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Excellent candidate who demonstrates both competence and kindness in their edits and interactions.-- Ponyobons mots 16:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic Support Easy call here. Best of luck! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, although I guess this makes me Ordinary Writ. ⚇♔ 19:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've been anticipating this request to the extent that I added it to my watchlist while it was still a red link. I've been consistently impressed every time I've seen EW around. Impeccable qualifications, sound judgment, even keel, and an all-around excellent editor. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Will be a net positive to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No big deal. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, and it's about time too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I thought they were one already! Patient Zerotalk 22:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Extraordinary yes! El_C 22:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support for a trustworthy editor with trustworthy noms. Miniapolis 23:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support content creator with two nominators I trust. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: per nomination(s) --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 01:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, would be a great admin. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – solid content creation and knowledge of policies. I took a look at EW's talk page and was impressed by his helpful demeanor when responding to his mentees. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Extraordinary, great candidate. --DB1729talk 03:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks a sound candidate, not likely to go rogue. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC).
- Support. LGTM. Chlod (say hi!) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent candidate. Thank you for volunteering to take the mop. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Leijurv (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Ammarpad (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a strong candidate. No concerns. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Have encountered him several times. Great editor and very knowledgeable of our policies and guidelines — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- This was a very good day to check my watchlist. Vaticidalprophet 11:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Can't find any reasons not to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - they look like a great candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support—Kurtis (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Great job. Ruy (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No obvious red or yellow flags. Candidate has a clue and a solid track record. Clearly a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Banks Irk (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for volunteering. Self aware candidate and excellent community member ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Obviously. A great editor whom I've seen do great job here and there. My personal interaction with him was when he helped me get some pages from a book at Resource Exchange. He is willing to go that extra mile to assist editors trying to improve content on Wikipedia. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support —MdsShakil (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- DatGuyTalkContribs 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Worthy of a mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I only recall positive times seeing the username and everything else seems good. Skynxnex (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen the candidate around occasionally and have had a good impression of them. They appear to be fully qualified. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Wait, they're not an admin already? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is the first time I've genuinely been confused at seeing at RfA due to thinking the user was already a mop-wielder, as cliche as it is. I've seen them around quite a few places and they've always struck me as a very responsible, and helpful, person. Perryprog (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can't see why not. — Trey Maturin™ 21:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support One of those "I thought they were already an admin" candidates. Sufficient experience and content creation to earn my support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support — the wub "?!" 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I've been particularly impressed with their work at SPI, where they have helped to bring down several sophisticated and highly disruptive UPE farms. Spicy (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support An excellent choice for admin. Muttnik talk 23:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks a bit new and I don't have in-depth knowledge but I trust the joint support by Barkeep and HogFarm. Suggest / expect staying out of heavy duty stuff for a few years such as sanctioning experienced editors. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support of EW and the kind words you said about me. I hope all the candidates I nominate have the self-awareness to know when to get involved in the deep end of admin business. That time is going to be never for some candidates but sooner for others. So I want to take this opportunity - since EW hasn't expressed much desire to do the kind of heavy duty stuff you're mentioning to note that "a few years" isn't necessarily the right advice/timetable to have out there. Several of my past nominees (and me) have done it faster than a few years, while I would expect others I nominate to never do that kind of work. Hopefully our mutual trust in EW will be rewarded with them starting that work when they're ready to do it (and the community's ready for them to do it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Agree. I intended it to be a guess at this specific pretty-new individual rather than a general statement. And even then it was probably an overgeneralization / metaphor...sorry! I promote that informal bifurcation in general.... not because there are many problems but because if it were more widely accepted, that would make it safer and easier to get/approve new admins at RFA. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support of EW and the kind words you said about me. I hope all the candidates I nominate have the self-awareness to know when to get involved in the deep end of admin business. That time is going to be never for some candidates but sooner for others. So I want to take this opportunity - since EW hasn't expressed much desire to do the kind of heavy duty stuff you're mentioning to note that "a few years" isn't necessarily the right advice/timetable to have out there. Several of my past nominees (and me) have done it faster than a few years, while I would expect others I nominate to never do that kind of work. Hopefully our mutual trust in EW will be rewarded with them starting that work when they're ready to do it (and the community's ready for them to do it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Established and trustworthy user. Clyde!Franklin! 03:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Without hestitation. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Pays attention to details that others might miss. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I took a close look at the edit histories of US Supreme Court justices Wiley Rutledge and Melville Fuller. This editor transformed these articles from mediocre introductory articles to Featured articles and I know much more about the history of these judges and that court than I ever did before reading them. Roughly 80% of the content in each has been contributed by the nominee, and these are obviously highly notable topics that needed to be improved. In addition, the editor is level-headed, friendly, calm and helpful. They have shown that they understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whenever I see them commenting in project space, their input is thoughtful and policy based. Support happily. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Very credible candidacy. DFlhb (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Great contributions so far. Thank you for taking this step to further help the project. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Although this would pass with or with my supporting, I don't see any issues. NYC Guru (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Salvio 11:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, has a clue. --Mvqr (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I have seen this editor around the project. A balanced candidate with positive contributions. Bruxton (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support We need more admins. Harej (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I was going to say Yes anyway regardless of the answer to my question, but I thought the question should be asked. Also, a good job with the mop in cleaning up the message created by the sockpuppet at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I always see him in AFD. He works hard to save the articles, and hes very detailed in it. They deserve it.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ has an excellent temperament. They have made great content (barnstar-worthy). I'm never impressed by AfD stats, but by the actual detail and research in the !votes, which is very high in Extraordinary Writ's case; good to see their work around deletion, particularly de-prodding when more sources can be found. More than enough experience and competence to be trusted to act sensibly with the mop. — Bilorv (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Uhai (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support without reservation. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support Bumbubookworm (talk)
- Support Qualified and no qualms for me at this time. ceranthor 19:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No objections. We need admins smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to take it. Jacona (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Has a clue, not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Adondai (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support no red flags so far --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems like an alright person. Musashi1600 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seen them around, and have confidence that they will do an excellent job as admin. Additionally, I'm very confident that there won't be another Extraordinary Writ before the community or the court. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - per noms and most of above. Seen them around a lot, have come away impressed. There is not a single editor here, not even those whom I most admire, who I have agreed with 100% in all instances. (looking over a few edits of mine, that includes myself...) Overall I believe it is clear that giving EW the extended toolset is not just good for the project, but overwhelmingly so. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - nothing that suggests they are likely to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Appears to be a trustworthy & a meaningful content creator. Net positive. Aza24 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Grant mandamus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- JavaHurricane 12:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- No problem in supporting the candidate. Volten001 ☎ 12:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - would like to see even more content creation, but with that said, do not see anything to suggest they are likely to abuse the power and position. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think this editor would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, excellent! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Sensible responses, already does great work. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I remember this editor from several project pages, and I'm aware of their excellent contributions to legal topics. Shrewd, good-tempered, and sees the big picture. twsabin 21:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - A solid, trustworthy candidate with a good disposition. Would make a great admin. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Partofthemachine (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Candidate's response to questions suggests a thoughtful person that would benefit from the admin tools. Articles produced by the candidate are of a fantastic quality, suggesting a deft and committed user. I'm especially glad for a candidate who is unlikely to immediately use their new-found tools for anything other than the most necessary procedures. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously — Wug·a·po·des 00:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I can't see a solid reason to oppose. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I see no reason not to support. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Per nom and personal knowledge over time. Easy support.--John Cline (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Safe pair of hands, clued-up, trustworthy. DBaK (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Jianhui67 T★C 13:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support how can I get notifications for who is running for adminship? I have to search it myself for now. zoglophie 13:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Click on "Watchlist" and you'll see a message "A request for adminship is under discussion" (or "x requests for adminship" in multiple ones are open), this will take you to WP:RFA where you can see a list of open nominations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No Brainer. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Unlikely to delete the mainpage. Very happy to support his clueful candidate. BusterD (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Of course. I had a moment of confusion half a year ago when I couldn't find the admin topicon on their user page. Happy to see it'll be added soon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support, only experienced positive interactions with said user. I used to think that Extraordinary Writ was already an administrator so this RfA only makes sense. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - After looking over everything, it all checks out. - Aoidh (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I miss seeing a fair number of RFAs because I don't check my Watchlist much any more so I'm glad I caught this one. No reservations. Glad to support! Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Samir 02:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support More support is not needed, but I add mine. Equineducklings (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Valuable voice at AFD, no red flags. userdude 03:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Extraordinary Writ has shown to be a been a valuable contributor and has demonstrated the temperament and expertise a sysop needs. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sennecaster (Chat) 11:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support No issues. Conlinp (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Great work at SPI, and I even thought they were an admin before seeing this RFA :) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Meets my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I know I've seen Extraordinary Writ around, and by all indications he'll be a solid addition to the sysop ranks. --Sable232 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support We do need more admins—clueful admins. EW will be one of them. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Not like this is even necessary, of course, nor that I have anything special to add. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support anyone who openly supports the Oxford comma on their userpage is alright by me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good answers to questions, no concerns. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Welcome to the club. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- support; I find nothing in edit history or responses to these questions that would give me pause.~TPW 18:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I understand the points made by the oppose and neutral !voters, but this is clearly a net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Fashionably Late Support, nothing obviously wrong, no big deal —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Stephen 21:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen Extraordinary Writ's work over the past 2 years and I've always found them to be calm, helpful and a trustworthy editor. Their contributions in both content and administrative areas is good and they will be very useful and helpful to Wikipedia as an administrator. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- support. my previous interactions with Extraordinary Writ have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
