transclude |
|||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<!--<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>--> |
<!--<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>--> |
||
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below--> |
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wugapodes}} |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QEDK}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QEDK}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 03:36, 18 January 2020
if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] | 158 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 05:09, 25 January 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
QEDK | 137 | 9 | 3 | 94 | Successful | 14:33, 24 January 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Nick Moyes | 180 | 3 | 3 | 98 | Successful | 21:48, 23 January 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] | 158 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 05:09, 25 January 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
QEDK | 137 | 9 | 3 | 94 | Successful | 14:33, 24 January 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Nick Moyes | 180 | 3 | 3 | 98 | Successful | 21:48, 23 January 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Wugapodes
Final (158/1/2); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 05:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
Wugapodes (talk · contribs) – fellow editors, it is a pleasure to present Wugapodes as a candidate for adminship. Wugapodes has been since 2015. He has done excellent content work on several articles related to linguistics, such as Black American Sign Language, which is now a featured article: he has one other FA and three GAs. He has also found the time to do some useful maintenance work at DYK, partly through the use of his bot account. He has also performed some careful GA reviews, as may be seen at Talk:Herman Melville/GA1. Don't let his edit-count fool you; Wugapodes is an efficient editor, having taken only 59 edits to go from draft to FA on the article I highlight above. Finally, the comments he has made on talk pages and (occasionally) at admin noticeboards demonstrate precisely the temperament we should look for in admins; civil, clueful, and firm in his convictions, while willing to listen to those who may disagree with him. Having seen him become steadily active some months ago, I suggested he request a mop, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Xeno
I initially asked Wugapodes to run as a non-administrator candidate in the most recent arbitration committee elections, as they have shown themselves to be soundly in touch with the project's goals and ideals through their contributions to policy/guideline, dispute resolution, and other community discussions. Well their name didn't go on the ballot, and this RfA is the consolation. While evaluating Wugapodes' non-project space work, I was impressed with the depth of their contributions, and surprised to see over 40% of their edits occurred in the mainspace. I have no doubt that Wugapodes will be a highly effective administrator both in the article space and the project spaces. I know it's somewhat of a cliché, but I don't feel offside in saying that Wugapodes is already an administrator, we simply need to flip on the switch so they can access the extra buttons. Since we need more adminapodes let's add a Wug to the mix. –xenotalk 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would work in the areas I already take part in, but with some extra buttons I could fulfill a few more tasks. I close requested moves every so often, and being able to move protected pages or move over history would simplify that work. I comment at redirects for discussion somewhat regularly and being able to delete pages would mean I could close more discussions. The people who build and promote hooks at did you know are much more skilled than me, but I could serve as the B-team when some of the regulars take a break.Some of the more niche privileges would also be useful to me. I maintain WugBot and the Capricorn user script. If the community were to need a bot to perform tasks involving editing the main page or full protected pages, I would need to have +sysop rights to volunteer WugBot for the job, and if I ever wanted to help maintain gadgets or convert Capricorn into one, I would need +sysop to request the interface administrator user group. I do outreach work as WugapodesOutreach and being able to grant other facilitators event coordinator rights, or place my own geonotices would help with those events. It would also be helpful as I go about my usual editing. Every so often I run into copyvios, and it would be faster to delete the revisions myself. Sometimes users make good article review pages by accident that need deleted, and it would be easier for me to delete them when I see them. I try to lend a hand where I can, and I would use the admin tools to help where I currently cannot.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I've been working on Phonetics as a longer term project starting about a year ago, and though it's not recognized like some of my other writings, I think it's some of my best. It's a vital article on a technical topic. Whereas some of my more polished and recognized contributions like Electromagnetic articulography or Heffernan v. City of Paterson are useful overviews and summaries of the topic, phonetics is becoming a good reference work. I find myself going back to it to look up theoretical information and relevant references, and sometimes point my students and colleagues to it when relevant. It's a nice change of pace in that regard; a lot of my other contributions are end points while phonetics is a starting point for learning more information. It's nice to see that Phonetics is broadly useful, and I think that makes it my best contribution whether or not it's featured content.
- 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: There's no secret strategy to dealing with conflict in cyber space. Just like in meat space I deal with people as people; the only difference is that it's actually easier to take my time and calm down before responding. My general strategy to deal with conflict and stress is to be be boring. If I find that my editing gets me agitated or that I'm focused on winning, usually that's a sign that I'm doing something wrong and need to step back and reevaluate. No one's perfect, and sometimes dealing with conflict just means apologizing. After I made a rather abrasive comment on a village pump proposal an editor made, I left this apology on their talk page. I remained firm in my convictions, but also tried to depersonalize my disagreement.
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.
- Additional question from John M Wolfson
- 4. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
- A: G12 would apply unless the school's website specifically states the material is released under a compatible license. Most other G# criteria would not apply, and even for the niche cases (the author is a sock, it had previously been deleted by discussion) the main issue is the copyright situation. A7 seems like it would apply, but it does not; that CSD specifically states it does not apply to schools. Since it's copied from a website, it could not have been made by the content translation tool, so X2 would not apply. The other criteria would not apply since I'm assuming "article" means a page in mainspace, and they only apply to pages outside of mainspace. — Wug·a·po·des 04:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Amorymeltzer
- 5. You've not expressed an interest in CSD or XfD work, which seems to jive with your current level of activity in those areas. That's totally fine! You do also say
Sometimes users make good article review pages by accident that need deleted, and it would be easier for me to delete them when I see them
. I'm not sure how common that is, but it sounds like you're saying it's a WP:G6. Could you explain how/when G6 should be used and when it shouldn't? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)- A: GA review pages created in error aren't very common, but they happen. Usually it would fall under G7 because the editor who created the page realizes first and asks, but G6 could apply if it's an obvious error like the nominator creates the review page. To your actual question, G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance tasks. It's meant to prevent XfD from getting flooded with "I need to do X but Y is preventing me, so delete Y" nominations. It should almost never be used on pages with viable content (temporary deletion to fix copy-paste moves being an important exception), and it should not be used if the deletion could reasonably be expected to get pushback. G6 isn't carte blanche to boldly delete pages; the deleted page should have been preventing improvement of the project. Empty maintenance categories from the past clutter tracking categories, making it more difficult to identify what work still needs to be done. Pages with little to no content which block a page move delay renames. Pages created in error would clutter the project with useless pages making it harder to find pages we do care about. These are all situations where unnecessary pages are preventing editors from doing their work effectively, and G6 allows administrators to mop them up. — Wug·a·po·des 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- 6. You have also expressed an interest in revision deletion as pertains to copyright. Could you expand a bit about how you would use revision deletion in general, and when it would be preferred over G12? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- A: In general I would probably be rather conservative with revision deletion with the notable exception of potentially oversightable material; the revdel policy rightly gives a lot of leeway for sysops to protect private information and that's likely the only situation where I wouldn't hesitate. As for revdel vs. G12, I would prefer G12 in cases where there's no non-infringing content to be recovered. If there is some text which does not infringe copyright, I would prefer to first remove the infringing material to create a suitable text and then delete the revisions in which the infringing copyright was present, keeping the usernames in history to provide the needed attribution. — Wug·a·po·des 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Espresso Addict
- 7. I see you've created a few 'microstubs' eg David Lightfoot (linguist), David M. Perlmutter and (an older example) Bridget Harris. Would you care to comment on this practice, in the light of the admin toolset including the autoreviewed flag? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- A: Stubs are an important way to help the encyclopedia grow especially now that non-autoconfirmed users cannot create pages. Taken to its extremes though, it creates a problem where the encyclopedia has a great breadth but shallow depth of topics (see User:Danny/What next for a good reflection on this). When I create a stub, usually it's because I believe the subject is unambiguously notable and I have plans to come back to it and improve it. Professors Lightfoot and Perlmutter both served as Presidents of the Linguistic Society of America so they are notable under WP:NACADEMICS criterion 6. Both of them are part of my long-term plan to improve coverage of linguists prior to the Linguistic Society's 2024 centennial (See User:Wugapodes/LSA Centennial). I actually forgot I had created the Bridget Harris article, but Speaker Harris is notable under WP:NPOL having been elected to national office and serving as speaker of their legislative body. In light of the toolset including autreviewed, I don't believe the occasional stub will be a problem. I'm already on the New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist which covers the bulk of my page creations (I make way more redirects than stubs), and when I do create articles, I tend to tag and categorize the pages myself, so the lack of patroller eyes shouldn't impact the placement of them into maintenance categories. — Wug·a·po·des 20:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Puddleglum2.0
- 8. Thank you for standing. How do you respond to the first oppose? Have you edited under previous accounts? Thank you.
- A: In 2011 I was about 15 years old, and I made my first account Cbrick77 (talk · contribs). I largely abandoned that account before the end of the year, with some sporadic edits in 2012. I did not enjoy that year on Wikipedia, and I considered vanishing and abandoning the project forever, but in 2013 I decided to simply blank the account and scramble my password. A few years later while halfway through my undergraduate degree, I wanted to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of linguistics topics. I began this account, and in August 2015 notified functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org of the association between the two accounts. With maturity, my experience on Wikipedia has been better, and I'm glad I decided not to give up on the project after my bad first experience. With regards to the first oppose, it is an example of the kind of conduct that made my first experience with Wikipedia unpleasant. Being young and not understanding the importance of online privacy, I revealed a lot of personal information about myself on my then userpage (partly because I didn't understand WP:NOTWEBHOST). Similarly, I was too ambitious for my own good and ventured into WP:ARBCOM not realizing how toxic of an environment it could be. On the basis of WP:DUCK, an editor accused me of sock puppetry resulting in a day of haranguing at ANI before a checkuser showed that I was unrelated to the accounts in question. It was an upsetting experience to say the least, but it shaped my current editing philosophy of being unfailingly kind to newcomers and assuming good faith wherever possible. So to finally answer how I respond to the first oppose: it shouldn't be strange that someone read the fucking manual. Nearly every single article talk page links to a WikiProject, and that a reader or new editor could find their way there and join shouldn't be strange. If anything, getting more traffic to WikiProjects could be a good thing for editor recruitment and retention. Even templates aren't that strange considering that WP:V and WP:RS talk about templates a good deal, and Help:Templates documents them and their syntax very well (with links to further guidance). That is in fact how I learned template syntax; my previous account never edited in the template namespace, and my early template editing wasn't even that good considering my second talk page message. Such behavior is in character for me; a month ago I didn't know PHP, but through reading documentation and tinkering, I've learned niche aspects of MediaWiki development like mw:Mustache templates (see gerrit:563326). This isn't evidence that I've used HTML templates before, just that I know enough to read the documentation pages. We should encourage editors to read documentation, learn, and try new things, not assume their curiosity is a sign of ill intent. Since this has turned into a mini essay, for those interested further, I would recommend reading one of the last pages I edited under the previous account: Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. For an essay on the effects of being quick to assume bad faith, see meatball:DefendAgainstParanoia. For the sake of completeness, I've edited as an IP as well. — Wug·a·po·des 21:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC),
- A: In 2011 I was about 15 years old, and I made my first account Cbrick77 (talk · contribs). I largely abandoned that account before the end of the year, with some sporadic edits in 2012. I did not enjoy that year on Wikipedia, and I considered vanishing and abandoning the project forever, but in 2013 I decided to simply blank the account and scramble my password. A few years later while halfway through my undergraduate degree, I wanted to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of linguistics topics. I began this account, and in August 2015 notified functionaries-en
- @Wugapodes: Thanks for the well thought out answer! This has strengthened my support a lot! Puddleglum 2.0 04:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from User:WilliamJE
- 9.Did you read WP:CLEANSTART, particularly its section of requests for adminship, before this RFA began and if so can you please tell us why you didn't follow the recommendation that prior accounts be revealed?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship says candidates are not obliged to publicly disclose previous accounts, so I didn't. I disagree with the recommendation you reference because it defeats the purpose of a clean start policy and places a burden that we don't even require of functionaries. People abandon previous accounts for a variety of reasons such as harassment or protection of privacy, and weak protections for clean start editors mean those editors need to choose between outing themselves or deceiving the community. Even candidates for the arbitration committee are not required to publicly disclose their accounts; as long as they notify the arbitration committee of the accounts, they are not required to publicly disclose them. I don't believe a more stringent requirement needs to exist for administrators, and since clean start is clear that I was under no obligation to follow a recommendation I didn't agree with, I didn't follow it. With 5 years of edit history for the community to evaluate, I don't see how an abandoned account from my childhood would provide much clarity on my current patterns of behavior. For those who believe it may, see my answer to Q8. — Wug·a·po·des 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Wugapodes: Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Wugapodes can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support quality candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 03:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support second support. Insert cliche surprised they're not an admin already here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support although technically the singular of his username should be "Wugapus". :P – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes is a terrific dedicated Wikipedian and will make a wonderful administrator. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- A well qualified individual who it is a pleasure to support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yet another candidate who I thought was already an admin. An accomplished behind the scene editor, as well as a prolific content creator, with not one but two Four Awards! And they have a pigeon on their userpage so its a homerun :P CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, yet another candidate who I thought was already an admin. We are certainly lucky to have had such wonderful candidates lately. Wugapodes is exceptionally insightful and courteous in their dealings with other users, which is probably one of the most important factors to consider for admin candidates. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - when it rains it pours excellent admin prospects!! Atsme Talk 📧 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose; (edit conflict × 2) 4im warning just 3 days ago. Also evidently their only goal on Wikipedia is to become an admin since they noted that fault themselves with a very solemn edit summary. Kidding of course; a full-hearted support. J947 (c), at 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, as nominator. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Sounds like an excellent candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support was leaning oppose due to the 4im, but decided that the warning is actually a good thing. ☺ Puddleglum 2.0 04:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Unfailingly civil, helpful, and competent. --valereee (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Have seen good work and expect to see more good work with the bit. —Kusma (t·c) 06:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support An obviously qualified candidate. I can‘t see anything at the moment that one would object to. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No brainer, good mix of content, administration, tech and diplomacy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Meets my criteria! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Long overdue. –xenotalk 09:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Great all-round skill set, and a very good temperament; model candidate. Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support precious dialogue, linguistic and legal --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seem 'em around, always been impressed, no red/yellow flags. Thanks for standing. GirthSummit (blether) 10:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – At last, a builder! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Possesses all the attributes and experience needed. Loopy30 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support One of my favourite Wikipedia usernames, and I guess he's done a modicum of helping out around the site too ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Following up from that, I'm significantly more supportive after his set of excellent question responses. Nosebagbear (talk)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not before time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support A fantastic editor. Everything we could want: great content, skill and clue. Vexations (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I'm mostly absent from RfA these days, but I couldn't resist this one. You had me at "linguist", but there's a lot more to like ... everything to like. