Jackmcbarn (talk | contribs) transclude mine |
remove {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L293D}} ---- withdrawn by candidate |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below--> |
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ajpolino}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ajpolino}} |
||
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below--> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L293D}} |
|||
== About RfB == |
== About RfB == |
Revision as of 12:46, 17 September 2020
if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jackmcbarn | 150 | 23 | 10 | 87 | Successful | 21:01, 23 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Steel1943 | 38 | 12 | 3 | 76 | Unsuccessful | 14:35, 17 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
LuK3 | 142 | 0 | 3 | 100 | Successful | 14:09, 23 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Ajpolino | 124 | 4 | 0 | 97 | Successful | 13:03, 23 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jackmcbarn | 150 | 23 | 10 | 87 | Successful | 21:01, 23 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Steel1943 | 38 | 12 | 3 | 76 | Unsuccessful | 14:35, 17 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
LuK3 | 142 | 0 | 3 | 100 | Successful | 14:09, 23 September 2020 | 0 hours | no | report |
Ajpolino | 124 | 4 | 0 | 97 | Successful | 13:03, 23 September 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.
Jackmcbarn
Final: (150/23/10) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 21:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs) – Allow me to present to you Jackmcbarn as a candidate for adminship. For those who weren't around, Jack first became an admin in November 2014. Starting in July 2017, he took a long break from Wikipedia before procedurally losing the bit due to inactivity. I am here to today in hopes to reassure the community that despite the long break, Jackmcbarn is again fit for adminship.
During his previous tenure, Jack logged over 2,000 admin actions, with a focus on deletion and blocking. I was thrilled to see he had returned this past July, and since then I've noticed him at the usual venues such as WP:VPT, being the same helpful person I remember years ago. His recent activity shows he has returned to counter-vandalism, module editing, all the familiar areas he excelled in the past. Indeed, three years is a long break, but I think his track record as a previous admin and his activity over the past three months reconfirms he is ready to have the mop again. No, he is not your typical admin candidate. He is a more specialized candidate with technical strengths, but I believe between his recent changes patrolling, deletion log and CSD log, he has proven himself more than competent in moderating content. I hope you all will agree and welcome him back to the ranks. — MusikAnimal talk 14:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Co-nomination by Legoktm
I've had the pleasure of working with Jackmcbarn on both the English Wikipedia and as part of the MediaWiki software project. During that time I've found Jack to be an excellent contributor in the quality of his work, demeanor and dedication. There's always a backlog somewhere that needs the attention of more technically minded administrators, and I'm happy that Jack is once again volunteering his time to help improve Wikipedia, as he's done in the past.
Ultimately being an administrator comes down to trust. Besides demonstrating his trustworthiness while serving as an administrator, in 2014, MediaWiki core developers unanimously granted Jack merge ("+2") rights, giving him the ability to approve code to be deployed to Wikimedia sites (a far more dangerous power than being an English Wikipedia administrator). He's done a great job in that area and has my full trust. I hope he has yours too.
- Co-nomination by Barkeep49
I am pleased to be co-nominating Jack. Musik and Lego speak to his many skills and abilities so I won’t repeat what they’ve said. I have been pretty vocal in my belief that we want admins who understand the community and thus have supported more stringent administrator activity requirements. However, I think when a former administrator returns and shows that they still understand the community norms and policies/guidelines, we should welcome them back. Since returning, I have taken notice of Jack’s ability to add real value, even in difficult discussions, and for his continued skill and understanding around deletion (both speedy and AfDs). It is clear he retains both the needs and skills to be an excellent administrator. Unlike most RfAs, we don’t need to guess what kind of administrator Jack would be, we know, and so I hope you will join me in supporting this RfA.
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay. I've edited under these two alternate accounts: User:Jackmcbarn HG and User:Jackmcbarn no permissions. I've also formerly edited under another account with the same name, since renamed to User:Jackmcbarn (usurped). Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:02, 16 September 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: I expect most of my admin tasks to fall into one of two groups. The first group is the more technical side, doing things like managing the edit filter and handling protected edit requests to MediaWiki pages. The second group is the common admin backlogs, like WP:AIV (which I've noticed frequently has reports sit unhandled for hours lately) and CAT:CSD.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Beyond what I mentioned in my last RfA, I've done a significant amount of work to improve processes that I use myself and to reduce possibilities for errors that I see a lot. For example:
- I set up the tracking category Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, writing both the MediaWiki code to populate it, additional code to point out where the problem is if it's in templates, and also contributed improvements to User:Frietjes/findargdups.js to make them even easier to pinpoint. This category now catches dozens of errors per day, all of which are easily and quickly cleaned up.
- I made significant improvements to the TemplateSandbox extension, both updating MediaWiki itself and writing User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js, to allow sandboxes to be used to test changes even when the page that uses the template doesn't have a sandbox version.
- I created MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher.js, which allows pages to switch between different presentations of content. The most common use case for this is that location maps in infoboxes can now show maps at the city, state, and country level, without stretching out the infobox and the page.
- My best contribution from last time I was an admin that used the bit was my handling page protection of articles. I made it a point to minimize both the level and duration of article protections I set, to keep as much of Wikipedia open to as many people as possible, while still using it enough to stop disruption. I also regularly reviewed Special:ProtectedPages for protection that seemed out of place or excessive, discussed it with the protecting admin if they were still active, and got as many of them lowered back to more reasonable levels as I could.
- A: Beyond what I mentioned in my last RfA, I've done a significant amount of work to improve processes that I use myself and to reduce possibilities for errors that I see a lot. For example:
- 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've generally tried to stay away from the conflict-heavy/stressful areas of editing, but sometimes it finds me anyway. Since my last RfA, the biggest recurring thing was probably last time I was an admin, when users would claim that some or other page deletion (or other admin action, but in practice it's almost always deletion) I did was unjust and/or demand it be undone. The way I've handled that in the past, and the way I plan to in the future, is to give a reply that explains in detail why I did what I did, citing the relevant policies, and if they still have concerns, I'd point them to where they could appeal (REFUND/DRV/AN/etc., depending on exactly what happened). If their final reply was/is to blow off steam, as long as it wasn't a gross personal attack, I'd just drop it at that point. I'd point to User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 9#Need_Help_Regarding_Nomination_Based_on_OTRS_Pending_Tag and User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 11#Wtf_you_f*cker as examples of this in the past.
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 Dolotta
- 4. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
- A: I'd say content creation. I wrote Self-XSS, but that's really basically it.
- Additional question from Dps04
- 5. Thank you for offering to serve the community again. Looking at comments and !votes from the oppose and netural sections, there seems to be concerns over your activity levels. Having returned to full time editing for less than 2 months (as of today) after a 3-year hiatus, what could you point to which demonstrates your up-to-date knowledge of our current policies and practices, and what do you have to say to users (including myself) who are on the fence on supporting your re-adminship request, due to uncertainties as to whether you are going to stick around this time and make use of the tools?
- A: I've tried to bring myself back up to speed on policies since returning, by watching how posts to the usual noticeboard areas get handled, and also by reading through WP:CENT's archives to make sure I didn't miss any major changes. And I do plan to stick around this time, as I talk about in the answer to Q8.
- Additional question from S Marshall
- 6. I see you've done good work, but I'm a bit concerned about your lack of recent experience. I believe I'd support if adminship wasn't irrevocable. If elected as a sysop, would you be open to recall?
- A: Yes. I was open to recall last time I was an admin, with details at User:Jackmcbarn/Recall, and I intend to be open to recall under the same terms this time too. (Or if anyone has ideas on a better recall process, I'm open to suggestions to improve it.)
- Additional question from Ritchie333
- 7. You say you want to work in CSD. What are your views on WP:G5 and what decisions would you make if you saw an article tagged
{{db-g5}}
?- A: Just
{{db-g5}}
with no name parameter - that leaves some detective work to do on the admin's part. The first thing I'd do was see if the author was blocked, and if so, whether for sockpuppetry or block evasion. Assuming so, I'd then find the original master's account, and see whether it was blocked before or after the page was created. If the master was blocked before the sock created the page, then I'd delete it as G5, and link to the master's username in the deletion reason. If the author isn't blocked for sockpuppetry or block evasion, the next place I'd look would be WP:SPI. If there were an active case involving them, then I'd leave the page alone until it got closed one way or the other. If there's no SPI either, then I'd check Wikipedia:Editing restrictions to see if the author violated a topic ban. If so, I'd delete the page as G5, and leave a permalink to the topic ban in the deletion reason. If all of that fails, then I'd remove the speedy tag, and leave a message on the tagger's talk page saying that I couldn't find any evidence that the page qualified.- Follow-up based on Special:Diff/978946173 - nothing at WP:G5 says anything about the quality of the page. As long as there were no substantial edits by non-blocked/banned users, I'd delete. (I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but I'd enforce it as written anyway.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- A: Just
- Additional question from Calidum
- 8. What was the reason for your extended absence and do you foresee it happening again?
- A: A combination of becoming busier in real life and a little bit of burnout. I don't foresee it happening again; this time around I'm making a conscious effort to moderate my time here a little bit more just to avoid burnout.
- Additional question from Z1720
- 9. What changes, if any, have you observed about the role of administrators or their work on Wikipedia since you were last an admin?
- A: The most significant change I've run into is that after several admin accounts got hacked, the task of editing MediaWiki and other users' JS and CSS no longer falls to admins, but instead to a new group (interface-admin) that requires 2FA and is granted to way fewer people.
- Additional question from Ktin
- 10. What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Wikipedia welcoming to fresh editors? Ktin (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- A: I'm not really sure how to answer this. Everything that I can think of related to welcoming new editors can be done without the admin tools.
- Additional question from Coffeeandcrumbs
- 11. Do your plan to close any AfDs in the foreseeable future?
- A: I probably will at some point, yes.
- Additional questions from Nalbarian
- 12. Can you describe a typical day as an admin on Wikipedia?
- A: Not that different from a regular editor. The biggest day-to-day difference is handling things at AIV, etc. instead of adding entries there for other admins to do.
- 13. What are the steps you are going to take to reduce obstacles that slow or delay an admin related process, e.g., backlogged work?
- A: When I see inefficiencies in our processes, I look for technical ways to improve them, whether with templates/modules, user scripts, or changes to MediaWiki itself. My biggest improvements here to date have been with the protected edit request process, both in terms of making sure users make the request correctly the first time, and making it faster for admins to answer them.