- Extremely weak oppose: I once posted an RM/TR when I draftified an article, requesting that the said article be moved into draftspace without leaving a redirect. EW declined and recommended me to use a user script instead. While I do use the script, and find it quite useful, I don't think that EW should have declined my RM/TR, given that
itmy RM/TR is helping admins by relieving them of an extraneous R2. My oppose is weak because it relates to my personal experience - therefore slightly biassed - and extremely so since I am cognizant that I am a minority of one in a sea of 163. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)- Edited on 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) to clarify an antecedent. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested, the diff for the RMTR I believe NotReallySoroka referred to is this. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- @VickKiang: It is indeed this one. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested, the diff for the RMTR I believe NotReallySoroka referred to is this. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- That does not at all look like a decline to me (more like a friendly recommendation to use a more proper venue); EW didn't remove the request until the article was sent to AfD (presumably by a user who wasn't aware of the RM/TR). eviolite (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Eviolite: If EW was like "Hey, NotReallyMoniak, next time you could use this" then I would agree with you on the friendly recommendation part. But in reality, EW didn't move the page, so I consider it as good as a decline. Also, I don't think that EW leaving the RM/TR up should be interpreted as anything more than a delay before the request was procedurally removed. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, I believe that my RM/TR should have been accepted because it satisfies WP:PMRC#6: "Moving a page from the mainspace to another namespace when appropriate (WP:CSD#R2)". NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just because it meets WP:PMRC doesn't mean it was technically appropriate to be requested via WP:RMTR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kj cheetham: But is my request so harmful that it ought to be rejected? True as it is that my RM/TR request might not be "technically appropriate", since I made it there, it should have been accepted anyway. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just because it meets WP:PMRC doesn't mean it was technically appropriate to be requested via WP:RMTR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose.I'm uneasy over Q8 & Q9 answers as they hint you might be a little more hard-line than I'm happy with. This alone would not prevent a support. You have the confidence of two outstanding noms; you've got FA & GAs; there's evidence you've been a much appreciated mentor, as Barkeep alludes. You've given excellent advise to more experienced editors, e.g. during GA reivews. But this is offset by your apparent pileon against the Colonel (Andrew D) in the Halloween purge thread. It doesnt bother me in the slightest if someone who's frequently been in opposition to the Colonel doesnt like him, as while I love his style, its understandable it might be annoying to some. But checking the AfD's you participated in prior to your apparent pile on vote, I only see a single AfD in which you've both took part. The Colonel's single comment in that discussion was excellent & illuminating. I'm not sure how it could have led you to say your own experience of the Colonel is that his deletion process participation "generates more heat than light". (If there's some evidence he declined several of your prods during his patrols I'd reconsider this vote.) It looks to me (Edit: though I'm likely wrong per VickKiang) that you might be the type to make thoughtless pile on comments to ban a ~15 year veteran of genuinely extraordinary encyclopaedic talent from one of their main areas of interest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)- It's been a year. Move on. Andrew may appeal his TBAN if he so chooses. This attitude of "this editor did one thing I don't like over a year ago, so I will oppose them forever" is exactly why people don't want to run for adminship. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Relevant quote is
“Both the evidence above and my personal experience convince me that Andrew Davidson's participation in the deletion process generates more heat than light, and given the long history of problematic behavior I believe this is the only solution that has a chance of working. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021”
… it’s a stretch to see your interpretation here as a fair reading of that comment, perhaps you misread it? ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)- @FeydHuxtable: I can understand your viewpoint and appreciate your insightful commentary, but the line
But checking the AfD's you participated in prior to your apparent pile on vote, I only see a single AfD in which you've both took part
is inaccurate- not according to this tool, they've frequently overlapped in AfDs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Coyle de Barneval, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eutropia (sister of Constantine I), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Häusser, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman). Sure, they sometimes disagreed and sometimes agreed, but Extraordinary Writ has participated in the same discussion with Andrew many times. Also on PRODs- I found Pleasant Hill Historical Society Museum where EW PRODed, this was the state of the artice when they looked at it, and Andrew D deprodded without an explanation except forper WP:DEPROD