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose They already are one. jk From everything I know about this candidate, they will be a net contributor to the project so I support. buidhe 13:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't interacted with Wugapodes too often, but every time I have he's had the temperament I'd expect from an admin. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Seems like Wugapodes will make a great admin. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've been offline for a couple of days, and when I come back I see three RfAs in progress. And each one is an obvious support just through seeing who the candidate is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Has done great work so far, so no reason to believe they will do anything but great work as an admin. Good luck! -- Tavix (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support One of the good ones. Will definitely be an asset as an admin. Yunshui 雲水 15:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support - You only just pass my criteria. Most of your edits have been in the past eight months, and have only been here for a few years. Aside from that, you seem like a pretty good choice for an admin. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support no worries here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Really a no-brainer on this one. Ifnord (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. We've crossed paths but never swords. Sound, from everything I've seen; and you can never have too many wugs. Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Admins - call us wiki gnomes or the mop and bucket crew - Wugapodes has already been doing fixes and cleaning up to make one thing or another work. His technical expertise helped DYK solve a problem. When DYK grew to the point of having too many nominations to display on a page, he created a secondary page, and bots to move approved nominations to their own page. He monitors that part of the DYK process, so you can count on him to be around when he's needed. DYK aside, Wugapodes has been on Wikipedia long enough, and has good technical skills, that he would make a really good admin. — Maile (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support based on nom statements and my past interactions with the candidate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, without reservation. BD2412 T 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've seen Wugapodes about a few times, and never in a bad way. No concerns that they would misuse the tools. Number 57 23:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, as this nominee is actually one of the few that meets my criteria. Wugapodes not only has a featured article, he has two, and he earned a Four Award for each. In addition, he writes legal articles and uses the Bluebook referencing styles. There appears to be no impediments to his being an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 00:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've seen them around, and have liked what I've seen. As Boing! said, this is an embarrassment of riches. Miniapolis 00:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – no concerns. – bradv🍁 00:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks like another solid candidate though in this case I have no real personal experience with the editor. No red or yellow flags that I could find. Break out the cigars, I think we have another winner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - not a jerk, has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, gladly, per my criteria. Wug is an even-tempered editor who, in my experience (mainly at RFD), typically makes the effort of providing reasoned arguments. I am not keen on Q7 (I prefer a red link to a micro-stub) but, ultimately, one's viewpoint on micro-stubs is not directly linked to one's quality as an admin. And, besides, I genuinely thought he was one already... :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be a solid contributor. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 03:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support great content creation chops, seems to have a clue, and will concentrate in areas they are familiar with. Sounds good to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. Solid candidate – Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nominators-- Deepfriedokra 07:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Wugapodes should make an excellent administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, well qualified, will likely make good use of the tools. the wub "?!" 14:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support seems generally sensible; nothing to make me worry about abuse of tools — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good editor, sensible, has a clue. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support EC: Great candidate, will work well with the tools.
>>BEANS X2t
18:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC) - Support Seems to be a level-headed voice of reason around here. I'm happy to trust them with a few extra buttons. Thank you for volunteering to help out. Ajpolino (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pleased to support. El_C 20:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Decent content contributions, good temperament. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looked at his profile and work, seems good to me. Flalf (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support: an editor with an excellent temperament. Everything else is secondary, but Wugapodes ticks all the boxes I can list: experienced, needs the tools, outstanding content creation, thorough knowledge of policy, has worked in admin areas etc. Seen them around a fair bit and always been impressed by their helpfulness and calmness. — Bilorv (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Kurtis (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I default to supporting unless there's a good reason to oppose, and there isn't one yet. Banedon (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support meets my content creation criteria, seems to have a clue and should do well with the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. epicgenius (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Capable and trusted. AGK ■ 07:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Best of luck. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - another high standard candidate. Orphan Wiki 10:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes please. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per User:Dank. TSventon (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per noms. P-K3 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Great candidate, I've had good interactions with them before and there really isn't much to add that hasn't been said already. I guess I can encourage them to use 2FA and other good security practices since a compromised admin account can be incredibly disruptive, but I'm sure they're aware of that already. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has my trust; will fill a need for more admins paying attention to the MP. SpencerT•C 14:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Very impressive answer to Q8. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Great contributions to content and also to back-stage areas of Wikipedia. Would be a net positive. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've enjoyed working with Wugapodes in the past, and I'm impressed with their answers to the questions. No concerns from me! — MusikAnimal talk 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: And here I thought 'Podes was an admin already... — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think Wugapodes will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thought I’d supported early. Meets my criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen Wugapodes here and there and have always been impressed by their attitude, common sense, and helpfulness. No hesitation in supporting. Plus I always get a grin from their user name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, positive impression gained from seeing Wugapodes' contributions. Cabayi (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's a yes from me, though I have minor concerns about reliability. Looking back at contributions, there are gaps, and there have been several nudges regarding unfinished GA reviews. Everyone's attention can wander now and again, and attendance has been more regular recently, so it's not a serious concern, though it's worth a gentle reminder to Wugapodes that admins per WP:ADMINACCT should remain contactable and/or in touch with Wikipedia if they have performed an admin action that may be questioned. SilkTork (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lulusword (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Under the assumption that the clean start or whatever is not a cover for anything untoward, it seems like a reasonable case for adminship and some research of their edits showed no concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support would make a good admin, no reason to oppose. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support This one is not overdue, their activity has been concentrated in the last eight months, which absent other factors makes me uncomfortable. However, there are other factors. Wugapodes has created very solid content in his time here, and has actively participated in highly visible areas, and in ways that have left me favorably impressed. His answer to Q8 is a classic, and should be required reading. As he has sufficiently demonstrated clue and NOTJERK, I will support this candidacy. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Passes my incredibly difficult, incredibly stringent admin criteria (or is that criterion?), which quite simply, is "don't do anything outrageously stupid".--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has made good progress with GA reviews for Chomsky and Melville. CodexJustin (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the excellent answers to Q8 and Q9. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support can be trusted with a mop, productive user with clear use case --DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent editor.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Good Xtools stats. Glad to see participation on Wikipedia namespace as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns. Nihlus 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - seen this editor around and have no concerns. Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wizardman 22:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the answer to Q8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Candidate is qualified and trustworthy. Also, strong answers to questions. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- A pile-on at this point but particularly impressed by Q8. – Levivich 00:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns and the answer to Q8 really demonstrated some strengths the candidate has. -- Dane talk 01:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns here, Also Q8 says a lot about the candidate which is another reason for this support. –Davey2010Talk 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. — sparklism hey! 13:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Obviously, ∯WBGconverse 13:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Won't wreck everything and per the nominators. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Basically comfortable to go with the flow here as virtually no-one seems to have great concerns.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support because I would like content creators to have an easier time out here. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support·a·po·des. I've seen them around, and have had positive interactions with them. Good editor. content + good attitude + clue = mop — Ched (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ched, ha, I thought about writing that. I expect that the candidate will inform us that it means 'supported by plural tiny feet', which makes me think of The Luggage... GirthSummit (blether) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, a strong candidate. SarahSV (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, great contributor, will be sensible with the tools. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. Some content creation and much BLP experience. Slightly less main space contribution than I would like, but sufficient. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
- Support . Looks good. AfD participation is light, but reviewed !votes look good. Oppose #1 is well answered at Q8 and Q9. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, has a clue, excellent candidate; opposes utterly unconvincing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns, will be an asset. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- Appears to be a qualified candidate. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I see no reason not to support. Has decent contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per others. While I've not worked with them myself (from memory), there seem to be no concerns. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support seems to be a qualified candidate; giving them the tools looks to be a net positive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support another very easy support. Glad to see another highly qualified candidate step up; thank you for volunteering. CThomas3 (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Obviously a no-brainer – excellent editor and candidate. PI Ellsworth ed. put'r there 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns here! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- The candidate has done useful work at DYK, but I didn't realize he was also a fine content creator. Answers to questions above indicate intelligence and maturity. In short, plenty of reasons to support. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Dede2008 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, attitude and competence look great to me. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support- they'll do good things. Kicking222 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'm pleased with what I've seen from this editor. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Quality editor and good answers to the questions. I've encountered this editor at RfD some lately, and while I haven't always agreed with this editor, their contributions there are always sound and policy-based. Hog Farm (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. See them around a lot, and don't remember anything that would set off red lights. Clearly competent, apparently thoughtful, polite, and can read the instructions. Probably even knows who to ask too. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support; a wonderfully wide variety of excellent contributions in many areas. No red flags at all. Great choice to be an administrator. ~ mazca talk 18:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Welcome. Be gentle with the content creators. I have no concerns. Wm335td (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and above. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns here at all-- long overdue. Nomader (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Well qualified and a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I figured I would end up here, from general feels/impressions I have about the editor. After digging about, I'm not finding anything at all that causes me to question the editor's intent or competence. To the contrary, this is a very WP:HERE editor who has the project's best interests in mind, from everything that I see. Calm enough, active enough, content-editing enough, and not too often lolling about in the dramaboards. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strong Oppose Wugapodes first edit was to join a WikiProject. In his first edits he did work on templates. That has all the signs of WP:DUCK. It seems this editor has been around WP before his current account was created and this hasn't been disclosed either at this RFA or on his user page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wugs are birds, but I do not think they are ducks. I’m not sure how extraordinary it is to join a WikiProject as a first edit, given the nature of WikiProjects is to be inviting and are linked from talk pages of topics of interest. As for template familiarity, have you considered posing an optional question if you wish to know about the candidate’s prior wiki experience here or elsewhere? (I see raised in Q8.) –xenotalk 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- They could have edited as an IP before or hey maybe they came from Wikia or Fandom or whatever they are calling themselves these days. @WilliamJE: you should AGF unless you hav actual evidence that indicates otherwise. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was an intermittent IP editor for 6 months or so before creating an account. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- They could have edited as an IP before or hey maybe they came from Wikia or Fandom or whatever they are calling themselves these days. @WilliamJE: you should AGF unless you hav actual evidence that indicates otherwise. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant now after the answer to Q8 but this oppose really should not have been added in the first place. Joining WikiProjects very early is completely normal. I'm not meaning to badger but good faith should definitely have been assumed here. J947 (c), at 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wugs are birds, but I do not think they are ducks. I’m not sure how extraordinary it is to join a WikiProject as a first edit, given the nature of WikiProjects is to be inviting and are linked from talk pages of topics of interest. As for template familiarity, have you considered posing an optional question if you wish to know about the candidate’s prior wiki experience here or elsewhere? (I see raised in Q8.) –xenotalk 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
- Concerned about lack of activity,
just waiting for any opposition justification before deciding on opposing or supporting.Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)- Hi, @Willbb234:, could you clarify what particular sense you mean "lack of activity" - total edit count, edit count in a certain namespace, recent edit count etc? Don't want to start a discussion on it something we already agree on. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: regarding all namespace edits: significant numbers of edits have only been performed fairly recently. I think their total edit count is also a little concerning, but then again this user does lots of content creation so it's understandable. 09:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, @Willbb234:, could you clarify what particular sense you mean "lack of activity" - total edit count, edit count in a certain namespace, recent edit count etc? Don't want to start a discussion on it something we already agree on. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Willbb234 - a bit short on content creation (until recently) for my liking. I would like to be sure that the current level of activity isn't a flash in the pan. Deb (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Deb: I do wonder if you've read the dates correctly; Wugapodes has two four awards from 2016. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that's nice, but most of his contributions are noticeably in the past couple of years, just as Willbb234 commented. If there's one thing an admin needs in large quantities, it's staying power, because once you're there, many contributors go out of their way to try to drag you down.Deb (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Staying power is a valid concern; but my point was that edit-count is a poor proxy for activity and staying power in the case of an editor who managed to get an article to FA in ~60 edits. I won't pester you further, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- And given that we semi-often accept candidates who have a total of only "the past couple of years", I'm curious what Deb is getting at. It's not clear to me how being active for 2+ years and counting equates to evidence of inconsistent, noncommittal participation in the present. Seems to be rather the opposite. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that's nice, but most of his contributions are noticeably in the past couple of years, just as Willbb234 commented. If there's one thing an admin needs in large quantities, it's staying power, because once you're there, many contributors go out of their way to try to drag you down.Deb (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Deb: I do wonder if you've read the dates correctly; Wugapodes has two four awards from 2016. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
General comments
- 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.