Discussion
- Links for Jackmcbarn: Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Jackmcbarn 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 Yes, why not - TNT ✨ 21:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Trustworthy former admin who has a need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support welcome back, Cabayi (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator. Legoktm (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support +2 and former admin, can be trusted with the tools, valid use case --DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Clear support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – an excellent technical admin with a proven track record. Welcome back. – bradv🍁 21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Unequivocal. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back stwalkerster (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I was extremely impressed with his temperament during the furious discussion surrounding his resysop request. That show of restraint alone pretty much confirms he's still got it. bibliomaniac15 21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Candidate continues to demonstrate that they are highly qualified and trustworthy. No reservations in returning the tools. As Bibliomaniac says above, they have been a model example of how the system is supposed to work; now it's the community's turn to do our part. CThomas3 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, fully agree with Bibliomaniac15. —Kusma (t·c) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. An easy call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Full support - I recall Jackmcbarn's previous admin term was pretty much completely devoid of drama; we're only here on a technicality (an important one, but nonetheless unfortunate that Jackmcbarn fell on the wrong side of it). This should be a no-brainer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back — Wug·a·po·des 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support was capable and competent previously. Nick (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have great trust in barkeep's nomination. Considering they've already been an admin too, I see no problem in returning the bit. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, clear since his return that he knows what he's doing. P-K3 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm partial to editProtectedHelper. Nardog (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Unlike most candidates, there's a record of actually using admin tools. Absent any evidence at all of abusing those tools or falling out of step with community consensus regarding WP:PAG since the last RfA, I see no reason not to support by default. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. I am not concerned about timing, they have already proven themselves capable of handling the admin bit, so why force them to wait another month or longer? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- support lets hand the mop back to them. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've reviewed the discussion here thoroughly. I'm persuaded from the nominations that Jackmcbarn was an asset to the project as an administrator, and that he's had enough opportunity to get up to speed on what's changed since he began his wikibreak that he will be an asset with the mop again. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Have zero concerns about past inactivity. It's not like we have a limited quota for adminship. Even if he performs admin tasks at a pace of tenth, of that of an average admin, it's still a positive. - hako9 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support The m o p shall be awarded to this fine wikipedian. Arsonxists (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has shown he knows how to be an admin, and has demonstrated a decent temperament at BN. The opposes are unconvincing to me. We want contributors to have a track record not necessarily so we know they can quote all the CSD criteria, but so that we know they aren't nuts and aren't going to cause problems and drama. There are probably things Jackmcbarn has forgot, but his long history has shown us that he's reasonable enough that if he doesn't know something, he can be trusted to look it up and not double down on the wrong things. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – This is a former administrator who was well-respected and has done nothing to cause concern, both in the last few months and in their time as an administrator. I also respect the judgment of the nominators. For these reasons, I think this is a clear support. Mz7 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support; no concerns. Sometimes it can be tough to predict how a person will handle the tools, but in this case we don’t have to guess. 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Tenure is a bit short, but I'm not seeing any red flags. Just try not to delete the main page :) -FASTILY 00:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - we could really do with more admins in the technical side of things, where Jack has particular competency. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, for basically the same reasons I supported the candidate's first RfA. Welcome back! Miniapolis 02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support has proven his competency as an administrator in his previous stint. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that Jackmcbarn would abuse the tools if given. SQLQuery me! 03:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support backed by evidence of past success. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have no concerns and echo the comments of 28bytes, Mz7, and TNT. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Solid technical contributions. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back, Jack. He took a longer than average wikibreak. He was a good administrator before his break and has been a good editor recently. No evidence has been presented that there were any major problems with his use of the tools in the past. Let's give him his toolbox back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back GirthSummit (blether) 05:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely, with none of the doubt i expressed last time; the candidate has proven himself easily; happy days, LindsayHello 06:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Already proven, well trusted by the community, this RfA is a no brainer if ever I saw one! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support with thanks for returning to service. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – was a good admin before, no reason to think this won't be the case the second time around. Graham87 07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Seems a little overqualified after seeing the response to Q2. Like calm down here. We don't need the admin of a century; it's fine to just be only okay here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support — Well that's an easy one! everything I would want an admin to be. Just an added bonus that they previously were one. @Jackmcbarn: I wish you all the best, —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Indeedy, why not. scope_creepTalk 08:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Overdue ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support has proven they can be trusted. Glen (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the nominator :) — MusikAnimal talk 13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support The long absence does not concern me, and I saw no indication that he used the bit improperly while he was an admin. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support — I feel comfortable with supporting. Deb (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support by default because I believe that Jackmcbarn should have gotten the bit back at BN when he asked for it. I appreciate that I'm in the minority on that, but it would feel wrong not to support when I think he should already have a mop. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support — He was previously trusted with the tools and a positive contributor with them. I see no reason to think anything has changed. GoodnightmushTalk 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I hear the concerns of the opposers, but based on the candidate's temperament as seen at BN, and their previous record, I see no evidence that they'd be anything other than a net positive with the mop. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- per noms – Majavah talk · edits 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support things don't change much round here nowadays - the site is stable, almost ossified when it comes to policy change. JackMcBarn earned our trust in the past, and judging from the edits since they've returned they are back, and back up to speed. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Candidate is trustworthy and has reliable history with the tools previously. Current contributions are consistent with those in the past. Not concerned about gaps in editing history; life happens. SpencerT•C 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support again, as I did in your first RfA. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support — It’s true people can get rusty after taking long breaks from editing then returning but from their recent edits it’s abundantly clear they still have a clue about how things work here, coupled with the fact that they once wielded the mop and merely procedurally lost it due to inactivity, I’d say that is indicative of them having the trust of the community at that point in time which is truly the basic foundation of being an administrator. The content creation issues are at best negligible considering their great effort in other areas, most especially the technical areas and to be honest perfection is a bar set too high, an admin need not be all knowing/all doing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Added: Specifically, I have seen the candidate around a lot after their BN request, and my impressions are exclusively positive.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Obviously an experienced admin, The editing hiatus isn't a concern for me, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I've got some WD40 for the rust - oh, and see my trial period proposal below. Atsme Talk 📧 19:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - barring no other issues, will most likely be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I just don't get the "two months is not enough time to refamiliarize yourself" argument from the Opposes. His previous track record was excellent and there's no reason to suspect he will be so out of touch as to go on a deletion rampage or anything else. It would be highly out of his previously demonstrated character to presume that is a risk. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. If people want to help out, let them help out. Haukur (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Easy support. I've needed his hand once with a user. No issues with Jack returning as mop tender. Nightfury 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Was trusted by the community with the mop once, and apparently didn't do anything then or in the 7 weeks he has been back recently to lose that trust. Opposes seem to primarily focus on insufficient length of return to editing, leading to a concern whether he will be aware of changed processes, and whether he is "dedicated" enough to last 2nd time round. Our processes change all the time, so I am much more reassured by the fact that he handled apparently handled evolving norms and processes on the wiki acceptably during his previous admin tenure, than I would be by more weeks or months of recent editing now. And if his activity levels decrease again at some point in the future, that's OK; in that case best wishes to him in his future endeavours, with thanks for whatever mopping he will have done in the meanwhile. Martinp (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Has done good work in the past; not under a cloud; is open to recall, so any error on our part is correctable.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Jack was given the bit with the full support of the community and did not lose it under a cloud. I had a nagging doubt about G5, but Jack has explained his position politely and thoroughly, and I sure as hell won't oppose an admin candidate for not being in perfect alignment with my views. Moreover, I checked out his deletion history and the only G5 I could possibly take issue with is Medicine in the Islamic world and only then because it survived AfD. Administrators are not required to be perfect. The opposition seems a little strange, and also troubling, as it may encourage other longtime admins to make token edits just so they don't land in this position; on the contrary, we should assume inactive admins with no track record of trouble will not behave any worst than the first time round. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, mainly per Ritchie. It would be better if Jack had waited several months, but I don't see an indication that anything would come out in those seven months to indicate that he is unsuited for the tools. Has a track record that I trust. It is possible for admins to learn on the job -- I know I do. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns; candidate answers show willingness to update himself on latest policy. Welcome back. Deryck C. 22:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I thought over, quite a while, about the opposition voices. The most valid point was the long period of absence. But, this may not be predictive of the future and I really didn't see behavioural problems or judgement issues. Meets my minimum criteria, has my support. Ifnord (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I looked at the old RFA, and see no red flags. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Should be a net positive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support by giving the benefit of the doubt to the first RfA. He says he won't burnout again but, honestly, that's no scarlet letter to me. Sometimes interests change, and then sometimes they change back. Come and go as you please. We're making him a WP admin, not a 33rd degree Mason. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Education before the job is overvalued IMO; as with all editing, most of it is done on the job, and we need to focus more on whether a given candidate has the maturity, responsibleness and competence to not break everything before they figure it out. So, the only question here, one that's been central lately regarding low-activity senior admins, is whether they really want the bit as a trophy or they want to return to editing. I don't think anyone with such trust and appreciation in the community would put themself through all this, with three other respected editors putting their reputation on the line, if they didn't intend to come back to editing. The flag isn't worth that much. Could this have waited till February? Sure. But there was this September thing that could not wait till October and if you are having a thing and you need volunteers, I can understand some of them are going to be late by a few months, and some of them early. Doesn't make that much of a difference. We already have the trust, we wanted to know if they are truly returning and perhaps two months isn't enough on its own but three noms are worth a month each and the willingness to submit to RFA is worth a couple more. So, that makes up for everything in my advanced mathematics. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back Leijurv (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I love Jackmcbarn's boldness and bias for action, especially in technical areas. – SD0001 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support So what harm is done if he doesn't stick around? None that I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Salvio 11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy former admin. --Enos733 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Thought he was one. 😉 Kurtis (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support- I simply do not care about periods of absence, and prior record as an admin is perfectly fine. Reyk YO! 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The candidate has committed to stick around (Q5), and is open to recall (Q6). Provided he honours his commitments, this removed any concern that he will just grab the rights and leave again quickly, and given his strong record as a former admin, no reason not to support. Good luck. --Dps04 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly per Usedtobecool. Adminning isn't rocket science, and hasn't really changed that much since 2015. What we should really be worried about is having the wrong attitude once he gets the tools (we have prior evidence this is not a problem), or that he's just regaining this as a trophy (which 2 months of solid work is more than enough to dispel). If he approaches this with the humility to know that he might be a bit rusty in a few areas, he'll be fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The extended break doesn't concern me. I know many in the oppose section are suggesting he reapply in six or 12 months, but to me that just seems arbitrary. He is either up to snuff or not, and there is no indication he is not. -- Calidum 16:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Given that the most-cited concern in the oppose section is the short time since the candidate's break, I think that even if this RFA were to fail, a third one 4 months later would easily succeed. Then the question is not really whether Jackmcbarn should get the mop, but when. I see no reason to expect problems if we give them now. PJvanMill)talk( 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- SupporT No concerns , was an admin. Eatcha 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have thought about this one for a while (pretty much since since the start day of the RfA). Honestly, if this editor gets the tools and then is a problem, we have a process to deal with troublesome admins. Yes the bar can be often high and generally needs previous discussion, but we shouldn't turn away a former admin which had their tools removed due to inactivity because their only problem is their long inactivity. Yes, editing hiatuses which are long do lead to a user not being up to date on relevant policies, guidelines etc. However, I trust that they have got up to speed with how Wikipedia has changed, that they won't rush into doing admin tasks, and will also listen to editors concerns / feedback if they make mistakes. I understand that if a new user came here with the same level of activity and the good record (minus the admin stuff) that this user has, I would say "come back later". But this isn't a new user, this user has been shown to be trustworthy enough to use the tools previously, they have been editing (from what I can see) without major issue for 3 months since their break, and have the support of several editors / admins I trust. This to me is enough to show that they are still trustworthy and by extension will use the tools to the benefit of the community. Therefore, per my rule of thumb
[i]f I can trust that a candidate will use the tools to the benefit of the community, then I will support.