(there might be more prods and deprods between them for deleted pages not on the tool but I am not sure). EW then AfDed it, and later changed to merge (the discussion was split between merge and keep and was closed as keep by Barkeep). IMO EW's PROD/AfD was reasonable (though they could have considered an ATD, but overall their AfD record is IMO balanced), and Andrew's deprod could have an explanation which is encouraged, so overall EW and Andrew definitely disagreed frequently, so I won't say that's a pile-on vote, of course, it's just my personal POV. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)- Thanks VickKiang. I'd linked to the Jones AfD. The ones I'd missed don't seem to appear in the list from this tool Anyway, with the possible exception of the Colonel's last comment on the Eutropia AfD, I dont see any "more heat than light" posts from him there. The deprodding you evidenced is enough to made me downgrade my vote. Maybe I should withdraw entirely but tbh I'm a little irritated at the amount of badgering I'm getting. I'm a big fan of badgering when there appears a significant risk the candidate won't pass. But I'm kind of feeling the balance may have gone too far in being supportive of admin candidates & trying to ensure they have the smoothest possible RfA experience. There remains a case that potential admins should face real scrutiny, as they have the power to effectively permaban contributors from a lifelong hobby. I mentioned Q9, as when it comes to lesser known indeffed accounts, then in practice it generally is purely down to the individual admin to decide whether they get another chance once they submit an unblock request. A while back, on noticing an account who had been most valuable collaborating on articles had been indeffed, I tried to intervene via email but it proved a waste of time. An overly hardline admin can do a lot of damage in my opinion & if they stick to indeffing / declining unblocks for lesser known accounts it would be hard for community members to do much about it. All that said, I may return & withdraw totally once I've slept on it, as have to admit you (& swarm) have successfully countered the logical bases for my oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- This "the Colonel" stuff is nonsense. The editor in question did not found Kentucky Fried Chicken and has a current user name, which is Andrew Davidson. Engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric like
Halloween purge thread
is ill-advised. That was the editing community expressing clear-cut consensus. If fewer editors spoke out, the editor's defenders would have said "no consensus". When more editors comment, the defenders indignantly complain about "piling on". Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)- "The Colonel" is used because Andrew Davidson has an alternative account, Colonel Warden. It doesn't have anything to do with WP:COLONEL, used to tell people to stop being silly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strange how RFA participants want everyone marching in lockstep at an RFA. Someone posted a neutral and JayBeeEll attacked them and moved to strike their participation as "worthless". FH has a valid concern which I also expressed and participants descend to cluck their tongues. It should not be easy to get a lifetime appointment where one can run-roughshod over editors. This is just vetting being done by a very small group of editors who have perhaps watchlisted the RFA page. Editors like to refer to these handful of editors who follow the Bait ball as some sort of "community" - it clearly is not. And those of us who do not participate in the project's wilding events are decidedly not welcome. I did not appose this nomination because I respect the Barkeep49 and the candidate has many other positive attributes. I hope they become a good administrator, they clearly have the support of the "community". I too was concerned about the candidate's participation in that ANI debacle. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself and in general, some opposes and neutrals have more validity than others. Truthfully some supports have more validity than others too. RFA is supposed to be a discussion so the fact that people want to discuss things makes sense and that discussion is going to look different when 90%+ of the community has one opinion than when the community is more evenly divided. That said I try to prepare the candidates I nominate for the fact that there will be opposes. I think our best editors are ones who can keep the opposes, which can weigh on even the most grounded and stable of editors, in perspective. The ones who does this the best end up happier in the longrun and RfA is a chance to practice/build that skill. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: I agree with you. Although I weak opposed for a vastly different rationale, and I disagree with yours, I don't think that gatekeeping everyone into agreeing into adminship bids (in general), as meritorious as the RfAs are, is the most advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's less about "how dare someone oppose" and more "how dare this editor use this RfA as a vehicle to lick "The Colonel"'s boots and re-litigate a TBAN from over a year ago". That's straight up unfair to the candidate. You'll notice nobody commented on your neutral, because you actually focused on the candidate instead of going off on a whole tangent about how much you love and worship "The Colonel" and he's the smartest person to ever live and so on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- It was good of you to take the time to share that perspective. I don't in fact desire to induldge in such proclivities. My underlying concern relates to how far the project has fallen from the original "encylocpedia anyone can edit" vision. Rising standards mean we're closer to being an encylopieda that only the elite few can edit, as discussed here. At least with well known editors, the community generally get's a chance to weigh in on any severe sanction. But lesser known accounts are effectively permabanned at the discretion of an individual admin & perhaps 1 or 2 others who review any unblock reqs. Sometimes this can be