QEDK
Final (137/9/3); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 14:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
QEDK (talk · contribs) – Today, I'm nominating a long-term editor that many of you will probably recognize. QEDK has been helping out with various admin tasks for a while now. As a trustworthy and helpful editor, I think it's time we consider promoting QEDK to become an administrator. As a CheckUser, I'm most familiar with QEDK's work as a non-admin clerk at SPI. Although the non-admin clerks do a lot of useful work, they are limited by their inability to block obvious sock puppets or perform history merges. As a perpetually backlogged area, giving trusted clerks more responsibilities can only help. I think you'll agree that QEDK has a demonstrated need for the administrator tools and has shown a willingness to pitch in and help where needed, whether it's dealing with sock puppetry, vandalism, or something as mundane as page moves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Co-nomination
I’m delighted to nominate QEDK for adminship. In fact I’ve been urging him for months to take the plunge; he seems like a natural to me. He is best known as an SPI clerk. He is also a valuable closer of move discussions, having both the page mover right and the skill to perform round robin history swaps. He is familiar with admin-related areas like UAA, AIV, and RfPP - even abuse filters where he is an abusefilter helper. He has a good record at AfD. He’s been here since 2010 and has 19,000 edits. IMO he is definitely ready, and I believe he will be a fine addition to the admin corps. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you MelanieN and NinjaRobotPirate for your kind words and advice. I gladly accept this nomination. I would also like to state that I have never edited for pay (and never will). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: As a long-time clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, I primarily intend to use the administrator tools to block sockpuppets disrupting Wikipedia. I also intend to help out at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, where I have contributed a fair amount of edits and which stay backlogged for long periods of time. I will also work with granting user rights at WP:PERM, primarily with the page mover right, with which I am the most familiar. I close requested moves pretty often and the ability to move over protected pages, and moving over existing history would be helpful.
- As I become more used to the administrator toolset, I also intend to help out at AfD and NPP, where I hope to contribute with improving articles and deleting pages per policy, as the need be. I believe there are always more things to learn and I hope to pick them up as I go. There are also areas like ANRFC, which are in dire requirement of administrative attention, and I hope to contribute more to those areas.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am proud of the stubs I make on endangered and critically-endangered species, such as the Mahé boulder cricket and Paradecolya briseferi. It is fairly hard to find information on these topics but coverage on these endangered species are important, as they are of significant academic interest. I am also proud of the 2019 India doctors' strike article which I created and worked on significantly while the strike was ongoing, I hope to bring it to good article status as soon as I get the time. I have also created and worked on articles such as April 2016 Kabul attack and the Kolkata flyover collapse, both of which were nominated and posted to ITN, which are among some of the ITN candidates I work on before they are posted.
- As a non-administrator, I was involved with the page mover request for comment, userspace draft policy revamp and most recently, MOSMAC3. In my opinion, I believe working to improve the present state of Wikipedia with the general consensus is the way forward and being a part of it is what makes us a part of this community. That also comes with my involvement and interest in the meta-space and policy-formation venues on Wikipedia.
- 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: As a lot of my edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, it is fair to say I have been a witness to various degrees of conflicts in my tenure. I, for one, do not believe that shying away from conflicts can always resolve issues, it is important to get your point across and understand the viewpoints of other editors. That naturally means developing a nuanced approach to how you do things. When I started off, I was definitely less adept at dealing with other editors but I believe I have done better since then and worked to deal with other editors collaboratively.
- One particular incident that I was heavily involved in was the Future Perfect at Sunrise arbitration case request. I believe I would have handled things differently now (even if I had filed an arbitration request). I've recently worked with FPAS on the formation of MOSMAC3 and it was a good and complex experience working with editors of different viewpoints collaborate to reach a positive outcome. Either way, that case ended up resolved by motion and I remember it being quite stressful for me then. I've learnt from the incident and since then, I've learnt to separate my online and real life - and thus, I take frequent breaks and edit when I want to, instead of feeling that I need to. That helps me take the edge off, and being on Wikipedia becomes an enjoyable hobby rather than a daunting task.
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.
- Additional question from SoWhy
- 4. Can you explain this G11 tagging, this edit and this AFD please?
- A: Most of the article was written in a promotional tone and exhibited terms commonly used for puffery. Firstly, taking note that there was no sourcing at all, we can discuss the rest of the article:
Abha Dharampal (now CEO) had won the Best Teacher award
, which Best Teacher award is being referred to is unclear. We have the National Award for Teachers (India) but even if true, the award doesn't exist (in its current verbiage) and can be said to be a promotional claim.Now the school has updated itself into all ac and 24x7 Access
, this statement is clearly intended for advertisement. This is not notable or significant enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia.after which it has consistently been able to get honoured by the International School Award by Cambridge
, comparing with the current article, the awarding institution is wrong and even then, it was for the year 2015-16, which makes this a false promotional claim.- The "Initiatives taken" section is clearly promotional, as evident from the language used —
an additional mode of learning through experiencing...
,USGS educational trips promote learning with enjoyment...
,These are fun trips for interaction...
, etc. - The next section is similar, where we observe language such as:
This is done in a fun-filled, interactive manner...
and...to inculcate essential skills for life
. Known as the famous showcase of extraordinary talent, USGS hosts its annual day in a very prosperous and celebrative way...
is clearly also intended to promote the subject of the article, utilizing promotional language to uplift the image of the school. It goes on to say...proud USGSites display their talent in an innovative way, on the school's playground. This enhances the school's ability to produce entrepreneurs and all-rounders
which is also mostly puffery with no real encyclopedic information.- Finally, there is the "Achievements" section, which is a bulleted list of everything that is positive about the school, whether true or not, but written in a manner of promoting the school:
The 100% computer literacy award.
,Has produced the highest number of toppers in the shortest time frame.
,The school has introduced AS and A level courses ... which has produced world toppers and India toppers.
which are again questionable and unencyclopedic information which may or may not be true but clearly written in a way to produce a good image of the school in question. - To remove all of this promotional tone would constitute a fundamental rewrite of the article in question and hence meet the WP:CSD#G11 criteria.
- Moving on to the Uche Odoputa article, I made a wrong judgement in the assessment of what the "assertion of notability" is. While A7 requires that no notability is asserted, I had tagged it even though a assertion of notability was present, which was a wrong judgement on my part.
- Lastly in the case of the Nail H. Ibragimov article, I also made a wrong judgement in assessing the subject to not meet WP:NPROF. The article, in my opinion, did not meet WP:GNG but certainly did meet WP:SNG as pointed out by my colleagues later on, which was again, a lapse in my judgement.
- I appreciate your advice regarding speedies you gave last year and worked on improving, having zero speedy declines since then. I took time to evaluate each subject with more time, so as to understand my misunderstandings of the criteria (and also, SNGs where applicable). With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Follow-up question
- 4.1. Do you see any other problems with those edits, especially the first two? Would you make them again? If so, why? If not, why not? Regards SoWhy 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- A: Criteria for speedy deletion is a complex policy where every clause has its own meaning and is subject to mistakes in its interpretation. To put it plainly, my latter two edits are definitely lapses in judgement and I would not make them again:
- The Uche Odoputa speedy was challenged and it is generally assumed that if a challenge is speedied, it is better to move to a deletion discussion to determine inclusion. I did not, as I was working under the assumption that the subject surely did not have any "credible claim of significance", due to my misunderstanding of what a credible claim is, as I explained further below. The correct action would have been to submit it to AfD when challenged instead of restoring the tag, I let it be after I was challenged twice. I did some further reading over the next week then and it was indeed correct that sources were not required at all for a credible claim of significance.
- I submitted Nail H. Ibragimov to AfD without following WP:BEFORE, where it would certainly have passed the check for WP:SNGs, as was pointed out by all of my colleagues. The correct action would be a proper application of WP:BEFORE where it would have saved the community's time as well as my own.
- As for the first edit, some editors might consider it bad taste to nominate an article at AfD for speedy deletion, but CSD specifically states:
Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.
Until the article was rewritten completely, sourced with all promotional language removed, the general viewpoint at AfD was for deletion. Per the criterion stated under CSD#G11, the article at the time of nomination met both the cruxes: "exclusively promotional" and "requiring a fundamental rewrite". Furthermore, noting that the article was deleted for meeting the aforementioned criterion by Jimfbleak — all of which indicate it was the correct decision. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC) - I am aware of the mistakes I made and make in the area, and hence, will commit to understanding policies before exercising my administrative tools in this area. I will look to gain sufficient experience before going head-first into making calls on CSD and AfD (as has been pointed out to me before). For now, I hope to contribute to Wikipedia by dealing with sockpuppets and tagging articles for deletion. It is fair to say that I am not a perfect editor but I will actively try to not repeat my old mistakes and welcome all editors to discuss my shortcomings, so as to I am aware of where I should seek to put effort in. -qedk (t 桜 c) 12:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Phil Bridger
- 5. Do you still believe, as you did 8 months ago, that sources are needed to get past speedy deletion criterion A7 and that sources have to be in English to contribute to notability?
- A: If I remember correctly, I said that the sources were not reliable (and leaning on the edge of very unreliable at that) and do not amount to a
"credible claim of signficance"
(emphasis mine). It's the same way that if Breitbart writes a hit piece on Sanders, we do not use it for factual information or anything at all. Sources are not required (but ideal) to establish a credible claim, my belief then was misplaced in the fact that no notability was asserted, which was the lapse in my judgement I cited above, as a credible claim does not need to be sourced in the first place — which would make it ineligible for CSD#A7. - To quote myself,
...quite obvious problem with sources in Czech is that it's infinitely more difficult to ascertain source content and reliability
. I never saidsources have to be in English to contribute to notability
, but I did say,Czech sources (which are in Czech) are barely reliable
, which was owing to my difficult experience with trying to determine reliability of Central European language sources and would much rather utilize only the most reliable and well-known sources. - I do not think that articles need sources to not meet A7, nor that sources have to be in English to contribute to notability, but I think it is often much easier with reliable sources and English sources to pass the two hurdles respectively. I failed in effectively communicating my issues hereto, for which I apologize. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- A: If I remember correctly, I said that the sources were not reliable (and leaning on the edge of very unreliable at that) and do not amount to a
- Additional questions from Carrite
- 6 Have you ever used or are you currently using any other alternate accounts, or is this your only Wikipedia account?
- A: Currently, I am not using any alternate accounts. I retain access to only two alternate accounts, QEDKbot and AnkitBot. I used to have a döppelganger account c. 2015, which I requested to be vanished (it had no edits), I do not possess the credentials for that account (username or password). --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- 7. I notice from your edit history an uneven record of participation, including a number of multi-month dry spells in which you edited very little or not at all at En-WP, including, for example, a total of 50 edits for the four month period May through August 2018, and a total of 24 edits for June through November 2015. What was the cause of these (and other unlisted) pauses from very active editing? Do you anticipate being a very active editor moving forward, as you have been over the last year or so?
- A: Most of times I am on a hiatus are due to real-life commitments. To answer your question, the reason I was inactive in the 2018 period you cited was because of multiple reasons: coursework, events and family issues. The 2015 hiatus was due to complications with an Inspire program (Wikimedia project) which I was eventually not a part of, as well as ensuing coursework. Feel free to ask me to elaborate if you so require. I can surely make a commitment to be active, I've been moderately active every year I've been on the English Wikipedia (excepting 2010) and I hope I can continue doing the same. It is important to take note of the fact that we are all volunteers and we all have other commitments to attend to, Wikipedia should be a place where you enjoy contributing and not a place where you are compelled to edit, that is my opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from John M Wolfson
- 8. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
- A: From my experience, school websites will typically not have copyright status mentioned or have something along the lines of "All rights reserved". That would mean that it is copyright infringement to have the aforementioned content in the article, hence making it eligible for WP:CSD#G12 criterion (unless the content is explicitly released under public domain or a compatible license). The most pertinent criterion that would definitely not apply would be WP:CSD#A7, as entailed here and, non-article namespace and redirect speedy deletion criteria.
- Other criteria that should not apply would be (in order of relevance):
- G6 (technical deletions), G13 (abandoned drafts and AfC submissions), G14 (unnecessary disambiguation pages)
- A5 (transwikied articles), A9 (unimportant musical recording), A11 (obviously invented), X2 (created by the content translation tool)
- May not apply (in order of relevance):
- A1 (no context), A3 (no content), if copied information cannot be used to determine context and if copied information is not any content but links, etc. respectively.
- G9 (office), if deletion is via a takedown notice served to WMF Legal.
- G1 (patent nonsense), G2 (test page), G3 (vandalism and hoaxes), G10 (attack page), unlikely that the website would contain content of this manner but if the page was indiscriminately copied, it is possible.
- A10 (duplicate article), if another article on the school already exists.
- A2 (foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project), less plausible since copyvios cannot exist on any WMF project per Terms of Use, but a lot of projects have weaker copyvio auditing than the English Wikipedia, so a possibility nonetheless.
- The following criteria can also apply (again in order of relevance):
- G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), it is very likely that website content will be promotional as that is the sole intention of the website, it seeks to promote the subject of the article.