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC) - Support welcome back Vexations (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Since this editor was an admin before, and has already gained community trust, I personally see no reason for not supporting. CycloneYoris talk! 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I see no problems here. BD2412 T 04:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No problems present. Pamzeis (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support He has proven that he can be trusted with the mop, and I can attest to his technical skills, having worked with him on several templates and Lua modules. It has always been a pleasure to work with him. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Usedtobecool ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the nominator. I wish you all the best and good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This is a former admin we're talking about; so the already ridiculous notion of someone having to demonstrate they will be active (when what really matters is being a net positive admin) is even more so. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Welcome back. Jaredroach (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Good candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per trusted MusikAnimal and co-nominators. It appears candidate can be trusted as well. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Welcome back and thanks for volunteering once again. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy candidate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I supported his first RFA. He did not leave under a cloud and commenters on his first tenure attest to his trustworthiness, technical skill and good interactions. Under these circumstances, I am sure he will take care to catch up on developments and changes in the interim. I actually assume, given his previous record, he has done so to the extent necessary already. I do understand the feeling that he should edit for some additional time to be sure he is caught up (though not to demonstrate that as a volunteer he will stick around). I don't think that is necessary here since his prior record and current trustworthiness has not been brought into issue. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support as per other experienced users and admins attesting to fact that the candidate has shown themselves previously to be competent and capable of handling admin tools. Roller26 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: no temperament issues that I can say and perfectly trustworthy to be competent and responsible with the tools. I'm not concerned by inactivity; if anything, we need a wider diversity of lifestyles among our editors because our (unavoidable) bias towards people with huge amounts of free time has its disadvantages. — Bilorv (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. That about says it all. --rogerd (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Prior admin that can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support They can be trusted with the tools. Yes, they'd need a few months more of recent experience if they weren't a former admin. So? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, rather weakly, and based almost entirely on my respect for the judgement of the candidate's nominators and strong supporters. A candidate with this little recent track record should not really be at RfA, but I cannot bring myself to oppose them. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate and I have no qualms about his resuming his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I am just a normal editor, but I have interacted with Wikipedia user "Jackmcbarn" recently and he has been cordial and helpful each time. In the last few days I have also witnessed him editing warmly, so I think he knows what he's doing, as he did ere. {} 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support no strong reason to oppose. Being inactive for a long period can be a problem if there's no tolerance for mistakes, but this is Wikipedia, most forms of damage can be easily reverted. If Jackmcbarn is willing to revert their own errors and learn in the process, I don't see why not. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not. Qualified to resume admin responsibilities. Conlinp (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support... No big deal, especially after procedural de-admin. Jack, based on your user boxes, I'm not convinced we aren't the same human being different bodies. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I appreciate Boing's point. The community has correctly (in my ever-humble opinion) determined that those who have stepped away for a lengthy period should be re-reviewed before getting the tools back. That is what we're doing here. I'm on the support side because the candidate does have a significant length of history here, break or no break, and we can easily judge who they are as an editor and administrator. Sure things have changed since 2015, some for better, some not, yet at least 95% of adminning (made-up word) remains the same. The pillars haven't changed. There are tweaks to policies. The candidate's history give me the impression they will be able to (if they haven't already) become current readily, and will take criticism/instruction on board without rancor if errors are made. They have clearly been a net positive to the project, and there is no indication I can find, whatsoever, that they would be otherwise if they had the tools back. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Ultimately, this user proved through their prior admin stint that they can be trusted with the tools. If they make five admin actions, and then disappear again, we gain five admin actions, and lose nothing. Harrias talk 14:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support.--- FitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my criteria. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- made more edits in the time period since their return than I have. No reason for me to say no. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Stephen 02:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support gaps in activity are no big deal. W42 04:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support User has shown they can be trusted with the tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdNg07 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- SupportA former admin is very likely to remember the rules with 3 year admin experience.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 13:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support The oppose arguments are unpersuasive. Experience counts, even if it is not recent. Vadder (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support There is no reason at all in my mind to assume that Jackmcbarn may misusse the tools. The answers about the new commitment to the project seem genuine. Granting the buttons to me is clearly a net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support On principle I would have preferred waiting six months before asking for the tools back. But it's not a big deal. No real concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have no concerns with returning the tools to Jack. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No actually tangible concerns regarding the long break from Wikipedia, and still seems very suitable. ~ mazca talk 00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I am unconvinced by the opposers. Nobody seems to have pointed out any major lapse in judgement, snafus or controversies while this candidate was an admin. To me, that demonstrates sound judgement. Policies may and can change, but as long as this candidate updates him/herself with the latest revisions, then I have no concern re-promoting him to be an admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support I recall being impressed with his fine work and sound judgment as an admin in years past, and have every confidence that he will make an excellent admin again. JGHowes talk 03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support He is a core technical person. Nalbariantalk 04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I had some reservations after reading through some of the opposes below, but most of those reservations were alleviated after reading Cullen328's note at the end of the general comments below. I trust that the candidate will wade back into administrative duties carefully. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Has already shown they can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back! the wub "?!" 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support It may be true that many things have changed, but I trust that he can exercise proper judgment. Jianhui67 T★C 12:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have not encountered the candidate before, but based on his contribs, he could be entrusted again with the tools. Welcome back. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. He's even more experienced than when he was appointed admin in 2014. I don't think a three-year absence should count against him. Maproom (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. He's been an admin before without apparent difficulty. While we certainly need admins in high-conflict areas, it does not follow that admins who are unwilling to go there are of no use to the project—we also need admins doing uncontroversial grunt work. Steve Smith (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose only 2 articles started over a seven year period with roughly 30k total edits. Candidate has a high delete !voting at AfD. The answer in #3 is also a reason to oppose
I've generally tried to stay away from the conflict-heavy/stressful areas of editing
We need admins to be in those areas - or how else can they protect the content creators? So based on by belief that candidate will not be active in protecting content creators and protecting content I have to oppose. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)- Lightburst, You've incessantly made the point of "protecting the content creators" at several rfas. Can you apprise us who are these hounds which are so readily waiting to pounce on the content creators? Are the editors who cross a certain threshold of delete !votes, out to get the "content creators"? - hako9 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- What Lightburst actually means is "I want admins who will take my side when I am inevitably hauled back to ANI for repeated personal attacks at AfD." --JBL (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is perfectly reasonable for Lightburst to seek to counteract perceived deletionism among current admins by casting their single vote at RFA solely based AFD voting records and article creation. As long as Lightburst is consistent about it and doesn't make it personal (which they haven't). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- What Lightburst actually means is "I want admins who will take my side when I am inevitably hauled back to ANI for repeated personal attacks at AfD." --JBL (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lightburst, You've incessantly made the point of "protecting the content creators" at several rfas. Can you apprise us who are these hounds which are so readily waiting to pounce on the content creators? Are the editors who cross a certain threshold of delete !votes, out to get the "content creators"? - hako9 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose after a 3-year absence, the candidate has only been back for two months. I like what I'm seeing so far, but in my humble opinion this request is premature. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lepricavark, that's what I thought when this request was at BN. I've been impressed with what I've seen since then, if that helps you at all. – bradv🍁 21:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. While the candidate's recent logs are promising, after such a long break, they are pretty much a two/three-month-old account. I understand the support from those who had the opportunity to work with him in the past, but without such an opportunity it is hard to offer my support. I would rather have some more assurance that the candidate will continue to be active and as helpful as they were in the past. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – ~5000 edits to main space does not indicate the user is ready to be an admin. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- We do have many admins who benefit the encyclopaedia greatly without content being their main focus. Jack is responsible for quite a lot of stuff Wikipedia takes for granted, either directly or via tools that helped others build stuff, from pages of Gerrit contribs, to significant contribs to modules like protection banners. We've a lack of technical admins in many of these areas anyway, as you will recall from our experiences trying to get edits to Main page image synced. I've only seen one admin regularly process FPERs in these areas, which is a problem. Further, getting EFMs to process changes is quite the battle, so one more would be a great help. More technical admins are a boon to the smooth running of the encyclopaedia, and Jack would be an especially competent one at that, and one that has held the tools before. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The number of deletions in the logs from their previous tenure does not indicate to me they will stay on the technical side. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- We do have many admins who benefit the encyclopaedia greatly without content being their main focus. Jack is responsible for quite a lot of stuff Wikipedia takes for granted, either directly or via tools that helped others build stuff, from pages of Gerrit contribs, to significant contribs to modules like protection banners. We've a lack of technical admins in many of these areas anyway, as you will recall from our experiences trying to get edits to Main page image synced. I've only seen one admin regularly process FPERs in these areas, which is a problem. Further, getting EFMs to process changes is quite the battle, so one more would be a great help. More technical admins are a boon to the smooth running of the encyclopaedia, and Jack would be an especially competent one at that, and one that has held the tools before. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nearly inactive for 5 years (not just three as implied in the noms), and only returned seven weeks ago. This does not fill me with confidence. Plus a lot has changed in those 5 years, including administrative protocols. Please return in six or twelve months and try again. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. A 3.5 year absence, and very little in the year or so prior to that, over a period in which quite a bit has changed? The "losing the bit due to inactivity" thing is not reversed just by showing up again, and I'd want to see a lot more than seven weeks of recent contributions before I could consider supporting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Very little content work, only recently back after lengthy inactivity.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, but I can't support somebody who has literally been back for seven weeks after years of absence.
Foxnpichu (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC) - Oppose Per Wehwalt.--Catlemur (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It's hard to believe that an editor can come back after a five year absence and immediately go back to proper admin function. A lot has changed on the Wiki since 2015 and I believe that it is best that an admin candidate, even one with some previous experience, should be active on-wiki for at least six contiguous months before the community can be reliably assured of their function and dedication. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Processes have changed a bit since they were active several years ago. I don't know that 7 weeks is long enough to get back into the swing of things. Wait a few months, and then I'll reconsider. Hog Farm Bacon 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Based on the short period back. Nigej (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - echo what Hog Farm says really. Have a few months demonstrating your use and then come back to RFA, I'm sure you'll sail it. GiantSnowman 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Solid candidate, who earned my support back in 2014, but I think that we need to see the candidate's declared renewed commitment in action. To my mind this nomination has come too early, being only seven weeks or so since the return to editing - 12 months or so would be more appropriate. Keep up the good work. — sparklism hey! 08:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sparklism, I respect those who feel seven weeks isn't enough time. However, twelve months would essentially give him no credit for his previous work as it is the generally accepted (though not universally) minimum experience for a new account. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just to add (and somewhat in response to PJvanMill's vote) that I wasn't thinking of 12 months when I cast my oppose vote. Surely this will change from candidate to candidate, but for the specific case here, I'd say 5 months would make me hit support. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now with regret. Jack returned barely a few weeks ago after a nearly five-year absence. Since he was an admin, quite a few Wikipedia rules and policies have changed, new consensuses were developed, and the last thing I want from an admin is to learn about these new realities the hard way from ordinary editors after they are affected by his gaps in up-to-date knowledge. I will gladly support Jack if he edits without major issues for another 6 months. — kashmīrī TALK 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Moving to neutral due to double voting- @Kashmiri: You !voted twice. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee. I don't really mind users taking breaks, but I don't find it unreasonable for them to demonstrate the same capabilities they left with for a longer period of time than a month. Nihlus 02:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee, and having read the entire resyoping request. Jackmcbarn is a name I'm familiar with and the time has passed so quickly that it's already 3+ years. No malice aforethought - I did actually support (at some length) the first RfA, but I would expect to see at least a year's solid new work to at least partially demonstrate that they will be around to stay for a while. That said, even at the best of times, the admin work was not particulary prolific, but I kinda accept the common argument that everyone does what they can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung, given that a completely new account can pass RFA with only 12 months activity, and your own RFA criteria are 12 months editing or 6,000 manual edits in the last 6 months; does this mean you are valuing his former contributions and activity as an admin at zero in assessing this RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi WSC, yes, it does; in fact pretty much as a new user and I feel my opposition here also echoes the views of other respected and highly experienced voters in this section. Total edits 2144. (mainspace 557). Jack's actual admin stats are on the talk page. An absence of 4+ years if the tiny number of edits in 2016 and 2017 are included. Thus most of my criteria are not met. A huge amount of important new policies and systems affecting admin work, including notability and deletion criteria, have been introduced since then (I was largely instrumental in some of them). FWIW, I took a total Wikibreak in 2014 of only 3 months and when I returned to admin duties it was almost like starting anew. Fortunately I had been a busy admin which helped somewhat. It does look as if this RfA will pass anyway, but if it were not to, it probably would next time and I would of course support - if my criteria are met (and they are certainly not the most onerous to be practiced by RfA voters). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll just add a comment here, if I may. The community has decided that an admin's early contributions are insufficient to maintain their admin status once a certain period of inactivity has passed. If the community then wanted those early contributions to be considered as equal to recent contributions in a subsequent RfA, that would be negating the reason for the inactivity desysop in the first place. It seems clear to me that the community wants a re-RfA after an inactivity desysop to demonstrate afresh that a candidate is suitable for returning as an admin. Some credit will be given for past activity, certainly, but it follows from the community's activity requirements that it should not be given the same weighting as recent activity. I would have supported this RfA had I seen more substantial contributions since returning - but I think running for RfA again after just 7 weeks of new activity shows poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are several different reasons for desysoping inactive admins. Concerns that the accounts might be compromised, concerns that the admin might have not kept up with changes, I don't see many people arguing that the former admin's contributions are of no value. More that we want to see enough edits to be sure it is the same person, that they still have the same values and faculties, and that they have got back up to speed. Arguably 24 hours is a tad short, clearly 7 weeks works for a lot of people. ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung, given that a completely new account can pass RFA with only 12 months activity, and your own RFA criteria are 12 months editing or 6,000 manual edits in the last 6 months; does this mean you are valuing his former contributions and activity as an admin at zero in assessing this RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree that the candidate is fit for the admin position again after those years of absence from Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to their candidacy in the future, but they require more acclimatization to the modern website. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:NOTNOW. They have only been editing for 8 weeks, prior to which they were away for 4 1/2 years. Regardless of their contributions before 2016, 8 weeks of active editing and ~550 mainspace edits in recent times is not enough to become an admin. Pi (Talk to me!) 04:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose – ~5000 edits to main space does not indicate the user is ready to be an admin.--Ron John (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. The candidate was an admin whose rights has lapsed due to inactivity. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- And to add on, this oppose looks like a copy-and-paste of another user's opposition vote[1] (right down the the dashes), which seems to suggest a lack of thought process involved by this particular oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. The candidate was an admin whose rights has lapsed due to inactivity. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry. Primarily per answer to Q4. The short period of active editing after a long absence is a concern also, but I'd be willing to overlook it in view of the candidate's prior solid record as an admin. However the almost total lack of content creation work bothers me much more. In all of his time here on Wikipedia the candidate managed to create only two articles, the DYK article Self-XSS mentioned in the answer to Q4, and a stub Transmission loss, that still has a single reference, to a primary source at that. I think the RfA needs to welcome candidates with diverse editing experiences. Technical specialists, like Jackmcbarn, should certainly be welcome. In terms of content creation, I personally don't insist on seeing any FAs, GAs or even DYKs, and I don't think there's any magic numbrer of articles created that would qualify as suffifient. Sometimes maybe 3 really great articles is enough. But I do want to see something substantive in terms of content creation. Some substantial solid evidence of proficiency in creating new content. Admins routinely delete the articles created by other users. The candidate's past admin actions are concentrated mainly in deletion area, and the answer to Q1 indicates that he intends to be active at CSD again as an admin. IMO, any editor wishing to be an admin has a moral obligation to learn what it's like to be on the other side of the delete button first, before requesting and getting the admin bit. Even if the editor in question has their main editing interests concentrated somewhere else. The main purpose of Wikipedia is creating new content. Everything else is just cleanup. I've heard all the stock cliche arguments that an admin only enforces the rules and policies and just needs to know what they mean to enforce them but doesn't need to properly empathize with the recipients of the admin actions. I don't accept those arguments. I'm pretty sure that this nomination will pass anyway, so perhaps this will turn out just a moral oppose, so to speak. I do encourage the candidate, once he does regain the admin bit, to invest some of his time in doing content creation work. Write a few new articles. Who knows, maybe you'll even like it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:Lightburst and User:Nsk92. The most dangerous combination in an admin is (a) lack of meaningful content creation, combined with (b) an undue tendency to support deletion the work of others. Here, Lightburst's concern is heightened by the candidate's prior failed AfD nominations: Mozid Mahmud,Trent Lockett, Kammron Taylor, Chris Babb, Ajin, and Adithya Srinivasan, Santali cinema, Iwan Ries and Co. Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Has only returned for seven weeks after a 5 year absence from Wikipedia. Concerns about excessive delete rationals at AfD and a reluctance to get involved in controversial environments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Like Softlavender, I'm not sure how this will work out with such light participation in what I see as the main work of the project, content creation. I'd rather feel that admins are peers of creators than apart from them. But I guess we are about to find out how it goes. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
- I need to think about this a little, but my concern is strong enough that I am choosing to !vote neutral to add my thoughts to the discussion. Jackcmbarn clearly has experience with the tools, a solid temperament, and some very convincing nominators. My concern is with their activity levels. Between December 2016 and May 2020, they made something like 30 edits total, then they jumped back in starting this past May and have made something like 1.7k edits between then and now. My concern is basically this: do I believe Jackmcbarn has demonstrated that they're going to stick around and make use of the tools, or do I think that this latest burst of activity will rapidly taper back off? If Jack hadn't been an admin beforehand, I probably would be opposing and saying "come back after you've been active for most of a year to prove that you're going to stick around this time." GeneralNotability (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I had a similar thought as you, so I thought you might appreciate some other perspectives on the question. The distinction I make is that, unlike first-time requests from recently returned editors, we can reasonably expect that Jack can do the job and do it well since he already has. With new sysops there's a learning curve, and the first few months we can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of problems. With recently returned editors, this learning curve might discourage them and drive them away again before they actually get good at it leaving us with a handful of admin actions that probably has a higher error rate than normal. Not the best deal for the encyclopedia. Since Jack has already been an admin, and not a bad one, I'm not concerned that the learning curve will be especially steep and so I'm not concerned we'll get many significant mistakes during the adjustment or that it will drive him away again. If Jack does become inactive again after taking a handful of admin actions, that's still a handful of admin actions that wouldn't have been done otherwise, and they'll probably be better than completely new administrators. To me that seems like a net positive, even if we'd prefer greater community involvement. — Wug·a·po·des 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thank you, I do appreciate your thoughts and I understand where you're coming from. That's also why I made this !vote in the first place - I wanted to bring this up and get other editors' perspectives (and because my impression is that the "general comments" section isn't the best place to start a serious discussion on the merits of the candidate). Also, no objection to a move to the talk page if more people want to chime in. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Appreciate the thoughful discussion. For me, adminship is a mark of trust to use advanced tools (somewhat facetiously, that they "won't break the wiki") not a job with a volume commitment or term contract. I don't think an admin needs to "stick around" to be/have been a good admin. If they do 100s of good admin actions a month for years, great. If they do 1 good admin action a year, that's good too. If they are active for a while and then disappear, that's great too, since while they were active, they helped us. I guess I'd balk where I had a reason to suspect (based on prior behaviour or recent editing) that the returning admin has the wrong attitude, the learning curve is likely to outweigh the total future cumulative contributions, or it just feels like hat collecting. But absent that, I don't care about commitment. Martinp (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose the argument could be made that a trustworthy and CLUE-ful candidate should at least perform sufficient administrative good so as to supersede the amount of volunteer time spent examining the candidate and !voting. How you could possibly measure that is well beyond my talents and abilities. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's not really the same issue as an expectation that people will be continuously active, but it is more reasonable. This is a volunteer site, we aren't paying admins to be admins, and it is no one's business but our own whether we are here when we are between contracts, when it is raining in the garden, or when the ex has the kids for the weekend. At one point there was a concern that quite a few admins and former admins appeared to have few or no admin actions, then we discovered that adminstats only has data since December 2004. So we were misjudging some of the first generation of admins. It is very very rare for a new admin to leave the project, so rare that it is not worth raising the issue in RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 08:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose the argument could be made that a trustworthy and CLUE-ful candidate should at least perform sufficient administrative good so as to supersede the amount of volunteer time spent examining the candidate and !voting. How you could possibly measure that is well beyond my talents and abilities. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I had a similar thought as you, so I thought you might appreciate some other perspectives on the question. The distinction I make is that, unlike first-time requests from recently returned editors, we can reasonably expect that Jack can do the job and do it well since he already has. With new sysops there's a learning curve, and the first few months we can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of problems. With recently returned editors, this learning curve might discourage them and drive them away again before they actually get good at it leaving us with a handful of admin actions that probably has a higher error rate than normal. Not the best deal for the encyclopedia. Since Jack has already been an admin, and not a bad one, I'm not concerned that the learning curve will be especially steep and so I'm not concerned we'll get many significant mistakes during the adjustment or that it will drive him away again. If Jack does become inactive again after taking a handful of admin actions, that's still a handful of admin actions that wouldn't have been done otherwise, and they'll probably be better than completely new administrators. To me that seems like a net positive, even if we'd prefer greater community involvement. — Wug·a·po·des 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral - considering the user was an admin before I joined, I have seen the name about a bit. However the user has been back for less than three months, and has less than 2,000 edits in the last five years. If they weren't a former admin - would we have such a good response here? If this waited another six months it would be easy to support, but if we allow admins to go inactive and quickly get the bit back when they return, what is the point of removing the mop when inactive at all? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral per my RFA criteria. If this RFA fails, I'd probably be happy to support in a few months time. Iffy★Chat -- 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. Based on response to Q#10, I am bordering on Oppose, but, will park my vote on Neutral till I really understand more. All editors are ambassadors of the Wikipedia community, and have a role to play in making Wikipedia a friendly and welcoming place for new / fresh editors. That said, the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new comers is more than just that of a regular editor. We need Administrators who can bring in that understanding, the empathy, and right attributes to make Wikipedia friendly for new comers. An Administrator is more than just an operator of Admin tools. Ktin (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. Yet another nominee who does not do content. I am sure that the Village Pump is important to this crowd, and maybe there are deep implications to that activity.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'm happy for an admin of good standing to return after a break, and the rustiness should disappear. Without discosing personal information it should have been obvious that the need of candidate to demonstrate they understood the reasons they prreviously dropped out of adminship and how they felt circumstances had changed and that they could now pick up the mop in a sustainable fashion. The answer is well given given in Q#8, but I would have hoped the candidate had seen the need to explain this in nomination acceptance. This is a sensitive area as in is grey region of private personal information that shouldn't need to be disclosed, and Q#8 might result in the candidate outing personal information.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. Other editors have well articulated both prons and cons of this nomination. — kashmīrī TALK 22:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jackmcbarn, I'm going to sit in this neutral corner for a little bit because I have a suggestion for you: the ones opposing you on the grounds that you may not be very familiar anymore with today's admin work are probably disappointed with your answer to Q9. I don't know if the editor who asked it was thinking of 2FA and hacking--it was about the role admins play. Your first interest may not be adjudicating in DS areas or settling editorial disputes or closing controversial or difficult RfCs, but as an admin you will have the power to do so, and I am sure plenty of editors here are interested in your thoughts on those kinds of things that are within the purview of administrators. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral In this case, we have plenty of evidence to know that Jackmcbarn is not a jerk, and certainly has the underlying ability to "have a clue". So the question in my mind is whether they currently "have a clue", due to the fairly significant changes in both policy and enactment over the past 4 years. I'm confident that the candidate, within 4 more months, would be at that level. The issue is that I'd rather they did not do that time span as an admin - of course they'll pick it up even quicker, but edge cases (including those they may not recognise as edge cases to check on) are likely to have a higher error rate, unnecessarily. As such I think neutrality is the best position. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral - I have concerns about the quick return to requesting admin status. Basically, this user is inexperienced if the calendar is restarted, but has old experience. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
General comments
- I'm curious as to what specifically opposers feel has changed in administrative areas since Jackmcbarn was last active, that make him unsuitable now. He has said he will work in managing the edit filter, AIV and CSD. What is different now compared to three years ago? -- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a former admin that did not experience the case of Clarice Phelps or (not saying they are related) WP:FRAMGATE should be given back the tools. We would be setting them up for failure.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)- With all due respect, why? Phelps was deleted at AFD and FRAM was about enwiki's right to volunteer control rather than foundation control. What about those incidents have changed the areas Jack has identified they'd work in? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Noting the below comment, perhaps I generalized too much. However, the candidate closed 89 AfDs during their last tenure which is why I mentioned Phelps. FRAMGATE, I think, indicates a shift in climate that we should see they can live with but I do not know enough about that to make it sticking point. If I could be assured the Jackmcbarn from 23 July 2015 will not quickly return, I would strike my oppose. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- What we learned from "FRAMGATE" is that Fram behaved in a manner unbecoming of administrators and as a result lost their administrative privileges. You shouldn't suggest that the candidate has behaved in a similar manner without citing evidence of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I did no such thing. This is exactly what I was talking about in another RfA, a personal attack without cause just at the mere mention of a term. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of these are particularly critical to have experienced, IMO, to be re-trusted with some extra buttons. Important, sure, but we have prolific writings about each (FRAMBAN in particular contained roughly three Game of Thrones novels), nearly all of which was more heat than light. They were covered in The Signpost, the Admin Newsletter, and are now scattered throughout our policies. I'm sure you could come up with an insightful question or two to ask Jack about their understanding of those situations, but just as with the important Arb cases from a decade ago, it can all be learned. Indeed, studying something removed and after the fact rather than being involved in-the-moment is not only more efficient, but possibly even more beneficial to understanding exactly what happened and how things flowed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- What we learned from "FRAMGATE" is that Fram behaved in a manner unbecoming of administrators and as a result lost their administrative privileges. You shouldn't suggest that the candidate has behaved in a similar manner without citing evidence of that. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Noting the below comment, perhaps I generalized too much. However, the candidate closed 89 AfDs during their last tenure which is why I mentioned Phelps. FRAMGATE, I think, indicates a shift in climate that we should see they can live with but I do not know enough about that to make it sticking point. If I could be assured the Jackmcbarn from 23 July 2015 will not quickly return, I would strike my oppose. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, literally hadn't heard of Clarice Phelps until this post. Guess I should relinguish my tools? Glen (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am surprised by this. Perhaps, the fact that you have never closed an AfD can explain this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, read much? Glen (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I just manually checked, again, every deletion you have made. I could not find a single deletion that cites an AfD. Why is that? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, I found one in 2009. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The obvious answer is that most of his deletions were speedy deletions. Have you found any that were not justified by policy? I remind you that most candidates for adminship have zero deletions that can be reviewed. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Amorymeltzer: Please don't focus on FRAMGATE. That was only in response to the question:
What is different now compared to three years ago?