for an Exopedian who might have had editing as their main hobby for over a decade. I've known cases where this causes extreme distress and it's very hard to do anything about it. If someone can make an apparent pileon vote for sanctions even against someone like the illustrious Colonel, it stands to reason they might take a hardline stance against lesser known editors, especially if there are other indications they lean to a strict interpretation of policy. This said, I guess the project can afford losing even several hundred net +ve content contributors a month, whereas losing even a dozen admin class editors a month would soon be disastrous. So probably it makes sense the community seems to lean so strongly on the pro admin (candidate) side. Having slept on it, my 'pileon' concern is rebutted - it's understandable the candidate might see declining a prod sans explanation as a 'more heat than light' action. So withdrawing the oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is the best eulogy for the Colonel's illustrious AfD career I've read. Submit it to the Signpost. — hako9 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate for an admin to make the project lose "several hundred net content contributors a month", and would like to make that very clear. Admins are subject to the same rules as everyone else, and arguably even more so. But it's hard to take you seriously when you say things like "the illustrious Colonel" - you come across as a shameless partisan. You're welcome to be Andrew Davidson's wikifriend, to be proud of his contributions, and to state as much, but comments like that are excessive. If you have real evidence that this candidate has a proclivity towards being unduly harsh to editors, please share it - I would find such a thing concerning for an admin candidate. But cherry-picking one example (and per the candidate's quoted statement from that example, not really an egregious example at all), and suggesting that is indicative of the candidate's general behavior, is not reasonable. In the discussion you link, you bring up MathSci - one of the most uncivil editors ever, who was given dozens of chances before ultimately being indeffed. I realize this is getting off-topic, so if someone wants to move this to this RfA's talk page I would not oppose it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- It was good of you to take the time to share that perspective. I don't in fact desire to induldge in such proclivities. My underlying concern relates to how far the project has fallen from the original "encylocpedia anyone can edit" vision. Rising standards mean we're closer to being an encylopieda that only the elite few can edit, as discussed here. At least with well known editors, the community generally get's a chance to weigh in on any severe sanction. But lesser known accounts are effectively permabanned at the discretion of an individual admin & perhaps 1 or 2 others who review any unblock reqs. Sometimes this can be for an Exopedian who might have had editing as their main hobby for over a decade. I've known cases where this causes extreme distress and it's very hard to do anything about it. If someone can make an apparent pileon vote for sanctions even against someone like the illustrious Colonel, it stands to reason they might take a hardline stance against lesser known editors, especially if there are other indications they lean to a strict interpretation of policy. This said, I guess the project can afford losing even several hundred net +ve content contributors a month, whereas losing even a dozen admin class editors a month would soon be disastrous. So probably it makes sense the community seems to lean so strongly on the pro admin (candidate) side. Having slept on it, my 'pileon' concern is rebutted - it's understandable the candidate might see declining a prod sans explanation as a 'more heat than light' action. So withdrawing the oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strange how RFA participants want everyone marching in lockstep at an RFA. Someone posted a neutral and JayBeeEll attacked them and moved to strike their participation as "worthless". FH has a valid concern which I also expressed and participants descend to cluck their tongues. It should not be easy to get a lifetime appointment where one can run-roughshod over editors. This is just vetting being done by a very small group of editors who have perhaps watchlisted the RFA page. Editors like to refer to these handful of editors who follow the Bait ball as some sort of "community" - it clearly is not. And those of us who do not participate in the project's wilding events are decidedly not welcome. I did not appose this nomination because I respect the Barkeep49 and the candidate has many other positive attributes. I hope they become a good administrator, they clearly have the support of the "community". I too was concerned about the candidate's participation in that ANI debacle. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- "The Colonel" is used because Andrew Davidson has an alternative account, Colonel Warden. It doesn't have anything to do with WP:COLONEL, used to tell people to stop being silly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @FeydHuxtable: I can understand your viewpoint and appreciate your insightful commentary, but the line