- G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page), if the said article has a talk page, it can be deleted under G8 should the article also qualify for speedy deletion.
- Apart from the above, G4 (recreation of deleted material), G5 (creation by blocked/banned users) and G7 (author requests deletion) can apply in their respective cases.
- I hope that covers it, feel free to ask me to elaborate on any of the above rationales or point out if there's anything that I might have missed. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- 9. Is office.bomis.com an appropriate username?
- A: Per WP:UPOL, "office.bomis.com" can be classified as a promotional username (WP:ORGNAME, since the URL/name of the company is the username) as well as usernames implying shared use (WP:ISU, since the username is the URL/name of the company with no singular person specified), thus making this an inappropriate username. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Atsme
- 10. Why would anyone not support you for adminship? Atsme Talk 📧 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- A: It is not often that I'm asked to sabotage my own ship, but heck, why not. At the risk of being too honest, I can say with absolute certainty, I will not be the perfect administrator, I will almost certainly protect the the right (wrong) version and I will make mistakes. But the commitment I can make is to make sure that I listen to everyone who pitches in to tell me where I'm going wrong and work actively to correct it.
- Right now, I do not think that I am the perfect embodiment of what an editor on Wikipedia should be, and I probably won't be in the future, but I've gotten here only because I read and I listened. Sometimes, you just have to be boring and slow and realize that even if the greater purpose is the improvement of the encyclopedia, you should enjoy what you are doing. So that's what I'll keep doing. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 17:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from SilkTork
- 11. Looking back at Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_36#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_11_December_2019, and at the sources used: [1] for the statue and [2] for the production delay, do you still feel that the request to present that material in a more neutral, informative and balanced manner was achieved? Looking again, do you feel that the section as it still stands, follows WP:NPOV or is it, as the requester is suggesting, pointing the reader to a negative conclusion by leaving out valuable information and by presenting the media's implications in Wikipedia voice as fact? SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Added: Our article on the rescheduled show, MJ: The Musical, uses this source to explain the delay: [3], which uses the same reason as the NYT, though omits the implication by association that the cancellation was due to the sexual allegations. One (or both) articles are therefore potentially incorrect. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- A: In a way, everything we write is inherently biased, in the way that we all have pre-formed notions that subsist without us wanting to or not. The English Wikipedia is biased towards whatever the majority of its editors want it to be. It is probably most prevalent in the Manual of Style, where stylizations can be be based on arbitrariness or sometimes, a very planned logical path as well. In that regard, an absolute neutral point of view is probably impossible to attain. What we can do, ofcourse, is to try our best to achieve NPOV in that regard. I've encountered a lot of edit requests which state, "If you're gonna state X, state Y as well" to which my de-facto reply has always been to ask for reliable sources for the same. If the editor provides the same, all good, or else, I certainly will not include it, and I certainly will not remove the already reliably sourced information. NPOV is important, but it does not make sense to do so over losing verifiability. In this particular case, the current section as it stands is completely verifiable and as such, does not violate NPOV. The crux of the edit request was to remove the part regarding the delayed musical as it was scheduled in 2020, which was probably a mix-up, which I fixed, as it referred to the developmental lab. The part regarding the statue is a direct quote from a reliable source and would have made no sense to remove reliably sourced information to accomodate the passionate fans of Michael Jackson. To me, the truth is the NPOV, and reliable sources are the closest I can get to truth, apart from actually knowing it.
- Conflict between sources is fairly prevalent in articles, and a lot of the times inclusion of all information available is not possible. I encountered this problem with April 2016 Kabul attack and 2019 India doctors' strike where multiple sources would report the same incident differently. The ideal way is to evaluate the best sources at hand, and if the sources are all generally reliable, it probably makes sense to pick the latest report. If the sources are generally reliable and it is possible to include two viewpoints which aren't directly contradictory, it also makes sense to include some or most of them. Local (or regional) sources of whose reliability is doubtful can be included for those areas where we are getting a generally reliable source as well. It probably makes sense to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. In this certain case however, I would certainly rank a NYT report over a Broadway.com piece, especially when the NYT report was written by Michael Paulson, who was part of the Boston Globe team whose coverage of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.
- Many apologies for the long-winded answer, but I hope that covered all bases. Feel free to ask me to clarify. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for QEDK: QEDK (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for QEDK 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
- Trusted user. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has clue, no issues. I am particularly impressed with his recent work in establishing templates and user messages for partial blocks, a feature that I have long supported. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Was waiting for this. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 13:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve been hoping for this for a while. QEDK is a sensible user who will make good use of the tools. He’s consistently a stable and independent voice in community discussions, and in the areas he works in is trusted. Giving him the tools would be nothing but a net-positive for the community, and I’m extremely happy to support. We need more administrators who are willing to be independent voices, and I’m confident QEDK will be one. I look forward to him being on the team. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've seen them about the place, and no concerns. — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- SPI clerk is, on its own, a functional demonstration of "has a clue", and I've not seen QEDK being a jerk, so happy to support. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't usually support a candidate who "confesses" ;) to writing
one of the worse sentences ever
[FBDB] but their total and utter reasonableness concerning the matter and swift movement to resolve it is an object lesson in why QEDK is worthy of the tools. Technical ability to wield them—while important—is irrelevant compared with the attitude and composure to do so positively and productively. As it goes, I would've supported them anyway, but it's very pleasant indeed to have an example of the qualities they need, demonstrated so willingly and casually. Incidentally, and for the record, I find the opposes unconvincing. ——SN54129 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC) - Oppose. They are already an admin. (Wait ... am I wrong?) Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes And I am quite fond of partial blocks to boot. Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support "Already an admin"(TM). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support on grounds of"what do you mean you aren't an admin already?" Competent, plays well with others, no major issues I'm aware of. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, {{subst:thoughtyouwereone}} ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Surprised support. —Kusma (t·c) 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- 100000000% Support (pretty much the Strongest support ever given to a person in the existence of this universe[Citation needed][let's be honest, it doesn't :)]). Didn't even have to read the nominations to jump straight to support. Literally all it took was for me to read "QEDK" on the RfX report for me to support. Never disagreed with QEDK on any admin assistance matter at SPI. If I have not already made it clear I support him, then read the above again. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- And to clarify, I see QEDK as a trustworthy editor, who 100% needs the tools. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly one of our most trustworthy users. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Other than being a competent editor, having to receive the EFH right requires a great amount of technical experience and general knowledge on Wikipedia. And then the amount of trust this user right requires. I think these are the reasons why everyone is calling QEDK an admin already. Jerm (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support as co-nom. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Hard to find any minimal issue + We need more admins from India/S.E. Asia. ∯WBGconverse 15:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'm kind of new here but from what I've seen he seems like a really nice guy and a good candidate for admin. Flalf (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- 'Support per Dreamy Jazz. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Been hoping for this for a long while! A good voice who can be trusted to use the tools positively. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent work in sockpuppet investigations. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Absolutely, very good and trusted user. Good luck. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - a long awaited RFA! Cabayi (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure thing. — 🦊 16:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support- Won't break the project. I say hand the mop. Aloha27 talk 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has a clear need for the tools and will be an asset on the admin team. Schwede66 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Trusted and experienced editor, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have seen them working at SPI and think they do a good job. They have been responsible with their current toolset, and I think they would continue that with the admin tools. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Valid concerns have been raised in the general comments about the nominator's subtle wrongthink, but I can overlook this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, seen them around (esp. AIV), and no concerns. Great to have admins from India/SE Asia. Britishfinance (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support A level-headed editor who has a clear need for the tools. And I've been saying this a lot recently, but dang I thought they already were an admin...CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Definitely competent enough to use the tools responsibly. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – certainly a net positive. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yes, please! OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Another "Wait aren't they an admin"? nomination. Definitely will be a good hand. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have followed QEDK's work for several years now and have been in nearly all cases thoroughly impressed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. 'bout time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - another one I was looking forward to. Excellent candidate, clue and temperament and all that. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Ah, shoot. @QEDK: What a bad time for me to have gone on a semi-wikibreak. I missed out on being the first support!
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Good answers to questions. I've seen them around, and like what I've seen. Miniapolis 23:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Passes all my RfA standards as far as I can tell, and I have enough direct experience of the candidate to trust with the tools. The anti-sock work is a big plus; if one is going to get right into the "policing", that (on today's WP versus, say, in 2005) is where to focus. I'm not concerned with months-ago CSD interpretation glitches; that stuff is easy to get right with some "study", especially after previous errors are learned from. Good temperament and clearly here to work on an encyclopedia, not to generate drama (matters a lot to me). Does enough content work for me, even if not a GA/FA churner (we need stubs turned into proper articles far more than we need people polishing chrome on great articles to make them "extra-great"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport per SMcCandlish, per nom statements (These are two admins I am in awe of.) Per other support rationales. One should know how to pace oneself. Still a net positive. Seen 'm around. ANd, adminship needn't be a big deal. Oh, I just had an issue concerning regionalism. So, per Winged Blades of Godric as well-- a rare and precious gift.-- Deepfriedokra 23:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)*
- Support Qualified, trusted and well suited for adminship. If QEDK turns out to be operating a UPE ring I will eat my shoes. Vexations (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Another very solid candidate with no red or yellow flags and an impressive history of contributions to the project. Almost certain to be a net positive with the tools. The two opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well-qualified and all-around candidate. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Will be a net positive to the project as an admin. SportingFlyer T·C 03:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- QEDK should enhance the project thanks to their experience and positive disposition. It would be a pleasure to have them be a sysop here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - .will put the admin tools to good use and help build the encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support; I'm concerned about the answer to the G11 part of Q4, as G11 is supposed to be for pages that are
exclusively promotional
. However, I am confident that QEDK will be a net positive to the admin corps. J947 (c), at 04:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC) - Support - most likely to be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clear need for the tools, very active and trusted in areas where they could be put to good use. GirthSummit (blether) 10:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Have no issues, seems to benefit from the tools. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support They alredy have proven themselves with the bucket, they can carrry the mop. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've been offline for a couple of days, and when I come back I see three RfAs in progress. And each one is an obvious support just through seeing who the candidate is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any glaring issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No red flags observed. So why the hell not? Celestina007 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support for easily meeting my minimums and nothing convincing seen in opposing !votes. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Willing to accept criticism with civility and admit mistakes is huge. --valereee (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, definitely a good choice. BD2412 T 22:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support has a clue, clearly responds well to criticism. I'm not thrilled with their response to question #5, but not to the point where I think it's necessary to oppose. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – clear need for the tools, and well qualified. – bradv🍁 00:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Long-time trusted editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - not a jerk, has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Definitely, it's time when one should replace their set of permissions with sysop. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Easy decision. Orphan Wiki 10:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns here. the wub "?!" 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Level-headed. El_C 19:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, will be a useful admin. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEANS X2 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Long overdue Razer(talk) 19:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - If the SPI folks trust him with the admin tools, I'm happy to trust their judgment. Thanks for volunteering to help out. Ajpolino (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: clear use for the tools and seeing no temperament concerns or other issues. — Bilorv (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Kurtis (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support One of the few names that are "I thought he's an admin already". OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support All the best. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Capable and trusted. AGK ■ 07:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Friendly, and can be trusted with the tools. Rehman 16:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the reason you think QEDK is already an admin is because of all the work he's shouldering at SPI. There's been a hanger for him in the mop closet for years, he just needed to ask. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clear need and qualification for the tools. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The times I've seen QEDK around, I've found them to have generally good judgment. Doing a bit of research before supporting just confirmed as much. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I've always found QEDK to be a reasonable editor, and believe he will be a fair and thoughtful administrator. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - We need more admins who realize that their judgment is not perfect, but who are able to perform at a high level, even when scrutinized by admins who believe their own judgement to be perfect. - MrX 🖋 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Positive interactions with the candidate at AIV; will be a great benefit to the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - competent editor; no concerns from me. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No apparent issues. Best of luck in your new role! – Juliancolton | Talk 21:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good stats on AfD, comfortable on Wikipedia namespace pages, etc. Seems to have a clue. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support. No major issues, but the number of instances that they got policies wrong makes me wonder. I'd rather see them not close deletion discussions for the time being, perhaps for another 3 months or so, while actively learning about the process. — kashmīrī TALK 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, valid need for advanced tools, seems trustworthy. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns and I thought they were already an admin! -- Dane talk 01:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Adding the tolls to QEDK's repertoire will be a benefit to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Sir Joseph (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I like the candidate's answers to 4.1 and 10, which indicate an ability to reflect and learn from their mistakes. Also, I haven't looked at the templates specifically, but I like the template work cited by User talk:Ritchie333. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This is useful editor. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, a trusted editor. SarahSV (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support absolutely, a long time coming. Convincing answer on Q10 as well. SITH (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support and happy to have the opportunity. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, working in areas that are difficult without the full toolkit for so long is something to be lauded, looks like a sensible editor who will be a plus amongst the mopsters. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – valuable addition. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
- Support. 4550 mainspace edits is good. AfD accuracy is very high, !votes seem OK, the high proportion of "delete" !votes is surely a simple selection bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I got to know QEDK a bit during SPI clerk training and occasionally on some Arbitration related matters. While we have not necessarily agreed on absolutely everything, I have found QEDK's input thoughtful and helpful. I think QEDK would make a fine administrator. Mkdw talk 02:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Oh, hell yeah. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, has a clue, great candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - experienced editor. Tolly4bolly 11:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns, will be an asset. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Some of the oppose comments gave me pause. However I think the candidate will address those concerns. QEDK is a net positive - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - will be a strong net positive for the project. CThomas3 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've seen them around and only seen good work. Clear net positive. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Clueful, good RfC closures. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I actually thought this user was already an administrator. Definite net positive; plus, we need more administrators. (On that note, I also regret not voting on the RFA that closed earlier today.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suport Sro23 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport. And congratulations on your becoming a 10-year vet this upcoming May! PI Ellsworth ed. put'r there 09:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport. As above. Loopy30 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per handling and answering to Q4 re the G11 at the time of my !vote here: [4]. The CSD of a long standing article is generally not to be preferred and when it is at WP:AFD it can almost be seen as an attempt to !supervote bypassing, albeit there will be admin scrutiny, and that CSD at AfD is permitted. Problems with the answer includes not noting historic versions has been considered, not considering it was at AfD and not considering the article was retained after improvement. Would like to see a lack of concerns in the CSD/AfD this area over a period of six months when I might support a renom. Although I oppose I note others of standing support the candidate so candidate is likely doing a lot of good work and wish to support candidate generally in that; I just consider this area to be important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Poor understanding of the deletion system, as brought out by the questions by SoWhy & Phil Bridger, especially in concert with limited content contributions (eg started two stubs & a start in 2019). I'm particularly unimpressed with the speedy–prod–AfD in May–June 2019 on Nail H. Ibragimov, a mathematician whose notability is apparent from the start. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Espresso Addict. I cannot support a candidate who does not appear to have a firm grasp of our speedy deletion policies. P-K3 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Espresso Addict. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the concerns shared by the above. My own searches (e.g. recent CSD of Utpal Shanghvi Global School (While an AfD was on),
Jim Boucherand others) leads me to think that the candidate cannot be fully trusted with admin tools at this time. I do believe that we should have more admins from other time zones, but that should not come at the cost of quality of adminship. If the RfA succeeds, I would suggest the user to not use the admin bits in speedy deletions.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC) (updated) 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)- Hello DBigXray, can you tell me the issue with my CSD nomination of Jim Boucher, if that's alright with you? --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. I failed to notice this was another version. The deleted version is not visible to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No worries!
--qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I checked it, and can confirm it was obvious promotion. Definitely a good G11 tag. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Boucher is already struck. Thanks for checking the deleted version. In addition to the CSDs, there are problems with AfDs as well. Superficially the AfD log looks quite impressive, but digging deep into all the votes in AfDs of last six months I find most being piling up /WP:JUSTAPOLICY type votes. AfD/2019 Hauz Qazi clash was interesting case that was spammed with Keep from IPs/SPAs and QEDK also piled on with a keep but all other experienced editors unanimously voted Delete. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I fail to see your point. WP:AADD is just an arbitrary collection of arguments that some editors think other editors should avoid, there is no reason to think that's a valid argument for stating any argument in a certain way. It is not a bad essay but to follow it blindly without a grain of salt is cause for concern. WP:JUSTAPOLICY is probably the most fallacious, since while writing a reasonable summary can help, if you do not point out which exact policy the article is failing or passing, it is probably equivalent to saying "I want to keep/delete this article" without stating the reason why this encyclopedia should keep or not keep it. I also categorically contest your claim that most of my votes are pile-on, here's just a spot check of the most recent five:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veena Nandakumar (did not just a policy, did not pile-on, first vote)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telecel Group (did not just cite a policy, did not pile-on, second vote)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishalgoswami (did not just cite policy, did not pile-on, first vote)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peshawar Model Degree Colleges (Boys-Girls) (did not just cite policy, did not pile-on, first vote)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asen Albayrak (cited the single-most relevant SNG, did not pile-on, second vote)
- It is possible that some of my very old votes at AfD are pile-on, but I've never done so in a manner that is against policy, I also do not see the general argument in dissing all pile-on votes (although stat-padding is legitimate concern), every editor cannot be the first or second to make an argument or vote in an AfD. Coming to address your concern about the AfD you cited, multiple experienced editors were also on the "Keep" side of the arguments, some of them switched sides later, I just never returned to the AfD. I just considered it to be of general newsworthiness at the time I was aware of the news reports (which gradually turned out to be pretty much nothing), I just didn't go back to change my vote even though the general incident had died down, since I was preoccupied with other things. I do not appreciate the insinuations you make when you state
..was interesting case that was spammed with Keep from IPs/SPAs and QEDK also piled on with a keep..
, I'd rather appreciate you state your concerns directly and I'll be sure to clear it up for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I fail to see your point. WP:AADD is just an arbitrary collection of arguments that some editors think other editors should avoid, there is no reason to think that's a valid argument for stating any argument in a certain way. It is not a bad essay but to follow it blindly without a grain of salt is cause for concern. WP:JUSTAPOLICY is probably the most fallacious, since while writing a reasonable summary can help, if you do not point out which exact policy the article is failing or passing, it is probably equivalent to saying "I want to keep/delete this article" without stating the reason why this encyclopedia should keep or not keep it. I also categorically contest your claim that most of my votes are pile-on, here's just a spot check of the most recent five:
- Boucher is already struck. Thanks for checking the deleted version. In addition to the CSDs, there are problems with AfDs as well. Superficially the AfD log looks quite impressive, but digging deep into all the votes in AfDs of last six months I find most being piling up /WP:JUSTAPOLICY type votes. AfD/2019 Hauz Qazi clash was interesting case that was spammed with Keep from IPs/SPAs and QEDK also piled on with a keep but all other experienced editors unanimously voted Delete. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- No worries!
- Thanks, struck. I failed to notice this was another version. The deleted version is not visible to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello DBigXray, can you tell me the issue with my CSD nomination of Jim Boucher, if that's alright with you? --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per [5] That's a non-admin closure of something which is inches away from ANI, far from "consensus".
WT:WikiProject Ships#Capitalisation (yet again)
Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat#Requested move 12 January 2020
Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat#Requested move 20 October 2013
Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) - Oppose Very low article creation, and high delete !votes count at AfD and a rather uninspiring 25% participation in main space. An administrator should be a content and editor protector: creating content and protecting content shows that an editor is here for that purpose. We are creating an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This user is experienced, however this is as per the concerns regarding deletion above and although this user wants to help out in SPI, they handled an SPI case I opened a few years ago rather poorly in my view. I was unsure whether to support or oppose at first but these issues are rather concerning, enough so to oppose. Sorry. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. The answers to Q4 are too disturbing to support this comfortably. The candidate seems to have completely missed the fact that speedy deletion is only applicable if all revisions are eligible for speedy deletion and with the G11 example, they spent a lot of time analyzing the current state at the time of their tagging but no time on the state it was before. With the A7 one, I expected a clear acknowledgment that anyone except the creator can in good faith remove a speedy tag, even if it was correct. That said, the candidacy looks solid otherwise and the candidate has indicated no desire to venture into CSD anytime soon and appears capable enough to learn the required skills. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral doesn't meet my content creation expectations and am also concerned about the answers to Q4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning to support I am a bit concern with the mistake made to nominate Nail H. Ibragimov for deletion, as I found it a bit hasty. Otherwise, it seems that the candidate has a solid history on SPI and will be a good addition. Lulusword (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
General comments
- Oh... just amused that NinjaRobotPirate believes adminship to be a promotion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see the point. However, in the context of SPI, where QEDK can't yet see deleted revisions and has to ask for action instead of being able to implement it, it's probably a very useful technical promotion indeed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance, Winged Blades of Godric, both of you have stated that they are from India/SE Asia. May I know from where does this info come from? Their userpage does not say anything, did they declare this elsewhere ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not very comfortable answering this, absent self-disclosures. ∯WBGconverse 12:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- DBigXray, read the userpage again, more carefully this time. Cabayi (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric, I was curious to know if they had already disclosed it somewhere, that I am not aware of. If the candidate has not publicly disclosed it, then the linking in your
commentvote above was inappropriate in itself. Cabayi, Thank you. Got it. DBigXrayᗙ 17:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric, I was curious to know if they had already disclosed it somewhere, that I am not aware of. If the candidate has not publicly disclosed it, then the linking in your
- 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.
Nick Moyes
Final: (180/3/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) – If you're not familiar with the work of Nick Moyes, it is my great pleasure to introduce him to you. I first looked into Nick sometime about a year ago, and everything I saw was and has been stellar. He's got a lot of experience at AIV and UAA alongside a killer AfD percentage, but I'd like to talk more about how incredibly thoughtful Nick is. Whether it's excellent and well informed arguments at AfD or extensive help at the teahouse, he's got a good sense for the values that are important and a kind, level head that I always appreciate hearing from. You can see the signs at his ORCP from nearly two years ago - this is a long time coming.
Nick always makes an effort to explain himself at AfD, and does well and with clear understanding of policies and what makes this project good. This is one of the first I noticed, but there are plenty recent examples that show considered attention to the important and relevant factors and policies at AfD. He's honest and transparent, and, my word, is he just excellent with new folks. Nick is a prolific Teahouse contributor, and his ORCP responses cited his great work there. I've got a few favorite examples (1, 2, 3) of superb help for folks that went above-and-beyond the necessary, but what's rare for many is the norm for Nick; this is his typical behavior and it's exactly what we want in a sysop. He's a kind and thoughtful editor who has the right values and commitment with a wealth of experience; he'd be a huge help with the sysop tools on day one, so I hope you'll join me in supporting this request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Co-nomination
It's been a long time coming, but good administrator candidates wait until they're absolutely ready, and so it is with Nick. I originally approached him two years ago when I suggested his useful comments and polite demeanour meant he should give RfA a go. His AfD track record is one of the best I have seen in any candidate here - out of over 250 debates, he matched consensus more than 90% of the time (well over, if discounting "no consensus" closes, and what's left over is largely "noise" like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 11), and that's with a significant chunk of "keep" !votes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Goold. He is capable of writing a significant amount of content, such as the GA Mont Blanc massif, creating Émile Rey from scratch, and graciously helping out at Coropuna, where he politely but regrettably opposed its promotion to FA. He's one of the most prolific contributors to the Teahouse, and regularly helps out there - no less an authority than Cullen328 is happy to trust his judgement; what better endorsement of his polite and helpful treatment to newbies could one ask for? Many of you will have seen him on project and policy pages, helpfully giving his opinion and frequently making insightful comments. He's also not afraid to criticise our existing policies and help pages where appropriate and suggest alternatives, such as User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. In short, Nick has all the attributes we want in an administrator - a strong understanding of policy, a civil and polite attitude, and an ability to diffuse difficult situations and keep the project moving forward. He has my full support for RfA and I hope you agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Co-nomination
I first came across Nick, as many others do, giving advice to newbies at the teahouse. I cannot recall the precise instance (he has made over 2500 edits there) but I do remember being impressed with the patience and policy knowledge he demonstrated. After investigating his background, I found he also has a stellar record at AfD, where he could make good use of the tools. He has also done some solid content work, with a majority of his contributions being to mainspace, and while he largely avoid the drama boards, on the few occasions he has ventured there it is to make a thoughtful and perceptive comment. I suggested he request a mop some five months ago, and I'm glad he's decided to take the plunge. I hope you will join me in supporting his request. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and, as my userpage COI declaration states, yes, I realise with hindsight that I did do paid editing when I started back in 2010. I was a professional museum curator and, purely on my own volition, I chose to create content about topics I had expertise and resources on (e.g. Matlockite). I was at the end of my museum career, and the start of my Wikipedia one. I admit I had no idea in those early days that editing without a clear declaration was against policy; my apologies for that. I left the museum profession in March 2011. More recently, I have accepted small fees for lecturing on Wikipedia, or expenses for helping to run Editathons, but I would never take any form of payment for editing which could conceivably be construed as a conflict of interest. In 2017 I created an alternative account (User:NM Demo) in order to test and create screenshots as a teaching resource, or for Commons.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I am currently most active helping new users at the Teahouse and monitoring Special:RecentChanges for bad faith edits. At the former I would find it useful to be able to view deleted content in order to help editors understand why their work has been removed, or to take further action if necessary. In anti-vandalism, being able to directly block vandals (after relevant warnings), responding to reports at WP:AIV or WP:UAA would be helpful. I would learn how to revdel personal content that inexperienced users have unwittingly posted about themselves (prior to requesting a follow-up by oversight), or other edits that are grossly offensive or which breach copyright (per WP:CRD), as not every admin I’ve sought help from has been familiar with the process.
- As my experience/confidence grows as an admin, I would look to develop skills in other areas. I would probably monitor some of the simpler sections at CAT:ADMINBACKLOG, and continue watching and learning at WP:ANI and at WP:AN for areas I could contribute to, and would continue some involvement at WP:AFD. Longer term, I’m aware that copyright and DYK needs more admin input and, further still, I find SPI/checkuser work of potential interest, but know nothing about it right now. I would, of course, seek to fully understand any new process before contributing, and would follow guidance and seek help, as appropriate. As I see it, the purpose of using relevant parts of the toolset is to both protect the encyclopaedia and to support and encourage editors in their efforts to create good content that everyone can access.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have tried to contribute across a broad spectrum of Wikipedia activities, so as to learn as much as I can. In 2011 I was proud of making Derby Museum and Art Gallery the first UK provincial museum to introduce QRpedia codes to a public gallery (with honourable mentions by both Jimbo Wales (link) and Wittylama). See my user page for relevant videos.