and how significant things happened in the interim, in general. @Wbm1058: My main issue remains to be the candidates focus on deletions. The deletion of Bagri clan and the deletion of Rao Ramesh are two examples that I could find with my limited tools. I believe an AfD closer should double check the BEFORE and WP:ATD before trusting the judgement of a single !voter. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)- @Coffeeandcrumbs: For your review, I've restored Draft:Bagri clan and the edit history of Rao Ramesh prior to its re-creation. In the first example, there's not much there. In the second, the article was re-started six months later and still is live today, so you may have a point. But I'd not be inclined to deny a candidate based on a single case of poor judgment. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think Bagri clan is notable.[2] The fact that Bagar tract#Bagri people now exists is proof of that.
there's not much there
is immaterial. The sources existed. An admin should recognize that a much deeper search is need when dealing with less represented parts of the world. Alternatives to deletion should always be explored. The fact that Bagri language existed was a clue and could have served as {{R to related}}. Bagri was another indication that this is a notable subject, as the clan is listed right below the language. All these CLUEs were missed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think Bagri clan is notable.[2] The fact that Bagar tract#Bagri people now exists is proof of that.
- Okay... but
I don't think a former admin that did not experience[...] WP:FRAMGATE should be given back the tools
does suggest a certain weight. Regardless, I was really just saying that most "big things" are bumps along a 20-year history, and are generally well-/over-documented and not to difficult to grasp post-facto. As an example, within the past three years, WP:ACPERM has been implemented, which is probably one of the most dramatic changes in the project's history, and is trivial to catch-up on and hardly ever discussed these days. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)- I have struck the statement since you are not understanding that I do not even consider it as concerning in comparison to the users use of the delete tool. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: For your review, I've restored Draft:Bagri clan and the edit history of Rao Ramesh prior to its re-creation. In the first example, there's not much there. In the second, the article was re-started six months later and still is live today, so you may have a point. But I'd not be inclined to deny a candidate based on a single case of poor judgment. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Amorymeltzer: Please don't focus on FRAMGATE. That was only in response to the question:
- The obvious answer is that most of his deletions were speedy deletions. Have you found any that were not justified by policy? I remind you that most candidates for adminship have zero deletions that can be reviewed. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, I found one in 2009. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I just manually checked, again, every deletion you have made. I could not find a single deletion that cites an AfD. Why is that? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, read much? Glen (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am surprised by this. Perhaps, the fact that you have never closed an AfD can explain this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, why? Phelps was deleted at AFD and FRAM was about enwiki's right to volunteer control rather than foundation control. What about those incidents have changed the areas Jack has identified they'd work in? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose the point is that removing the rights of inactive admins is rather pointless if they automatically get them back if they become active again. Nigej (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nigej, I don't think it's pointless at all as someone who has favored tightening of the resysop policy and who said Jack should not regain the tools. For me it's about knowing whether they have come back in a way that shows that they can still use the toolset well. The totality of Jack's work says to me "yes" - that is both the work since he's returned and the widely respected position he had before his absence. I can also think of a couple of examples of admin who returned after time away for whom the answer quickly became no and I can also imagine a candidate for whom we'd need a longer time period. But the community saying "It's not going to be automatic but we are going to respect your total track record" is a healthy place for us to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The question is whether a few weeks activity after a few years inactivity is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The bar is
reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor
. Maybe a few weeks is all that's needed for a "ah, yeah, good to have ya back." Jack has been prolific, wide-breathed, and quite helpful already. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)- If that's the bar, we seem to wasting a lot of time on a pointless exercise. Could have given it to him after 1 edit. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why can't we just give all new approvals a 180 day trial period? I see far more positives than negatives in that proposal. How do we get it done? If we had such a trial period, we'd probably have less hesitancy and more admins. Atsme Talk 📧 19:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond the scope of this, but I think I wasn't clear. I meant it as "they're back they're back" not "show the minimum." YMMV, but I think Jack has shown a return to activity. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- If that's the bar, we seem to wasting a lot of time on a pointless exercise. Could have given it to him after 1 edit. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The bar is
- The question is whether a few weeks activity after a few years inactivity is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nigej, I don't think it's pointless at all as someone who has favored tightening of the resysop policy and who said Jack should not regain the tools. For me it's about knowing whether they have come back in a way that shows that they can still use the toolset well. The totality of Jack's work says to me "yes" - that is both the work since he's returned and the widely respected position he had before his absence. I can also think of a couple of examples of admin who returned after time away for whom the answer quickly became no and I can also imagine a candidate for whom we'd need a longer time period. But the community saying "It's not going to be automatic but we are going to respect your total track record" is a healthy place for us to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Obviously Jack can't read my mind, but when I asked about G5 I was specifically thinking of discussions like this and this and wondered what his take on all of it was. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jack can do whatever he sets his mind to, and should not let anyone tell him any different. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Framgate controversy, as dramatic as it was for a month or two, has negligible impact on how administrators work day-to-day, especially those who strive to be civil. I learned an awful lot in my first seven weeks as an editor eleven years ago and was then fully prepared to be a productive content creator. I learned an awful lot in my first seven weeks as an administrator three years ago and was then fully prepared to be a useful administrator, I hope. I think that Jack is fully capable of refreshing himself in seven weeks, and resuming his work as an administrator after his long wikibreak. If there was any evidence that there were problems with his previous stint as an administrator or his current work as an editor, I might feel otherwise. But there isn't. Bring him back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 21 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Steel1943
Final (38/12/3); ended 14:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate qedk (t 愛 c) Scheduled to end 18:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination from Tavix
Steel1943 (talk · contribs) – I am very excited to nominate Steel1943 for adminship, an editor who I have a very close working relationship with and whom I would consider my closest wiki-friend. He and I have both been regular contributors to WP:RFD for over six years now. I have gotten to know him well there, and I've always been impressed by his rational, insightful, and policy-based contributions. We do disagree from time to time, but I always find his position to be reasonable and intelligent (and sometimes even offering outside-the-box compromises). He has been by far the most proficient and helpful non-admin closer at RfD over the past several years, and also helps out with the thankless but useful clerking tasks like relisting and fixing broken nominations. The experience and disposition that Steel1943 has is exactly what is needed at RfD, a place that has always been understaffed by admins and where it would be very nice to have another mop handy.
Outside of RfD, I'm excited to see that he is willing to help out at WP:FFD, which has by far the oldest backlog of any of the XfD forums, with some discussions open for over four months now. Steel1943 was instrumental in simplifying the file namespace XfD fora several years ago, by proposing to merge WP:NFCR and WP:PUF with WP:FFD. While I was not directly involved in this, I watched these discussions play out and saw the work that Steel1943 put in to implement these mergers, so I have full faith and confidence that Steel1943 will make a great admin there.
On the content side of things, Steel1943 has focused on a cause I personally find noble: improving the navigation and accessibility of the encyclopedia. He has created countless disambiguations and set indices and has also worked on several templates. His CSD log (which is so lengthy it had to be split into multiple pages) is full of uncontroversial maintenance, G8's, and a healthy amount of F-prefixed speedies thrown in there. I believe this is telling to predict the kind of admin he is going to be: one who epitomizes the metaphor of the mop by cleaning up exactly what needs mopping. With so many messes lying around, I hope he can get started soon, and that is why I strongly recommend him for the mop. -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, and have never edited for pay. I have a test account I use called User:Steel1943 (tester), and an old test account User:Steel1943 (test) that I requested be indefinitely blocked after I forgot its password and did not have a recovery email set up for it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 16 September 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: I plan on participating in closing discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Requested moves and sometimes Wikipedia:Files for discussion. I also plan to work on edit history merging whenever the need calls for it. I will also validate speedy deletion nominations for their validity and delete them as appropriate, most likely focusing on nominations that fall under the "G", "F" or "R" criteria. ...And that's all from my original RFA that still applies. In addition, I plan to help out on WP:RFPP from time-to-time. I plan to continue working on a ongoing task I have been doing for the past few years to ensure that talk page archives are properly connected to their parent pages, a task that I've been partially tracking using one of my user space subpages found at User:Steel1943/Orphaned archives; having the ability to delete pages could potentially make this task a bit simpler when there is a page blocking a title that needs to be used for misplaced content when there is no need for any improperly titled page artifacts to be present (which I've run across before, but don't recall any specific examples at the moment.) I plan on monitoring and resolving maintenance categories that require administrators to resolve such as Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. And finally, I'd like to participate in clearing out administrative backlogs by monitoring Category:Administrative backlog rather than going to WP:AN to point out their existence when a category contains 2000+ items if I could help clear them out myself.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I find accomplishment in doing the tasks that most article writers may not understand how to do (such as template editing, verifying validity of files per fair use and free use policies, general maintenance to references and hatnotes on pages (one task I do from time to time is identifying articles with bare URLs, and depending on the task I'm currently undertaking, I will either correct the bare URLs or tag the page so that the existence of the bare URLs is known for the next editor, maintenance of redirects, ambiguous link disambiguation, archive organization, and general accessibility of Wikipedia so editors can find the pages and resources they are looking for) in order to support and enhance the articles that others create.