- Edited on 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) to clarify an antecedent. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per NotReallySoroka. Adibens (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting to note that your oppose is based on someone else's personal experience. Obviously it's your call, and you can base your views on whatever you want, but interesting all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but supports are also per others and per nom, and somehow it doesn't appear so interesting. — kashmīrī TALK 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah. Kind of missed my point, but whatevs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- What is your point meant to be? The rationale 'per X' is used all throughout Wikipedia. It's particularly common at RfA where many participants will have had no previous experience with the candidate and thus have only other editors' experiences to base their !vote on. Adibens has practically never even crossed paths with Extraordinary Writ.1 Mr rnddude (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I must have missed the part where you made a point. You said it was interesting, but you didn't say why. It seemed like a pointless comment at the time, and it continues to seem pointless now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah. Kind of missed my point, but whatevs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but supports are also per others and per nom, and somehow it doesn't appear so interesting. — kashmīrī TALK 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting to note that your oppose is based on someone else's personal experience. Obviously it's your call, and you can base your views on whatever you want, but interesting all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. I've never seen this user before and I'm too in a rush to look into all of this at the moment. I like the username, though. Panini! • 🥪 15:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral micro-participation in areas of conflict and limited content creation. I see that the editor ivoted with the lynch mob in the Halloween purge thread and that keeps me from support. I also recognize and respect that the candidate is nominated by a respected administrator. I hope the candidate will be a good admin that stands up for what is right and just and does not simply WP:PILEON as they did in the Halloween thread. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Rhetorical excess like
lynch mob
andHalloween purge thread
is the worst form of divisive hyperbole that should be rejected on a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. Nobody dragged Andrew Davidson out of his house in the middle of the night and extrajudicially hanged him by his neck until he was dead. Instead, many thoughtful people concluded that he was disruptive in a narrow area of the encyclopedia. He was partially blocked with clear options for appeal. Lightburst, I for one deeply resent your charge that I and the other editors who were fed up with Andrew Davidson's long record of disruption partipated in a "lynch mob". Quoting Joseph N. Welch "have you no sense of decency?" Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- The purge thread did feel a little like a witch hunt to be fair. That's doesnt mean I'm saying everyone who supported sanctions is a witch hunter. Welch was one of the most successful anti - witchhunters of the 20th century, so very amusing quote there! FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I have mad respect for you and your experience on the project. I have had many positive interactions with you. Regarding many thoughtful people...not really. It was a train wreck made worse by admins who let the mob run the threads. CaptainEek called it, "...one of the nastiest ANI threads of all time" - but yet they also said they "watched with baited breath". The editors that I work with are rarely found in the scrums that occur at ANI. And according to the record the candidate did not participate there. Which is why I mentioned that the candidate waited until the outcome was decided by the mob there and then piled on as the last "Support" in the AD thread. I hope you or the candidate never find yourself in the situation that these four volunteers were in. I would spit the question back at you and the others that allowed the mob to run the show, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". I will call it the Halloween purge because that is what it was; I believe JPxG was the first to recognize that this occurred near Halloween. It was actually not a single purge, but a series of purges. And you are probably right that "lynch mob" is not appropriate: Witch hunt probably fits the Halloween purge theme better than lynch mob. Again I hope EW does better in their new volunteer role. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- The purge thread did feel a little like a witch hunt to be fair. That's doesnt mean I'm saying everyone who supported sanctions is a witch hunter. Welch was one of the most successful anti - witchhunters of the 20th century, so very amusing quote there! FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Rhetorical excess like
General comments
- the candidate has shown interest in UAA. Would someone kindly ask them the single question with 10-15 usernames per custom? —usernamekiran (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- No. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- aw. That's disappointing. The customs shouldn't be broken. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- The "custom" of giving prospective admin candidates questions straight out of WP:CVUA's homework is silly at best. If you have a question for the candidate, at least put some thought into it and make it something that actually tells you about the candidate's personality and thought process...not just pop quizzes about basic antivandalism knowledge. If they've said they want to work UAA and you're concerned about their competency in the area, then have a look at their edits to UAA and do some math on how accurate they've been, or see what admins who patrol UAA have to say. I'm sure those are much better ways of determining suitability than asking how to deal with usernames like "~~~~," "Bieberisgay," or "ButtMcFartington69". GeneralNotability (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- um, ahkshually ~~~~ is not a valid username since
[t]he requested page title contains invalid magic tilde sequence (~~~).