- In 2016 I took this simple list of alpine summits and turned it into a GA status article about the Mont Blanc massif. It was a labour of love, and I also created the map graphics. Doing so taught me a lot, and also enabled me to intellectually revisit many of the range's glaciers and major summits that I had scaled over a mountaineering career spanning thirty years. (I will be taking the article back for FA review later this year.)
- I have been proud for the last two years to be able to contribute as one of the helpful, friendly and supportive faces of Wikipedia at the Teahouse, and have also adopted two excellent, committed new editors under WP:AAU. One was a schoolgirl; the other is a retired geology professor. I do my best to support, protect and encourage young editors, sometimes requiring a few firm words. I find it sad when some go too far and end up blocked, so I do try my best to advise and steer where I can. Guiding and helping others to learn is something I find hugely satisfying, and in that way am proud to do my bit to encourage the next generation of Wikipedia editors and potential administrators. Without them our project will stagnate.
- 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 try to be a calm, supportive editor, assuming WP:AGF. I have little interest in editing on politics/living people/sports/popular culture (preferring the sciences or geography), so my own content creation rarely gets me into conflict. But one can hardly avoid minor conflicts or exasperation when doing administrative chores, such as preventing vandalism, removing POV editing, or trying to be fair but firm to new editors who fail to understand what they're doing is not OK (example thread).
- I have only been really stressed once in my ten years here, but that was because I was the one to make a serious error of judgement by wrongly (and repeatedly) accusing another editor of adding copyrighted content whilst I was otherwise helping them at the Teahouse. A second experienced editor supported my accusation. So, I was mortified when a third editor pointed out they were innocent on that matter. After checking and realising my mistake, I made strenuous efforts, both at the Teahouse see full thread and on their talk page to directly apologise. It’s irrelevant that the editor was blocked as a sock soon after; I was in the wrong, and I could not rest until I had tried to make amends for my mistake. It was a valuable lesson in AGF, and I have tried to be extra careful since then. But when I make mistakes I will always say sorry.
- Of the very few conflicts I encounter, most if not all result through monitoring Special:RecentChanges and reverting vandalism or bad edits. In March 2018 I came close to an edit war with an IP editor over their repeated removal of all content, bar one short sentence, about the ship, Naeraberg. Initially it seemed like blanking or vandalism, and both times I reverted, leaving templated warnings with additional explanatory comments, but soon realised the IP was asserting the article had conflated information on two ships of identical name, and thus it had become a complex content dispute. I deleted my warnings and reinstated the blanked content with a clear edit summary and started investigating. I then explained my concerns directly on the IP editor's talk page (diff), outlining my concern about edit warring; the need to discuss, plus my intent to reinstate the content one final time to permit talk page discussion about it. Having posted my concerns on the article's Talk Page (diff), I added back the blanked content once more, plus a 'disputed' template template. I also pinged an editor and contacted an admin (diff) both of whom previously worked on the article, explaining to the admin my concerns about 3RR. Next day, the IP blanked content again, thus breaching WP:3RR. As I would have too, I backed off, leaving this dummy edit, and relied on subsequent article talk page discussion to resolve the matter, which it eventually did with the involvement of more knowledgeable editors.
- I have, of course, had the odd foul-mouthed abuse (dealt with in this thread), and implied threats (now revdeled), but these are easily handled by remaining calm and polite, waiting a while before replying, and following procedure. As for the future, I hope my attitudes to others won’t change. I have signed up to WP:OFWV and I will apologise whenever I foul up. I'm prepared to call out another editor if I see our standards slipping, and I hope others will treat me likewise.
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.
- Additional question from LindsayH
- 4. As you are so active at the Teahouse (a place i confess i'm not sure i've ever visited), i hope you have an opinion: What is the best thing we can do to encourage new editors to stay and be active? I'm wondering about either "we" the community or each of us as individuals. Thank you.
- A: Thank you for your question. If you seek just one short answer, I would have to say it is: “be supportive to new editors”.
- Going further, I would ask individual editors always to try their best always to understand the newcomer’s perspective in this strange and complex place and assume good faith. Most, but not all, editors come here with the aspiration of improving this encyclopaedia; not scaring them away is paramount to them staying around as useful contributors. First impressions really count. So welcoming, guiding and offering help or support is crucial. Here is a recent example where I approached a new female editor, specifically with a view of making them feel welcome and sticking around. Not befuddling new users with complex acronyms, or assuming that they know all the rules, and not leaving overly harsh templated messages for minor errors is paramount to them staying around and active. Giving ‘thanks’ for a constructive edit is also part of a positive feedback loop, though I confess I probably don’t do that as often as I could.
- As a community, the best thing "we" can do is to set a good example by the way we interact with one another (WP:5P4 and WP:BITE apply here). We could do more to keep our help and guidance pages up-to-date, succinct and accessible (the 2017 WMF switch to "Publish changes" was a bit of mess, which took some cleaning up). Supporting and enhancing our resources like WP:HD; WP:TH, WP:WER and even WP:AAU, and supporting research into editor welcoming and retention are also important.
- I could write an essay on this subject as it is dear to my heart! I am happy to expand more, should you wish.
- Additional question from Reyk
- 5. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?
- A:The short answer is Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- I say this because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which collates and presents factual statements, published elsewhere, about Notable subjects. We do not publish original research nor promote unfounded stories and allegations. Thus, everything that we place here must be checkable by any user, wherever they may be. From that one essential policy (WP:V) stems many other key policies. The next most important ones of which I would say are WP:BLP (to protect living people from falsehoods), WP:NPOV to ensure the content we present to readers is unbiased and reliable, and WP:COPYRIGHT to protect the legal rights of others.
- Additional question from John M Wolfson
- 6. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
- A:: I will answer this in two ways if I may, John? First, I’ll specifically address your question, then I’d like to explain how I would hope to act on seeing such an article put up for speedy deletion.
- Of greatest concern is the potential copyright infringement. If a check of the school’s website showed no CC_BY_SA release statement, the content is unacceptable for Wikipedia.
- WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) is therefore the most appropriate speedy deletion criterion.
- The following are other criteria which, in descending order of likelihood, might - under very specific circumstances - also be added to create a ‘multiple’ reasoned CSD nomination.
- WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) - depending upon what had been copied over.
- WP:G4 (Recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion) might apply if the content were very similar to a previously AFD-ed page about this school.
- WP:G5 (Creation by a banned/blocked user)
- WP:G7 (Author asks for deletion) – i.e. they’ve realised their error in creating the page and want it removing.
- None of the other CSD General criteria would apply to this article, i.e.patent nonsense (WP:G1); a test page (WP:G2); a hoax (WP:G3); a technical deletion (WP:G6); Office action (WP:G9); harassment (WP:G10); abandoned pages (WP:G13), or irrelevant DAB page (WP:G14).
- Only one of the CSD ‘Article’ criteria could apply here. Most obviously, CSD A7 for organisations might be thought to apply, but this criterion specifically excludes educational institutions, which are defined on that page as including elementary/primary schools. CSD A10 might apply, but only if the page under consideration is a recently created duplicate of an existing page about the same school which we already have here because it meets our WP:NORG criteria.
- However, had you asked me how I would actually handle seeing this speedy deletion nomination, I could have replied that I would be acting quite reasonably under our CSD policy simply to speedy delete the page if I deemed it fell within my explanation of acceptable CSD criteria, given above. But a far better approach would be to follow WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and do a little research. Assuming no clear notability for this particular school can be found, I would WP:REDIRECT the page to the relevant district school authority page (assuming that is easily findable). Either way, I would then WP:REVDEL the copyrighted content (per WP:CRD) and warn the page creator with a single-use {{uw-copyright}} notice. I might also look through their other page creations and recent contributions to check for similar infringements of our policies and take and necessary action.
- Additional question from Nosebagbear
- 7. Thanks for your answer to Q4. As a Teahouse pro, is there anything you'd like to see change there, or do you think it's ticking overly smoothly as-is? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- A:The short answer is that I think the Teahouse is actually ticking over pretty smoothly, right now. The key thing is that we remain friendly and helpful, and directly welcome every single new user individually. And we’ve been getting some brilliant new hosts joining recently, too.
- TL;DR: I was invited to contribute at the Teahouse by Cullen328 back in 2017, and I really am so grateful for that as I have learned so much there. But I also felt a number of things needed sorting out; it had got a bit clunky. Most obviously, there were large numbers of ‘Hosts’ listed who hadn’t edited in years or not contributed there for ages. We had a 'Guest profile' page which must have caused confusion whenever we told people “we don’t have profiles on Wikipedia”, and we had some unclear templates, a faulty 'Ask a question' script, and a link to an archive that ceased archiving in 2015! Aware of the Teahouse's history and development, I was a little trepidacious about barging in and changing stuff unilaterally (I still am!), so I listed some proposals for change on the Teahouse talk page, and over the next 12 months or so I or others implemented many of the key ones.
- What would I like to see change? Well, I think the sequential numbering system we use for our archives is unhelpful for new users. I would prefer a Month+Year-based archive, as used at the HelpDesk. I feel new users would be able to find their old threads more easily (we archive after c. 3 days of thread inactivity). But I suspect changing over now would neither be easy nor practical, nor necessarily gain consensus, and that’s fine. I’ve long wanted to rewrite the target of the big “Learn more about the Teahouse” button on that page’s header. It currently goes here, whereas it needs a much friendlier page for new users to read, with that page just being one one link from it. (I have a few other suggestions which I would like to put forward but, as my free time is limited, I've not yet had a chance to discuss them with fellow hosts, so would prefer not to expand upon them here first, if that's OK? However, I'd be happy to ping you should I ever decide to post them at WT:TH.)
- Additional question from Interstellarity
- 8. Do you think having the administrative tools will help you help others at the Teahouse? If so, how?
- A: Yes, I do think it would be helpful at times. But it’s clearly not essential in order to be a good Teahouse Host. The Teahouse gets quite a few new users seeking an explanation as to why one page or another has been deleted. Whilst we can always repeat the deleting admin's rationale, I think there may well be times when it could be helpful to view contents of a deleted page in order to give a more nuanced explanation.
- In addition, there are times when direct action has been taken by hosts who are also administrators. Such reasons include
- Someone reporting threats by another editor (thread)
- Blocking reported vandals/semi-protecting a page (diff)
- Blocking users with a promotional username. (diff1 2)
- Dealing with block evasion (diff)
- Helping to protecting editors (especially youngsters) by removing and revdeling personal details and contact details added to their pages. (No diffs, but I have had cause to directly email a number of sysops, as indicated in my response at Q1, para 1.)
- Additional question from Andrew D.
- 9. You're especially interested in plants. What are your views on the naming of plant articles, please? For example, horse chestnut redirects to Aesculus. WP:FLORA was disputed around 2008, I believe, so you may have missed that debate.
- A: Yes, I am a botanist (though I do not edit many Wikipedia plant articles, having got a little burned out from 20 years of researching and publishing a Flora myself! I joined Wikipedia in 2010).
- English Wikipedia is universally accessible, so the scientific binomial naming system, developed by Carl Linneaus in the 1750s, is also universally recognised, understood and used around the world. It is used even in places where non-Latin script is normal (e.g. 1 2). In contrast, however, 'common names', such as 'horse-chestnut', are really just popular local names, often referring to more than one species. Different parts of the English-speaking world may well use a multitude of different names for exactly the same taxon (i.e. species). We even use different names in the same country![6]
- Having articles directing to titles using plant vernacular names is generally very unwise in my view, and also somewhat discriminatory towards a western-centric view of plant names. When I co-wrote my Flora, we took great care to index the text with multiple common names, pointing the reader to the same Latin-name entry. Likewise, Wikipedia users need to be able to find the content they are looking for via suitable WP:REDIRECTs, no matter which 'common name' they use locally for that species. Whilst certain genera like Aesculus or Quercus are pretty much known worldwide as 'horse-chestnuts' and 'oaks', most others definitely are not (e.g. the different use of 'bluebell' between England and Scotland is a classic example we use this side of the pond). Directing articles to the one universal scientific name seems highly logical for a universally available encyclopaedia. And having a few articles on genera using common names, and others inevitably using the genus name would be a nightmare, especially when the next level down - the species - is titled by its scientific name. We need uniformity and accessibility, and I believe Wikipedia has got it mostly right.
- I intentionally gave you my view, as you asked. But having now re-visited WP:FLORA, and skimmed all too briefly through the huge 2008/2009 discussion I still support where we are now. It makes sense to have DAB pages using common names, and certain articles on key species like apple to have the popular name as the main title. The vast majority should definitely direct to their current scientific name.
References
- ^ 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.
- ^ Grigson, Geoffrey (1974). A Dictionary of English Plant Names. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-0442-0.
- Additional question from John from Idegon
- 10 First, thank you Nick for stepping up, and thank you very much for rebooting the inactive WP:ADOPTION program. Along that line, please discuss what we are doing and what we can do better as far as introducing newcomers to Wikipedia. Thanks.
- A:Thank you for your question, John. This is a holding reply, as I confess to being a little unsure whether you are asking me to address my thoughts purely towards the Adoption programme on English Wikipedia, and how I think we can work better in that particular area (and I can certainly do that), or whether you’d like me to expand on my answer to Q4 above and talk more broadly about what 'we' (as English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation) as a whole are doing to attract new editors. I will start to draft a reply focusing on the Adopt-A-User and related mentoring schemes, including Edit-a-thons, but could you clarify a little further what you seek? I will then do my best to answer as best as I can, but a broader answer will take some research, as my own personal experience of some areas of outreach is inevitably limited.