- 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 suppose my answer to Q3 in my previous RFA still applies, but since then, I have continued to do my best to react to stressful situations than I had 4+ years ago. For some part, some of the stressful situations as of late have been in regards to a procedural disagreement between another party and I, such as examples that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 61#Page move, User talk:Steel1943/Archive 15#Talk:Kiev etc and User talk:Steel1943/Archive 16#BFR (rocket) and Starship development history. Lately though, the action I tend to take in discussions to avoid further conflict is to agree to disagree, and unless there is a pressing matter in the discussion that requires my attention or I am pinged directly, I leave the discussion to prevent further elevation of any of the parties. I mean, Wikipedia is a community project, and it doesn't do the project good if I fight with others or stand my ground over something so insignificant that it leads to the discussion getting posted on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.
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 Andrew Davidson
- 4. Looking at your article creations, there seem to be lots of entries which were deleted. I can't see deleted content so please explain these.
- A: Of the 200+ edits in the article space on the deleted list: Most of the ones listed as "deleted, recreated" seem to be the result of round-robin moves. In that list, there are also a good number of CamelCase style redirects I created back in 2013 which I later nominated for WP:G7 after the "me of today" no longer agreed with what I thought to be productive back then. There are a few that were redirects and were deleted per WP:G8 after their target page was deleted. There are also a few where they were deleted per WP:G7 almost immediately after I questioned their usefulness. Most of these deletions seems like maintenance-style deletions that are a consequence of either me typing something wrong in a redirect's title or the redirect's target no longer existing. The only exceptions I have found so far are a few emoji-style redirects that were deleted per the result of a discussion; the titles I created were color variations of the base emoji character redirect nominated for deletion, so I had created those redirects to match the existing redirect, but then they ended up being bundled in the respective RfD discussion after their target came into question in RfD.
- Additional question from Dolotta
- 5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
- A: Ironically, that was something I wanted to post in the original version of my answer to Q2, but ended up removing it. One of the aspects I'm a bit weak on is certain parts of WP:GNG. It's not that I'm not interested in knowing about the general notability guidelines, but rather in most cases, my edits on Wikipedia do not involve me having to utilize the notability guideline. I don't normally write articles and do not pretend that I truly understand the notability policy enough to properly manage WP:AFD or anything similar regarding article subject notability. (I'd believe I know enough to know when blank-and-redirecting is appropriate [such as when an article is created for a duplicate subject and no information needs to be merged], but that's about it.) I've created a few articles from content I extracted from other articles (Alonzo Fields, Shantae, List of video games featuring Miis, List of Colombian musicians, Paintbrush), but other than that, the majority of pages I create in the article namespace are either redirects or disambiguation pages. (The only article I've ever created from scratch is Ken Reeves (meteorologist), and it's not much.) And in regards to article improving: At one point a few years ago, I attempted to work on Thomas Edison to get it in good enough shape for it to be considered for GA-status, but at some point many edits later, I put that task indefinitely on hold. Afterwards, I ended up going to working on aspects of Wikipedia that editors who primarily write articles may not regularly handle or be knowledgeable of how to handle such as fixing improperly formatted move request templates, updating templates to make them more user friendly and compatible for users who place them, updating templates' document when their instruction may be out-of-sync with its function, creating disambiguation pages after discovering that multiple subjects have the same name but no disambiguation page exists, and other tasks that support both content creators and our readers find what they are looking for.
- Additional question from Eggishorn
- 6. In what way do you think your editing has most improved over the four years since your last RfA?
- A: I've continued working on identifying and resolving issues in the background of Wikipedia that don't tend to get much attention. I've continued increasing my knowledge of article structure (in particular, MOS:ORDER), template construction for ease of user access (I'm hoping to start creating some modules soon since I'm learning other coding languages now), and have participated more in article updating and structure. I've continued increasing my knowledge of what makes reasonable and plausible search terms for subjects, and redirect those terms to their proper articles and/or respective non-article namespace pages. With each passing article I edit or fix, I get a better idea of what could be considered a notable subject fit for an article on Wikipedia. I recalled at some point during the past few years, I found a batch of stub or start-level song and album articles that were not notable per WP:NSONG or WP:NALBUM, so I either merged them into the most appropriate higher-level topic or blank-and-redirected them if there was nothing to merge, and afterwards, tagged them with appropriate redirect categorization templates showing they had history ({{R from merge}} or {{R with history}}) and are subtopics of their target article ({{R from song}} or {{R from album}}).
- Additional question from Rosguill
- 7. RfA !voters often expect admin candidates to be experienced article writers, and your response to Q5 identifying a lack of confidence when it comes to notability and article creation is likely to draw out oppose votes. What would you say to someone on the fence about supporting your adminship request for these reasons?
- A: Over the existence of Wikipedia, Wikipedia has become a lot more than just article creation. Yes, article creation and the quality of articles is the foundation of Wikipedia's existence, but articles are not the only part of Wikipedia. To get to these articles, helpful search terms need to exist to get to these articles, and that's where redirects come into play, which is one of the major areas I work in on Wikipedia. Also, the files that are uploaded to Wikipedia: Each file uploaded has to be validated to ensure that if meets the legal requirements to remain on Wikipedia; since most files uploaded to Wikipedia are used in a fair-use fashion, they have to be reviewed to ensure that meet all criterion if the non-free content criteria; otherwise, Wikipedia would be infringing on someone else's intellectual property by not using it in a legally-allowed manner. Since the English Wikipedia allows files to be hosted locally (some languages of Wikipedia do not allow this), the need to validate the files' legality is very crucial. In addition, there's some areas where I participate in regularly where I am running across roadblocks to help Wikipedia and its editors without the administrative toolset. I regularly close discussions at RfD, and would like to start closing more discussions at FfD, especially considering the backlog. (CfD has been known from time-to-time to have backlogs as well.) And mentioned in my answer to Q1, there are categorized administrative backlogs that require administrative privileges in order to help resolve, and many of them require understanding of an aspect of Wikipedia not related to content creation or notability, such as files or various non-article speedy deletion candidates; those places are where I plan to use the admin toolset.
- Additional question from Joe Roe
- 8. You're pretty active at RfA. Could you summarise what your criteria for supporting a candidate are? In particular, what areas of experience would you consider essential?
- A:
- Additional question from Teratix
- 9. You seem to have a tendency to frequently change your position when opining on RfAs (e.g. Money emoji, Red Phoenix 2). Some editors have commented below that this behaviour suggests an underlying impulsivity. Is this a fair assessment, or is there an alternative explanation?
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Steel1943: Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Steel1943 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 as nominator. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I'm familiar enough with this editor's work to cast my support, and I'm picky. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Argento Surfer (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- The concerns raised in the oppose section are fair, but I trust that Steel will not be using admin tools outside of the area where he had expressed interest (and has quite a bit of expertise). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - we always need more :-) - TNT ✨ 18:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support; I've noticed many of the positive aspects Tavix mentions in the nomination for myself, and have been very impressed particularly at RfD. Steel1943 is a very dedicated, sensible and thoughtful contributor to several rather understaffed maintenance areas of the encyclopedia, and honestly would make a significant impact on reducing some of the backlogs. Definitely one of the stronger examples of an editor where I've repeatedly wondered why they aren't an admin yet. ~ mazca talk 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – will definitely help with the RfD backlog, and I trust him to stay away from areas which he doesn't know much about. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since your last RfA I think you've matured in your view of adminship, and have a legitimate use for the tools. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I like Steel1943. I think he has a tendency to jump the gun a little at times, but he seems much less rash than he did in 2016, so I don't think it's a very big deal. He seems well-versed in the areas he wants to work in and I look forward to seeing him with the tools. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, extensive mainspace work or content creation is not necessary for adminship. Instead, I look for general cluefulness and demonstrated proficiency in admin-adjacent areas, along with a clear need for the tools. I have seen this editor around at RfD and other places and am confident that they know what they are doing. (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've seen Steel1943's work at RfD over the years. That's a competent and diligent editor, who knows what they're doing, and who definitely has a use for the tools. I'm not at all worried about the lack of content creation: yes, I myself generally prefer admins to have meaningful experience with content, mostly because this tends to cultivate care and appreciation of nuance. But I've already seen first-hand that Steel1943 has these qualities, and their work doesn't directly involve content anyway. I definitely trust that they will use the tools wisely. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - basically what Tavix said. I've drifted somewhat away from RfD in recent years but in the past have interacted with Steel1943 very frequently. Their comments and arguments are always logical and backed by evidence, yet they are also eager to hear contrary arguments and revise their opinion based on new information. RfD is usually a pretty low-drama venue but it's had its moments, and while Steel1943 doesn't shy away from conflict they are level-headed and rational in how they handle it. I could write a book here but let's keep it to the point: Steel1943 is one of our most competent administrators already, even without the tools. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- My experiences are similar to Ivanvector's. My concerns about content creation were resolved by A7, and if anything I appreciate their candor in A5. — Wug·a·po·des 21:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support based on my interactions with him at RfD and elsewhere. The answer to Q5 may have prioritized honesty and humility over nomination-clinching strategy; I think that Steel1943 will be judicious about using admin tools appropriately. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support based on the answers above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Candidate may not be perfect, but has great stats/experience + toolset/skills, been battle-tested, is a cheerleader, and already has the support of some fine long-term editors. History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- support should be a good addition to the admin team or whatever they call themselves. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Considering the amount of administrative work the editor has done in many areas, is impressive. It does bother me that the article didn't have references, particularly at the time it was created. It should have, but the other work more than makes up for it. I suspect the industrious editor will be a net asset to Admin Corps, providing a lot of time for administrative work. scope_creepTalk 23:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The candidate has good activity levels, and based on the answer to questions also has a good sense of what he wants to do as an admin. The candidate seems to acknowledge weakness in some areas (such as WP:GNG), which I think is a good thing, rather than bad; they did not express intent in working with areas that require that knowledge. Best of luck, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support This user should be awarded the m o p. Alot of the above is true. Arsonxists (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Net positive, and ready for the mop. Miniapolis 02:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Net positive/why not? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Steel1943 has always been very helpful at RfD and I honestly thought he was already an admin. It's a yes from me. :) CycloneYoris talk! 03:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Steel1943 specializes in maintenance areas that would benefit from the candidate becoming an administrator. As a page mover, Steel1943 has made strong contributions to and sound closures of numerous move requests. In the event that Steel1943 wishes to enter an unfamiliar area, I trust them to exercise caution (e.g. by establishing a good track record in AfD participation before starting to close AfD discussions). — Newslinger talk 05:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This candidate is one of my Wikipedia mentors, and I have learned a lot from Steel1943. I have noted the concerns in the Oppose section, and I do have my own concerns along those lines; however, I see nothing there that would lead me away from supporting this highly trusted and experienced editor in this bid for the mop. An extraordinary person! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. RfD could use a skilled admin like Steel1943. they have the relevant background for it (and a good track record at that). Steel1943 has given all indication they will be playing to their strengths rather than judging AfDs, so I don't find lack of content creation a persuasive argument against granting sysop in this case. It just isn't experience Steel1943 needs to be the type of admin they have said they will try to be. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Clear rationale for wanting admin powers; conflict averse and responsible. Pace the oppose votes, I find the humility in admitting not to understand GNG appealing. In my opinion, to believe the GNG is crystal clear in its application is a sign of dogmatism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Fully. The candidate has done great work around the sometimes underappreciated and undervalued (as evident by some weak opposes below citing largely a lack of article creation) function of redirection (and likely elsewhere). I am confident that they will use the mop to a quite positive effect in that area and in general. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, the candidate's admitted lack of experience with AfD and article creation is completely irrelevant, since they have stated they do not plan to work in those areas. The areas that they do work in might not be as flashy as article creation, but they are equally as important. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, experienced hand at RFD, will be even more useful with extra buttons. —Kusma (t·c) 12:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I looked at one of their recentish disputes and they handed himself well, keeping their cool is the essential quality of an admin.--Salix alba (talk): 12:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Pretty sure I have came across you several times before. and I can definitely say you are a fine contributor and a worthy admin. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - While I agree that the GNG is very important, I don't see any reason to believe this candidate is incapable of understanding it going forward or would abuse power related to the GNG. An encyclopedia is more than just a collection of knowledge - it's an organized collection of knowledge. Lack of content creation is not a dealbreaker for me. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very experienced and an obvious need for the tools. I'm surprised to see an RfA candidate admit they don't really understand the GNG, but I'm confident that Steel1943 would not wade into closing AfDs until they had got themselves up to speed. And yes, I have been amused to see how frequently they change their positions in RfAs, but I don't think it will impact how they behave as an admin in any way. Overall I think they would be a net positive.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Based on lack of knowledge related to AfDs (candidates admission question 5) and article creation - and deleted pages -(looks like the candidate has created Mostly lists and disambig pages). My belief has always been that an administrator's duties are to protect content and content creators. In order to be competent in those areas I believe a candidate should have more experience in both. I am not seeing a need for the administrator tools at this time. Lightburst (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- My greatest apologies, but per Lightburst the GNG is fairly important for a prospective admin to at least know the gist of, even without any plans to create or delete content. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Since Steel1943 plans to do admin work in XfD, I regretfully can't support the candidate due to their answer to question 5. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Thanks to the candidate for all the good work they have done. However, this is a project to write and improve an encyclopedia, and I expect that any candidate for administrator will have some solid, decent content creation in their edit history. So, I looked for an article that the candidate had started and noticed Paintbrush, a topic I know a fair amount about as an occasional amateur artist from a family of artists. Steel1943 spent two weeks writing that article on and off in 2015, and the prose was pretty decent at the end of that time. But the article did not have a single reference to a reliable source when Steel1943 moved on to other things, leaving the article failing our core content policy Verifiablity. Five years later, the article is tagged for lack of citations and has a single "reference" to an Australian commercial website that sells paintbrushes. And this is a topic where a very large number of highly reliable sources are readily available. I am sorry but I cannot support a candidate who produces such mediocre work in the main space of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of article creation put me off. Having no knowledge of our general notability guidelines and reliable sources for an admin candidate is very challenging. Sorry. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not put off by the lack of article creation, but not understanding the general notability guideline is a deal breaker. -- Calidum 03:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Steel1943 is a valued Wikipedian, and does good work at RfD and elsewhere. However, a proficiency in solid article content creation and citing needs to be demonstrated before adminship should be considered, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I appreciate Steel1943 might not want to work in areas in which an understanding of GNG is required, and I'm not one who wants GA and FA work from admin candidates. But given that notability is key to Wikipedia content, and Wikipedia content is the only reason we're here, understanding notability is one of the key things I see as essential for an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cullen. With the greatest respect to the candidate, whom I have seen around the Wiki, they do good work, and I have no specific complaints about, content creation prior to RFA has always been a red line for me, as with others. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to write articles. And of course I understand that some people prefer to spend most of their time in administrative work, that's fine. But unless you've worked at the coal face and demonstrated that you understand the essential aspects of what makes good content, then I don't think you're in a position to make the key judgements required for adminship. My advice in these situations is always the same. Go away, find an article on a topic that interests you, locate the sources, and write it up. It doesn't have to be promoting something to GA level (although that's always a bonus!) - a couple of destubbings would do the job. Then come back here in six months and show us that work, and I'll be more than happy to support. All the best — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't write articles; and therefore shouldn't be sitting in judgment over those who do.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of knowledge about a core content policy like WP:GNG signals an inability to evaluate what significant coverage is and what reliable sources are; this goes beyond AfD, and a lack of knowledge in this area could have implications when dealing with fast-moving content disputes, or when closing discussions. I would expect any admin to be able to deal with those areas, even if they would normally choose not to. I've seen the candidate about, and otherwise can see no issues with them. Zindor (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cullen328 and Amakuru. In my view, Steel1943 spends too much time zipping around the admin areas and not enough time paying attention to writing the encyclopedia. There's no way I could trust them with the delete or block buttons. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
- Moral support. I think Steel1943 is a fine editor and an asset to the encyclopedia. However, their experience, while extensive and commendable, doesn't in my view fit the profile of an administrator. I am a little worried that the candidate is a bit impulsive. More importantly, the Steel1943's own description of their aptitude (on this RfA before being replaced) does not give me confidence that adminship is appropriate right now – while RfA candidates shouldn't have to be experts in every aspect of the encyclopedia (I certainly wasn't),
"I don't normally write articles and cannot even pretend that I truly understand the notability policy enough to properly manage WP:AFD or anything similar"
makes it difficult to support here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC) - Not really sure where to fall on this one. I’m less concerned about the GNG/notability concerns above as the notability guidelines flow from community consensus at AfD and not vice versa—that is to say if you start off by closing the easy ones and then build up to the less obvious ones you’ll get a pretty good feel of how the community interprets these guidelines (not policies) just by doing the work.I am a bit concerned though about what I’ve noticed in their behaviour in RfAs. They’re usually quick to support, then move to oppose, then might move back to support or neutral (I’ll diff when I get back to my laptop if people want, but I think this is a fair observation and not one they’d contest.) It makes me skeptical that they’ll think things through before acting. We want admins who are willing to change their mind and admit that they made mistakes, but we also generally would be better if things were thought through first. I’m not really going to oppose on this as I think they’re sensible and I’ve had nothing but good interactions, but I’m also not really at support. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I find myself in this section as well. In general, I'm persuaded by the nominator that Steel1943's participation in RfD and FfD has been beneficial, and one part of me feels that he will simply be a net positive in those areas where he already does proficient work (and where it seems additional administrators are needed). The other part of me is sympathetic to L235's concern with respect to understanding a core content guideline like notability and its relationship to the delete tool. Additionally, I have the same impression that TonyBallioni has above with respect to the candidate's behavior in RfAs. Recently, I noticed them making a judgment about a candidate based solely on
spidey sense
while also stating there was0% chance
of moving to a different position [3] (Steel1943 did eventually move to a different position [4]). Overall, I can see both sides of the coin here. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
General comments
- We now have three people who have commented "why not?" in the support section. I find that rather dismissive of the concerns expressed by those in the oppose and neutral sections, all of whom appear to have given considerable thought to their comments. – bradv🍁 03:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are always many WP:NOTVOTEs. I just hope bureaucrats take that into consideration when closing the discussion. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 06:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, it's always been the case and this has just begun, so there's plenty of time for folks to return and change or expand if moved to do so. Without pestering folks individually, it's generally accepted that the concise support rationales are intentionally so. I've certainly done it, most of us have. Maybe they're trying to dismiss the concerns! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- If they said something roughly equally vague ("clearly suitable" or "would make a good admin"), I'd be fine with it. I do somewhat share Bradv's concern that "why not" does seem to imply that there are no substantive oppose reasons (as opposed to just thinking they have no merit at all). Not that I'd suggest discounting them (Crats can view specific weight at appropriate), more a request for editors to provide meaning where appropriate. It's worth noting that in tight-fought RfAs, a significant portion of Support voters DO come back, including to expand on their support reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:53, 17 September 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
LuK3
Final (142/0/3); ended 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
LuK3 (talk · contribs) – Today it’s my honor to nominate LuK3 (not to be confused with Luk3) for adminship. LuK3 first came to my attention as the guy who was asking for revdel multiple times a day on IRC. Wouldn’t it be easier, I thought, if we just gave him the toolset so he could perform those revision deletions himself? The answer is yes and I think LuK3 has more than shown himself ready over the past 12 months to be an asset to the community not only with revdel but other parts of counter-vandalism patrolling including page protection and handling blocks.
LuK3’s skills range beyond this one area, however. He has shown himself to be skilled at content creation having worked to help two lists to featured list status and he has a GA which earned him a million award. LuK3 has also participated in other areas of the project including third opinions and as a member of the volunteer response team (OTRS). His is a calm presence and one that remains ever open to feedback. You can see evidence of this in the various ways he has improved himself in the last 8 years since his first RfA. He is someone I expect to continue helping our readers and editors in a number of ways in the months and years to come. I hope you will join me in supporting his candidacy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Co-nomination
Anyone who has worked with LuK3 is familiar with his industriousness and dedication to the project. As my colleague Barkeep49 has discussed, LuK3's project experience is broad and deep; his contribution history spans Featured and Good content creation and extensive behind-the-scenes maintenance. Among the contributions that he’s made that aren’t as visible on Wikipedia itself, LuK3 is a 9-year member of the ACC team, processing over 1,000 requests, and in just the last year he has submitted over 75 requests for suppression to the oversight queue (a small portion of his total revdel requests). The broadness of his experience will make him a more empathetic administrator when working with editors in every corner of the project; the depth of his experience will no doubt make him a particularly productive administrator, with no end of tasks in sight.
What is, in my view, equally as impressive as LuK3's contribution history is his sheer kindness and patience in interacting with others. During the time that I’ve been following his work, LuK3 has exuded a calmness and good temperament that has impressed me. LuK3 doesn't cause trouble and possesses the skill and judgment to be one of our best. I have every confidence that LuK3 will make a terrific administrator, and I hope you agree. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both Barkeep49 and L235 for the nomination and co-nomination. I accept the nomination. For disclosure, I have not and will not edit for pay and have one legitimate alternate account for security reasons, see User:Luke (alt). -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:35, 12 September 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: Since most of my Wikipedia work has been in counter-vandalism, I intend on using the administrator tools at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA. I find myself in the revdelete IRC channel quite often asking for revision deletions, so having the tools to deal with those problematic edits would be extremely beneficial. In addition, I have prior experience in speedy deletion so that is an area I would like to work in as well. Those are the areas in which I would participate in as an administrator.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I believe my best contributions are my anti-vandalism and janitorial work. While not the prettiest or glamorous work, keeping articles clean and free of disruptive material is an essential part of the project. With more than 7 years of fighting vandalism, I believe I have the knowledge to help out in the administrator side of anti-vandalism work. As a member of the Account Creation team, I also take pride in helping editors create an account so they can contribute constructively.
- For content creation, I'm proud of the television-related articles that I brought to either good or featured status. I helped bring Emilia Clarke and List of awards and nominations received by Emilia Clarke to good article and featured list status, respectively. I am also in the process of bringing Game of Thrones to FAC. In addition, I helped promote List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones to FL.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have been in a few edit disputes over the course of my Wikipedia career. Some are editors who I either reverted or tagged their article for speedy deletion. I am a firm believer in assuming good faith and always try to help editors and guide them to make constructive edits in the future. In addition, as a member of the Volunteer Response Team, I often have to work with readers who are not aware of the full list of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their intricacies. When dealing with tickets, I always try to explain these policies and guidelines in a non-judgemental and neutral way so readers have a better view on how Wikipedia operates. I never try to let on-wiki disputes or attacks affect me personally. At the end of the day, we are all here to build an encyclopedia and having ill-feelings or a negative attitude will only cause consequences which might reflect in my editing.
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 Vanamonde93
- 4. It's been a while since your first RFA, so I don't think any reasonable person would hold it against you. I'd be interested to hear if (and if so, how) your approach to anything has changed significantly since then.