1234qwer1234qwer4 23:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)- 1234qwer1234qwer4, it is indeed, but it's still on the list of usernames they ask you about at CVUA. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, Bieber is gay? Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't actually know what we're talking about here... – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- bad RfA questions casualdejekyll 12:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Come on, GN, a bit of humour doesn't harm. — kashmīrī TALK 10:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- See User:Valereee/RfA questions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- The UAA questions custom is one that I'm not going to miss. The best way to gauge UAA suitability is indeed to watch the candidate's edits to UAA and see if other admins agree with the reports. This isn't foolproof, I might add: I got opposed on my RFA for reporting "POOOOOOOOOOOOOO" to UAA. Had it been asked as a question, I'd raise my eyebrows if we actually had to have a discussion about whether such a username is appropriate (spoiler: it isn't). Outside of the world of theories and rhetoric and into the real world, they were blocked and in fact their username doesn't even appear in CentralAuth anymore, so at least two people—an admin and a steward—agreed that it was an inappropriate username. That's an overanalysis of one UAA report, sure, but if most of a user's UAA reports result in a block, we can certainly skip the "Here's ten questions masquerading as one" nonsense and come to our own conclusion that the user knows their way around UAA. The same goes for AIV, I'd like to add. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The "custom" of giving prospective admin candidates questions straight out of WP:CVUA's homework is silly at best. If you have a question for the candidate, at least put some thought into it and make it something that actually tells you about the candidate's personality and thought process...not just pop quizzes about basic antivandalism knowledge. If they've said they want to work UAA and you're concerned about their competency in the area, then have a look at their edits to UAA and do some math on how accurate they've been, or see what admins who patrol UAA have to say. I'm sure those are much better ways of determining suitability than asking how to deal with usernames like "~~~~," "Bieberisgay," or "ButtMcFartington69". GeneralNotability (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- aw. That's disappointing. The customs shouldn't be broken. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- No. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I look forward to things getting more confusing than they already are. c: Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Introducing Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused to a broader audience :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Writ Keeper, I actually voted "support" thinking it was you. This was ten years ago already; I figured you had been dishonorably discharged and had started socking. Which I TOTALLY discourage, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I look forward to the many opportunities, when advised to be cautious as a new admin, for Extraordinary Writ to tell individuals to butt out with "you're not my keeper. Unless..." Nosebagbear (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Writ Keeper, I actually voted "support" thinking it was you. This was ten years ago already; I figured you had been dishonorably discharged and had started socking. Which I TOTALLY discourage, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Introducing Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused to a broader audience :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what this discussion is about. Guess I'm not part of the club. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Then join it. I mean, this is Wikipedia, so if there is a club, it's joinable. They're referring to the RfA culture of some not super good questions that are asked to any candidate who mentions UAA. casualdejekyll 14:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what this discussion is about. Guess I'm not part of the club. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- What's with the "end of the RfA" bit below? Have I just not been paying attention or is that new? GMGtalk 14:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's a monster at the end of this RfA! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- aaaaaaa! Run away! 'Cause it's the Cookie Monster! :-) Sarrail (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think that means @Extraordinary Writ: must thank us all with cookies! :D Star Mississippi 17:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- aaaaaaa! Run away! 'Cause it's the Cookie Monster! :-) Sarrail (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo: It's a technical measure to implement Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 48#RfAs should now be automatically placed "on hold" after 168 hours. –xenotalk 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also known as "someone didn't notice the "DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE" message and, well, edited below the line. So yes, it is new, but it might become normal. The other option is to add as many stupid DO NOT EDIT messages as possible and see if anyone actually reads them. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if biting the bullet and relying on the hidden comment is a better idea. Long-term, new participants at RfA are much, much more likely to read directions on the page so they can figure out how to participate in the first place. We might have to fix the placement of some comments in the short term, but if we issue a gentle reminder about the new "don't edit below here" message when we fix it, people should figure out where to leave general comments fairly quickly. If it turns out we need the separate section, so be it, but I am not ready to conclude that it is necessary from a sample size of one. HouseBlastertalk 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also known as "someone didn't notice the "DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE" message and, well, edited below the line. So yes, it is new, but it might become normal. The other option is to add as many stupid DO NOT EDIT messages as possible and see if anyone actually reads them. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's a monster at the end of this RfA! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
if nominations have not updated.
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
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
- Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
- 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.
Footnotes
- ^ 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.