- Nick Moyes, I am looking for your insight as to what you think works best to help us retain new editors. Personally, I think adoption is the best thing we've ever had, but I am biased, as I was adopted. You've certainly seen some reply I've made to a new editor that starts, "We all had misconceptions when we started, so don't feel bad, but...". Can you think of anything that would help address that? John from Idegon (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in replying, John.
- My short answer to your question is that I believe the Teahouse is now the most effective means of ensuring we encourage and retain brand new editors. The expectations of the Teahouse (see here) of being welcoming and supportive still make it stand out from all the other more routine contacts that most new editors may encounter, and it has been doing that successfully since 2012. Adoption still has a role to play in editor retention and development, but is very time-intensive, and the scheme desperately needs a rethink as to the type of editors it should aim at, and how it goes about it.
- Nick Moyes, I am looking for your insight as to what you think works best to help us retain new editors. Personally, I think adoption is the best thing we've ever had, but I am biased, as I was adopted. You've certainly seen some reply I've made to a new editor that starts, "We all had misconceptions when we started, so don't feel bad, but...". Can you think of anything that would help address that? John from Idegon (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- A:Thank you for your question, John. This is a holding reply, as I confess to being a little unsure whether you are asking me to address my thoughts purely towards the Adoption programme on English Wikipedia, and how I think we can work better in that particular area (and I can certainly do that), or whether you’d like me to expand on my answer to Q4 above and talk more broadly about what 'we' (as English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation) as a whole are doing to attract new editors. I will start to draft a reply focusing on the Adopt-A-User and related mentoring schemes, including Edit-a-thons, but could you clarify a little further what you seek? I will then do my best to answer as best as I can, but a broader answer will take some research, as my own personal experience of some areas of outreach is inevitably limited.
- TL;DR answer: In the real world, most of us identify what we think works best, whether or not we are actually right in that belief. It's all we can do. Luckily there have been a number of academic studies which confirm that the Teahouse definitely makes a positive impact on editor retention (1; 2; 3). Having direct evidence to support and steer how we operate really is valuable, and research by WMF staff and others is still ongoing on how to enhance it further.
- Because, every day, 300 out of c.2000 new editors receive an invitation to the Teahouse, the forum has considerable reach. Over the last 30 days, the Teahouse answered 470 requests for help, and each visitor is politely welcomed and usually get their questions answered quite swiftly. They’re also liable to get a Teahouse Talkback message to say they’ve had a reply. It’s rare to have more than one question at a time being asked, and hosts often go well beyond what’s expected, perhaps encouraging some editors on their own userpages, or even suggesting or offering adoption. Sometimes unusual requests for help ring alarm bells, and may lead to an investigation. Issues such as promotional usernames, WP:COI, undeclared WP:PAID editing, WP:COPYVIO and sock-puppetry are commonly exposed (example).
- Anyone can respond to questions there – and quite a few relatively new users do, which is great to see. Any editor with over 500 mainspace edits is also welcome to add their name as a ‘Teahouse host’; we simply ask them to sign up to follow our principles. Hat collectors or non-active editors do get removed from that informal listing. There are always improvements that could be made to any successful scheme, and I’m sure the Teahouse is no exception. I think we should ask ourselves whether the wording of our invitations could be bettered. Some while back I designed this welcome template for Teahouse questioners who express an interest in editing articles about women, and I would love to see a better Teahouse welcome containing useful links in the same vein. One day when I have time, perhaps....
- Like you, I feel that direct contact between a brand new editor and someone with a welcoming supportive manner, and who is prepared to spend time to support and guide them, is absolutely critical to bringing them onboard and setting them on their way. I think Adoption is also the best way to put a metaphorical 'arm’ around a new editor and to guide them, but it is incredibly time-demanding and, in recent years, it has somewhat lost its purpose because of the development of the Help Desk, Teahouse and IRC help channels, with the near-instant responses.
- Although you kindly credited me with kickstarting the Adoption scheme, I don’t really feel that credit is deserved. There is a lot more I wanted to do there, but real world stuff has intervened over the last 18 months, so my ideas went on hold. My hope is to see it aiming solely at those genuinely committed new editors who have already shown evidence of sticking around and editing across multiple areas. Adoption has been prone to abuse by WP:SPA editors who simply want assistance to quickly create one article, before disappearing forever, and that’s a real waste of adopter effort. I feel AAU needs re-purposing and targeting, not at the cohort of brand new users that the Teahouse currently caters for so well, but at that next level up who have already been persuaded to stay and to contribute, but who could now be assisted to improve and contribute more effectively. I would cite my own two recent adoptees as perfect examples of that type of editor to whom I believe adoption is best-suited, one of whom has the makings of a good future administrator, should they be so inclined.
- For that reason I very rarely advocate Adoption at the Teahouse – in fact I actively urge my fellow hosts not to recommend it without very good reason. I would actually like to deprecate the
{{adopt me}}
template which I feel only raises false hopes, and I want to put the onus on those committed new users to take the initiative and to approach adopters directly. There’s more that I want to flesh out (see work in progress, but I feel WP:AAU ought to be in the back of every WP:TH or WP:HD respondent's mind when they engage with new editors who are clearly committed and we should encourage only those types of editors towards the Adoption scheme. It’s not for ‘total newbies’, in my view. That's what the Teahouse is there for. - Finally, mention should be made of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee and the opportunities to engage and encourage new users in the real world by means of Editathons, but I feel I've already produced a mini-essay in this reply.
Discussion
- Links for Nick Moyes: Nick Moyes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Nick Moyes 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
- Support - per noms, by people I know and trust. I'm not intimately familiar with the candidate, but I've seen them around the place and never known any issues. And what's described in the noms sounds great to me, assuming there are no skeletons in the cupboard... — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Will Make for an excellent admin. With so much concern over biting new editors, having someone so experienced with the Teahouse and welcoming new users would be a great benefit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- As nominator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No issues that I can see. Deb (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another hat for the stand! :p ——SN54129 22:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, as co-nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support see this user an awful lot making valued contributions to the Teahouse! Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support An experienced user. Will make a good sysop. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support about 18 months overdue. I really appreciate candidate's answer to #3. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support This editor does good work at AfD and I appreciate their bend-over-backwards honesty in their acceptacne and responses above. That they do well at the Teahouse seals it for me. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC) - Support,
no particular reason not to, and.A Teahouse-trained admin is definitely not going to become bitey Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)- I realise that my !vote was grossly insufficient. Nick Moyes is one of our most positive editors, whose answers to users show knowledge, tact, generosity and wisdom. I believe that were he to use the mop bucket purely for viewing deleted pages, that alone would let him add a significant contribution to Wikipedia. But his experience expands beyond that, and I see no reason his warm judgement will not be seen in any admin work he participates in elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nick Moyes has my strongest possible support. When I was a new editor, he was the first to welcome me, and he answered at least one of my questions at the Teahouse:[6][7]. In Febuary 2019, he became my adopter in WP:AAU. I graduated from his informal adoption program in December. If anyone is interested, this is the adoption page: [8] the page is more than 130,000 bytes, so it might take some time to load. I've come a long way since then. Nick goes above and beyond when it comes to helping others, and I don't think I would've been the same Wikipedia editor that I am today without his help. Nick has clue, is trustworthy, and is definitely a net positive. Clovermoss (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I imagine this sailing through without a hiccup, so allow me to say thank you for volunteering to help out with administrative tasks. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per noms, has a clue. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Thought he had the mop already, and I love the answer to Q3. Miniapolis 23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. Vexations (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks solid. No concerns. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support I have only ever been impressed by Nick, and our interactions have always been pleasant. His work with newbies is close to legendary. To be honest, I thought he already was an admin, so he clearly demonstrates the caliber of behavior and skills necessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I thought he was already one. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 00:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Sounds lame, but I really was sure Nick was already an admin, and thought the RfA was some kind of fat-finger error. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This is the first time I have ever voted in any RFA election, ever. and Nick Moyes 110% worthy of being the first person to receive one's vote. he is absolutely needed. he will be a voice of moderation, insight, and sagacity. I have dealt with other admins, and some of them approach the role more neutrally than others. I heartily endorse Nick for this role. well done!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nick Moyes constantly impresses me with his patience and empathy. I have nothing but admiration for him. I believe he'll be an outstanding admin. Schazjmd (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trusted and experienced. - FitIndia Talk Commons 01:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Thought they were one already. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nick and I are both quite active Teahouse hosts and he is consistently friendly, helpful and accurate there. He is an outstanding candidate. Although I am a trifle embarrassed to be mentioned in Ritchie's nomination, he is correct that I trust and respect Nick. Joking, and on a personal note, Nick and I are both
elderlysenior citizen mountaineers, and we are therefore among the most trustworthy people imaginable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC) - Support Per nominator. Per meets my standards. Net positive, to say the least. We can use more admins who are "consistently friendly, helpful and accurate". Unlikely to BITE new users. Sounds like someone we need more of.-(Almost fogot-- seen him around.)- Deepfriedokra 02:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Like Clovermoss, Nick Moyes has helped me become a productive editor and my interactions with him have always been positive. I have high hopes and confidence he will make an outstanding admin. Interstellarity (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't usually recognize a person's username when I look at one of these nominations, but I recognized Nick Moyes! I don't remember details, so I should mention that by "recognize" I mean I have a visceral/affective (body/feeling) memory associated with his name that is warm and positive. Yep, I'm supporting Nick's nomination to become an Administrator based on a warm and fuzzy feeling. If you think that's bunk, let me know, and I shall deluge your talk page with references to gobs of scientific references. ;^] (And I actually do remember some details, and they ain't just from the Teahouse.) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support against my own interests. I had finally got it into my head that Nick wasn't already a sysop and now I'm going to have to unlearn all that. But it's worth it given his knowledge and disposition. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support A productive, collegial editor who will use the mop well. SportingFlyer T·C 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Unhesitatingly. Solid editor with loads of helpful and productive edits. Loopy30 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - collegial and has exhibited very good judgment. Would make an excellent admin. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have run across Nick's good work. He has gained useful experience in admin areas, content creation and helping new editors. I am especially impressed with his help at the Teahouse and more generally with help and encouragement new users. I view his demeanor and helpful, collegial interactions with others as an important attribute for an administrator. I always consider this to be a very important trait. He has definitely established competence, and most importantly, trustworthiness. I am glad to support this RfA. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Yes please. As someone who has been at the Teahouse since the beginning, I can say without hesitation Nick is one of the (if not the) best hosts we've ever have. I consider great work at Teahouse to be one of the best indicators of future success as an admin. Admin is, after all, primarily a "people skills" job. Also, it's very easy to show one's competency on policy issues when you spend a good part of every day answering people's questions about policy interpretation. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clueful and levelheaded candidate. Always willing to explain things in detail for both long-term and new users alike. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Always nice to see another Teahouse regular run for adminship, and everything I’ve seen of Nick suggests he’ll do a great job. Hugsyrup 08:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Has clue, good answers. Sound candidate. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support precious helping new users --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Wikipedia's most valuable resource is our editors. Nick Moyes is currently the top Teahouse editor (within the last 50,000 edits), and their compassionate approach to communicating with new editors has undoubtedly improved editor retention. — Newslinger talk 10:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Happy days, LindsayHello 11:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Unlikely to be a disaster. What else is there to worry about? Nigej (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good number of edits over time, and probably as much or more qualified than most who try for adminship. There's always a need for more admins, and Nick Moyes seems like they would be a fine administrator. Certainly can't hurt. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support as co-nom Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am particularly impressed with Nick's recent conduct at User talk:Elenabesley. This is a textbook example of how to deal with new users, and should set an example for us all to follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - All I see is stellar work and a great accumulation of experience. Orphan Wiki 12:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen nothing worrying from this candidate, and good answers to the questions. Reyk YO! 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support A mature and thoughtful individual who will make a good sysop. I particularly like his answer to question 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, we already have a good admin named Nick, we're not gonna have room for TWO good admins named Nick. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - great answers that demonstrate the kind of conduct we look for in our admins. I hope it's something that will not be lost because of complacency, impatience or bias. We need more admins who realize differences of opinion are a positive for the project, not a negative. Atsme Talk 📧 12:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I very rarely comment at RFAs but I am making an exception here. This is one of the best nominations I've seen in years. An excellent contributor, who understands that the future of Wikipedia requires the nurturing of new editors and has a strong reason for needing the tools to serve the project better. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Active at the TEAHOUSE, has clue, unfailingly polite and helpful. Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- A million times yes per his excellent work as Teahouse host. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clearly a net-positive to this project. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Clue has been demonstrated and noms are trustworthy and convincing. While I generally agree with Chess that AFD stats are pointless, a quick review of his !votes shows that he is not a drive-by !voter who always votes with the majority but takes the time to justify each one carefully. Regards SoWhy 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I seem to come across this editor's work quite a lot, for some reason. Seems level-headed, has a clue and I've not seen them get involved in drama. A good candidate for the tools. Neiltonks (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't know nick personally, but I've seen him at teahouse and such, I think he is a wonderful editor who fully deserves the position Flalf (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net positive to the project. Also, appreciate the comment from the nominee on the 2nd oppose. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support He probably won't remember this, but I briefly interacted with this editor back in November of last year (when I first started on Wikipedia) he was very friendly and provided me with useful advice that I still use on Wikipedia today. I think he would make a great administrator. Omanlured (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has done well at AfD, no issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, provided he is prepared to swear on a stack of PAG:s not to leave the Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, good content creation, very helpful at the Teahouse and good AFD participation, not seeing any reason to oppose, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yep. — 🦊 16:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Should be fine despite the warning sign of a 90%+ "correct" percentage at AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 16:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- An excellent communicator who is knowledgeable of both content creation and WP policy. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. — sparklism hey! 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clear need for the tools and I don't see any concerns.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Trusted and experienced editor, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 18:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, interacted with the candidate--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. What an excellent choice for an admin! BD2412 T 21:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has earned my respect in our interactions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Sound and solid editor. Is great with newbies and at adhering to the site's rules (with common sense, of course). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Not someone I interact with much. As far as I can determine, passes all of my semi-nitpicky RfA standards, and the disposition and noob-helping focus are a refreshing change from the usual candidates' patrolling and geeking and FA obsessing. :-) The two opposes I see are weak in my view. (I respect the right to have "1 FA or 2 GAs" personal standards, but I don't agree with the standard, even if I do agree with the "we need content-worker, encyclopedia-focused admins not drama-mongering wiki-cops" motivation for it. I also agree that XfD stats are not a good indicator of anything, but I cannot blame the candidate for a nominator's choice to dwell on them.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support When an editor is invariably civil, ready to ask for advice, and willing to apologize for mistakes, I'm not concerned about content creation. And it's hardly this editor's fault they've got such good AfD stats their noms all remark on it. --valereee (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks like a solid editor with no red or yellow flags. Likely to be a net positive with the tools. The two opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support While I agree that conformity at AfD is not necessarily a good thing, Nick Moyes's contributions otherwise seem to be excellent. I think that he'll be a net positive. aboideautalk 02:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Of course, per above. Puddleglum 2.0 02:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Trusted and competent contributor, no reason to believe they're a risk for abusing or severely misusing the tools. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- HECK YES! Nick Moyes should have already been admin. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Overdue to be honest. Gizza (t)(c) 04:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support; the opposers in RfAs are just getting worse and worse. J947 (c), at 04:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Strong candidate based on what I've seen, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support A fine editor and a fine person. --Hecato (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, what - Nick's not an admin already? Must be a mistake, better fix that. GirthSummit (blether) 10:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - (yoda voice) net positive he will be! hmm! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Nick will be a great admin. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've been offline for a couple of days, and when I come back I see three RfAs in progress. And each one is an obvious support just through seeing who the candidate is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Long-term editor, decent content contributions, good with newcomers. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support for meeting my minimums and the oppose !votes seems to feel like, "I won't support someone who agrees with most of the people." Not very convincing, to me. Ifnord (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – I'm another user who was under the impression that Nick was already an admin, and don't have any concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor and supportive to WP:NEWBIES. userdude 21:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No-brainer. Highly-qualified, experienced, and good at explaining things. Blythwood (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – it felt like a really obvious support since I have seen a lot of Nick Moyes and know him to be civil, clueful, and experienced. Even so I took some time to look through some of his contributions, and found no reason to change my mind. A good addition to the mop wielders. --bonadea contributions talk 22:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns whatsoever. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - this is an "I thought Nick already was an admin" situation. A long time asset to the 'pedia and the mop and pail will only increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support gladly. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - not a jerk, has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per my criteria. Nick comes across as a balanced editor and content creator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support thought Nick was already an admin
Zingarese talk · contribs 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Triaging through the current RfA's I've checked some of candidates answers and found a couple of things I like, spot check of a couple of AfD's seem reasonable, is being supported by people I somewhat trust too and nothing in the current opposes concern me ... so while I've not given full scrutiny I'm most happy to support.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support excellent candidate, great contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 09:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen the candidate's work at the Teahouse, and I see no real issues raised to oppose for. I mean... how is an "implicit endorsement" a reason to cast an oppose vote? Even if the good faith we're willing to assume is fall, the business of getting a high AfD percentage by observing how discussions look like just before closure is educational of and by itself. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Will be responsible with the tools. S0091 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Have seen him around and got the impression of a very articulate, detail orientated, person who understands why we are here. Also we need more administrators, and although a straight happily married male, especially of the ruggedly handsome type! Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Great work at the Teahouse. Would make good use of the tools. the wub "?!" 14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've never seen any problems with their edits when I've come across them, and looking now, particularly at the nominators and other supports cast, I see a very large number of people I trust supporting him. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I was planning to support, and then looked at the Opposes. I am puzzled, because I don't see where agreeing with other editors is the main reason for support, only a minor reason, and agreeing with other editors on AFD is not a reason to support or oppose. So support anyway. It looks like the Oppose voters are grabbing at straws or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- A welcome addition. El_C 18:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, nothing to worry about it seems.
>>BEANS X2t
19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC) - Support Mcampany (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Nick will be an asset. SarahSV (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: seeing no reason to oppose. Trustworthy candidate with use for the tools. Loving the Teahouse work in particular! — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Kurtis (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems to have a significant amount of clue, great with newbies, a bit light on with content creation, but several of his B-Class articles could be run for GAN, so just meets my content creation criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Capable and trusted. AGK ■ 07:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy user who will help in needed areas. SpencerT•C 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Experienced user, can be trusted. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support with no concerns at all, based on observing his work at the Teahouse over a long period. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support experienced enough. AfD and CSD logs look good to me. DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't think I've had any direct dealings with Nick, but I have seen his name from time to time and he is one of those people who you think is already an admin. Mattg82 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No reason to think this user will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per noms Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I am uncomfortable with the nom's "a killer AfD percentage" phrasing, and the implications behind the wording, I find Nick Moyes' answer to "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" very impressive, and a rummage in Nick Moyes' contributions to be very encouraging - particularly the firm but friendly advice they have given others on occasion, such that concerns that Nick Moyes has merely been following consensus in AfDs in order to impress RfA voters can be put aside. Nick Moyes demonstrates a firm grasp of what Wikipedia is all about both in terms of policies and ethos, displays confidence tempered with empathy, and clearly has enthusiasm for the project. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I've had the pleasure of working with Nick in the Tea House and have been consistently impressed with his helpfulness and knowledge. He's supportive of editors new and old, and seems level-headed, and perfectly suited to become an admin. Orvilletalk 04:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Seems like an asset, and I don't see any compelling reason not to support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No red flags. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I ran into Nick while dealing with a BLP article subject. Was rather pleased with how they handled their explanations to the person, and I feel they will be a good addition to the admin corp. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support with the disclaimer that we worked a little together on Coropuna. I did look through the history and I see no particular concerns. I see the points raised by the opposes but from some mainspace edits it looks like Moyes is not really totally clueless on article maintenance/creation so that doesn't concern me that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. No concern here. Lulusword (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Passes my incredibly difficult, incredibly stringent admin criteria (or is that criterion?), which quite simply, is "don't do anything outrageously stupid". Feel free to badger this vote.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Overall I'm really seeing a smart and sensible user who has done some excellent work particularly in helping other users. I must admit I share something of Chess's significant distaste for ever using AfD percentage as a useful statistic, and that fact made me actually look harder at Nick Moyes than I otherwise would have because a nomination mentioning that seemed inherently flawed. Ultimately, though, this is assessing the user, not the nomination - not to say the nomination wasn't otherwise stellar. Nick Moyes's AfD participation is in fact excellent, and I have otherwise found no concerns at all, and very much foresee a great admin. ~ mazca talk 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Nick is stable, reasonable and dedicated to Wikipedia. He will be a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any reason why not. Nick seems perfectly qualified and civil. TheSavageNorwegian 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Good AfD stats, lots of mainspace editing and article creation, and Teahouse work. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns. Nihlus 21:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support with pleasure. Unlikely to harm the project, very likely to help it. — kashmīrī TALK 22:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, very convincing supports, good answers to questions. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No Concerns here. -- Dane talk 00:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - As per everyone who came before me. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - has demonstrated an understanding of policies and more importantly explaining them to new users in a polite and welcoming way, admits mistakes, sufficient content creation. Not persuaded by the opposes. Find bruce (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I'm suprised he isn't an admin already. I found him quite helpful in the teahouse when I first started. Desertborn (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - This is an easy one. Have been impressed with this user's contributions and demeanor for some time. CThomas3 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I have some dealings with Nick Moyes - a smart, polite, editor who explains and guides new editors in a polite manner - a solid candidate for an Admin role. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support won't break everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support clue + content + respectful attitude = tools. Also "per noms." The fact that the editor knows how to put information in a box, and understands that it has value is a plus. — Ched (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: WP:TTWOA. SITH (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Easy support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, what a great allrounder! Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
- Support lots of main space edits 61% and a good amount of article creation. Good experience in BLP editing. Helps in the Tea House. Decent AfD !vote dispersal. Meets my criteria as an administrator who will protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, good user no issues. And just to offset GregJackP's cancerous return to RfA trolling. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, per above, excellent candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support –CaroleHenson (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Tolly4bolly 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- I'd seen him at work at the teahouse everyday for a long time, all the while thinking he was already an admin. Took a script to tell me he wasn't. He has my trust and confidence. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns, will be an asset. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I’m coming late to this snow vote but wanted to put in a good word for Nick. I’m a fellow teahouse volunteer and have always been impressed with Nick‘s thoroughness and patience. It’s been a while since I was active at AFD, so I don’t remember seeing Nick there, but if the first oppose is based on that not being enough, I would simply point voters to his history at the teahouse. His demeanor and patience are what we should all strive for, and he is quite adept at navigating Wikipedia and its challenges. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport per nom. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- Looks like a qualified candidate. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - AFD "stats" are not a reason to support as suggested by the nomination, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- I cannot in good faith support a nomination where the number one reason the nominee will be a good admin is that they have a record of agreeing with others at AfD. The reason why we call it a "!vote" is because AfD is not a vote because we're supposed to base closes on consensus formed from the actual content of the discussion, not a simple numerical up/down tally. Yet the nomination here is based significantly on counting votes and whether or not Nick Moyes conforms to others. Is this really what RfA has come to? Where disagreement with others can be a liability because it'll ruin your AfD percentage? Where the nominee's disagreement with the norm doesn't matter not because they provided well thought out opinions but because there was no norm to conform to?
Having a "killer AfD percentage" is not a character value. The implicit endorsement that it should be is a disqualifying mark in my book. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to the talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Chess. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Iazyges Howdy hello! I think you might have misread that, as the first oppose vote was by Chess, my note was simply in a clerking capacity noting that further discussion had been moved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek You are very much correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Iazyges Howdy hello! I think you might have misread that, as the first oppose vote was by Chess, my note was simply in a clerking capacity noting that further discussion had been moved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. Sitting here per my stance after reading the "Oppose" vote from Chess, as well as the subsequent reply from Juliancolton. I'm in agreement with Juliancolton's stance: I'm not a fan of using AfD statistics of agreeing with consensus as a metric to determine if a candidate is suitable for the mop. However, then after reading the rest of the RFA page thus far, something about this nomination doesn't sit right with me, but I don't have time to invest at the present to locate any possible "skeletons in the closet". This candidate might be perfectly fine and there might be no issues (I'm more or less surprised that I don't recall ever running across the nominee anywhere on Wikipedia and I'm aware of the existence of most active editors who end up becoming administrator nominees [but maybe in this instance, that's probably because AfD is the XfD forum I view the least]), but ... I dunno, something just seems off to me where even though I tend to now side with the antiquated concept of WP:NOBIGDEAL, at the present time, I cannot feel confident enough to put myself in the "Support" column. I think I'll just park it here. Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Thank you for taking the time to leave your observations. I think you are quite right: you and I don't appear to have directly interacted with one another. We have certainly both edited a number of the same adminstrative pages at different times. Perhaps I should think about creating a colourful signature that shows up more. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: Ha, looks like the majority of the pages that we've both edited were adminship requests and WP:RFPP with the occasional WP:RFD page. Yeah, shocking that we've edited some pages around the same time, but we've never interacted. (And even more shocking is the fact that the external tool that you used existed; I had no idea until now.) Either way though, looks like this nomination is in the bag. :) Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Thank you for taking the time to leave your observations. I think you are quite right: you and I don't appear to have directly interacted with one another. We have certainly both edited a number of the same adminstrative pages at different times. Perhaps I should think about creating a colourful signature that shows up more. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral - I was close to supporting, but I have to agree with Chess. If the nominator needs to use "killer AfD percentage" as a reason to support, it shows the user may not have much to their name. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral I think I am in agreement with the other !votes in the Neutral section. I find no serious red flags with the candidate but the premise of the nomination statement isn't why they receive my support. It's clear this RfA will pass, but I'm avoiding "Support" on this principle. Rcsprinter123 (tell) 00:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
General comments
- When I click xTools, I get an error message saying that "The requested user does not exist". Maybe one of the noms/Nick Moyes can figure out why the link doesn't work? If I search manually, I can find it: [9]. Clovermoss (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Clarification: it's only the link within the discussion section that doesn't work, the one in the RfA/RfB toolbox works fine. Clovermoss (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The problem was the different encoding used in the templates. I copied part of the code from the toolbox link to the usercheck-template used to generate the first link and it should work now. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.