- A: I would characterize my first RFA run as nervous and hesitant. In hindsight, having WP:ORCP around when I ran would have probably been beneficial to see where I stood as a nominee. Over the following years of editing, I stepped out of my normal editing routine and explored other areas of the project, including 3PO and more content work. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Dolotta
- 5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
- A: I think I am weakest in the template namespace. I have the utmost respect for editors who work and develop intricate templates for wider community use however I do not picture myself getting involved in template development or maintenance as an administrator. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from SilkTork
- 6. You nominated Yankees–Red Sox rivalry for GA, and then handled the review, dealing with all the issues raised, for which you were complimented. Yet you don't list this article as one you helped bring to GA status. Why is that? SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- A: Most of my work on that article to bring it to Good Article status involved small changes (copyediting, reference/source changes, etc.) and not large content additions. I did not feel it was right to list that article because I was not one of the editors to significantly contribute to the prose. -- LuK3 (Talk) 10:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ktin
- 7. What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Wikipedia welcoming to fresh editors? Ktin (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)A: All editors, not just administrators, should have a hand in assisting and welcoming new editors. As stated in my answer to question 3, I always try to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an easy to understand way. One administrative area to help and assist new and inexperienced editors is requests for undeletion. It is always good for an editor, especially new editors, to improve an abandoned draft or AFC submission for possible publication. Lending out a helping hand to new editors and assuming good faith is extremely important to editor retention and making Wikipedia a pleasant place to edit and participate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from SilkTork
- 8. You've been made an admin (congratulations!) and you're closing AfDs that are over seven days old. You come upon one where the nominator simply says "This should be deleted", and there are 10 Keep !votes which are saying "No, it shouldn't", "Keep it", "No harm", "I like it," etc. And you look at the article and notice three solid (though not Speedy) policy based reasons to delete (perhaps unsourced spam copied from a company website, though it could be anything). What do you do? SilkTork (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- A: Articles for deletion is not a straight vote process. In this situation, I would participate in the deletion discussion and base my argument in the applicable policies and guidelines. Since all of the keep !votes, in addition to the nominator statement, do not cite or reference any policies and guidelines, my argument should carry more weight than the WP:ILIKEIT keep !votes. I would also hope my argument would persuade others to base their reasoning in policies and guidelines as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Robert McClenon
- 9. What experience have you had in resolving or trying to resolve disputes between editors, either article content disputes or conduct disputes?
- A: I have provided multiple third opinions over at Wikipedia:Third opinion. One that specifically stands out in my mind was an issue regarding too many images on the FOCSA Building article back in May. I agreed that there was too many images and should be cut down, given the size of the article. The discussion was reignited last month, see Talk:FOCSA Building#Too many images. I bought up the user conduct issue to AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#OWN and IDHT issues on Talk:FOCSA Building. Fortunately, it looked like the editor did get the issue and removed images so no further action was needed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Nalbarian
- 10. This question is on BLP (biography of living person). Important personalities from remote areas of a country experience significantly less and different media coverage than their other places' counterparts. Eventually, they are viewed as less significant. What's your view on this? Do you have any idea to implement tertiary sources for an article in future? Nalbariantalk 06:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- A:
Discussion
- Links for LuK3: LuK3 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for LuK3 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
- As nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- As co-nominator. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Per nominators. I think the candidate has the right temperament and attitude, and need to be an administrator, with both content creation and anti-vandal work. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Definite support from me. I actually asked LuK3 a couple months ago whether anyone had talked to him about doing an RfA. He shows up frequently in the admin areas I watch (UAA, RfPP, CSD, and revdel requests on IRC). More importantly, his requests in those places are almost always correct - I may have declined a couple of his revdel requests as not quite bad enough to merit deletion, but that's an area where we'd rather someone ask if they're unsure. As such, he has clearly demonstrated his need for the tools and competence in those areas. On the personality side, LuK3 is level-headed and unfailingly polite. He will be a solid addition to the admin corps. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This candidate has an admirable skillset, and more than enough activity since his return to assuage any concerns I might have. I might bring up his deletionist nature, but if that's the case, I've really reached the bottom of the barrel. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) And yes, after an edit clash I accidentally duplicated Epicgenius' !vote, apologies to both!
- Support - in past encounters LuK3 has been willing to discuss his actions & consider alternatives. The sort of consideration it's good to see in an admin. Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good mastery of CSD, writer of some large articles, good at Afd. What's not to like. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support One of the most trustable anti-vandals, good at CSD; having some big awarded articles doesn't hurt either. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that LuK3 would abuse the tools if given. Additionally, I've seen them around, and strongly believe that they have great judgement. SQLQuery me! 16:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Today I am honored to give you support. There are no obstacles here, just good work. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've seen Luk3 at work, no qualms about supporting - thanks for putting yourself forward. GirthSummit (blether) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Nominators are people I trust and made encouraging nominationation statements. I've otherwise never seen this candidate before. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support level headed, has a clue. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – it's a full time job keeping up with LuK3's revdel requests and it's definitely time for us to let him handle them himself. As with the nominators, my interactions with the candidate have always been positive, and I trust his judgement. – bradv🍁 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Too bad the RfA didn't run a week earlier, otherwise we could force him to apply for OS too! GeneralNotability (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – I'm very pleased to support. LuK3 is one of our most helpful editors in the behind-the-scenes maintenance areas of the project where the admin toolset is most needed, and his content work is quite good as well. Let's give him the mop. Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support good candidate overall. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I most frequently see LuK3 at IRC asking for revdels, and he seems to have very good judgement for them, and is always very courteous. But I've also seen LuK3 around in an increasing number of areas, and think that they would put the tools to good use! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Is definitely versed and familiar with rev del and our policies and procedures. Happy to finally see him here. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - at this point in my WP experiences, someone who is versed in sniffing out vandals, socks and trolls is much needed. This is a good start. Atsme Talk 📧 18:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - It's No Big Deal - TNT ✨ 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support need for the tools demonstrated, calm and level headed and competent user. fwiw, I took a look at their afd votes and they demonstrate a decent handle on policy etc., though that's obviously not their main 'selling point'. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nominators, bradv and GeneralNotability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support No issues and a strong contributor. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Oh my goodness absolutely! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support as one of LuK3's "revdel bitches" I can say hand on heart (rumours I don't have one being unsubstantiated) that they've got the necessary experience, skill and expertise in understanding what to delete, what to keep and what to get a second opinion on. I went through their contributions and looked at other admin-y type stuff and when I could find nothing of any concern, I begged them to run months ago. If I wasn't such a lazy fucker, I would have offer to nominate them, in fact. Nick (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per all the above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. That first RFA could be a poster child for "broken RFA process"... sorry you had to go through that, Luk, and thanks for standing again. Lev!vich 20:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've seen their reports at RFPP, and they give me the impression that
protect
would be used well. I read through the first RfA and agree with Levivich. Clear net positive if we give Luke the tools. — Wug·a·po·des 21:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) - Support - if anyone has shown a need for access to the revdel buttons, it's LuK3. My interactions with him have been unfailingly kind and courteous, and this attitude is reflected in his work at WP:ACC as well. stwalkerster (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Not an idiot. Not too weird. Not a dramamonger. Good admin qualities. Natureium (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Supportsolid answer #3Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Good content creator that can be trusted with the tools. I usually like to see more experience with featured article writing, but featured lists are good enough. Even as we are here discussing their fate, LuK3 is out there fighting vandalism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Long term user has been around since 2008 ,Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- big fat support Clone commando sev (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Good activity, reasonable answers to questions, and nice work on CSD also. Best of luck, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. P-K3 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support — This project needs more admins + overall they are a net positive. Celestina007 00:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Anyone Barkeep49 nominates has my support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per PMC. CThomas3 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I have looked at his contributions and it looks like he is ready. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Supported the candidate's first RfA (which was unnecessarily harsh), and am happy to do so again. Miniapolis 01:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support No reason not to. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support for a job well done! Royalbroil 02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the immortal words of TonyBallioni, "not a jerk, has a clue." -- Euryalus (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support hope this makes up for never getting around to reviewing that FLC last February :) – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support happy to support. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent work in counter-vandalism. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Their answers are good and many people whose opinions I respect are also supporting. They sound like they would do well with the tools. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Barkeep49, TonyBallioni, MJL, CaptainEek, Atsme, Wugapodes, and Fastily. —andrybak (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support giving the tools to do even more of the good work they're already doing. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support — an impressive counter vandalism record across AIV, UAA, RPP, balanced with an excellent contribution to article quality. That balance is not an easy find. @LuK3: I wish you all the best, —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive anti-vandalism work, and good judgement if I may add. This editor clearly has the skills for being an excellent admin. CycloneYoris talk! 09:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support My interactions with the candidate have been entirely positive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Per Bradv and Oshwah. On my own to-nominate list, so glad to see this! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support No objections. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- —Kusma (t·c) 12:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support 100% Glen (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support This user is really good at reverting vandalism and non-constructive edits, as I have seen this user beat me to reverting vandalism and non-constructive edits many times. I think it would be a good idea to make LuK3 an admin. Wikiffeine •‿• 14:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, admins who focus a lot on vandalism tend to do silly things like block experienced content creators for mild outbursts, so maybe not the best argument to use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Based on my own experience and the testimony of others, I'm confident that he'll make responsible and productive use of the tools. GoodnightmushTalk 15:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have consistently seen high quality AIV reports or CSD tagging from the candidate; has my trust. Best, SpencerT•C 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Essential work and good to have someone so experienced in it as an admin. Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support A solid editor with a long history of positive contributions to the project. I've seen them around and always been impressed by their work and demeanor. No red or yellow flags. I think we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I researched the candidate some time back and all the concerns then have now been resolved. No further issues. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I have seen a couple of judgement slips at RFPP nominations, but certainly on the positive side.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - My only slight concern is the gaps in editing however as noted below we are indeed volunteers, Other than that I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Great anti-vandalism work, should do great work with the admin toolbox. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:25, 20:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Great candidate; I have no concerns regarding his ability to use a few extra buttons cluefully.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support for meeting my mins and not a single voice in opposition. Ifnord (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I nominated him the first time and felt he was ready then. No worries now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support My immediate reaction after taking a look at some of the candidate's work was positive but I decided to wait a while to see if any of our resident detectives could turn up something negative. So far, the answer is no, so I will go with my initial impression. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Has demonstrated plenty of clue since the 2012 nomination, clearly can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Does not seem problematic. SemiHypercube 11:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely – A highly tenured editor with a good head on his shoulders. LuK3 should definitely become an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I approve of their editing record and trust their judgment and handling. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've seen LuK3's good work and trust that the tools will build upon it. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 16:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've run into LuK3 quite a few times "behind the scenes" at ACC and OTRS. From what I've seen, he handles those extra buttons carefully and well and has been open and responsive to discussion about his actions when I've had occasion to do so. No doubt that will continue to the admin buttons. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support for the counter vandalism work. Eatcha 19:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I trust the conominator, and if they can trust that LuK3 can be trusted with the tools I can too. Furthermore, I see no issues which would lead me to oppose. One of the arguments made by the neutrals are that they have had editing hiatuses. I would counter that real life happens, so having editing hiatuses is not necessarily a bad thing. Also their last hiatus was September 2019, so they have been consistently editing for more than a year. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Vexations (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per IRC mentioned by noms and WP:SOFIXIT. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Competent and clearly operates with the project's best interest at heart. Waggie (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support He pops in to #wikipedia-en-revdel on freenode all the time with revdel requests. All of them were valid, so he clearly has a clue. Give him the mop so he can stop banging on the door of the janitor's closet to wake us up at 3AM local time to delete BLP violations! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Competent and trusted user. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I expect good things with the tools. BD2412 T 04:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Great user. Pamzeis (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, often see him active contributing, he would be a great sysop. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, great work, will certainly be an asset to the project. — kashmīrī TALK 11:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- + ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'm somewhat concerned about the high volume of delete votes at AfD, but not enough to withdraw my support. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - more admins is always a good thing.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I've spotted LuK3's reports at AIV and RFPP many times, and without exaggeration I don't think I've ever had cause to disagree with one, to the point that I've deliberately picked his report first out of a backlogged AIV before, just because I know it'll be actionable. Giving him the admin bit would significantly reduce the backlog of these damn correct reports that other admins need to do stuff about. ~ mazca talk 19:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. Competent editor per Mazca; often seen reverting vandalism. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: per other !votes and comments to this point in time I am supporting with limited scrutiny. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support No doubt! S0091 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very good prospect, can only be a benefit to UAA, AIV and related areas JW 1961 Talk 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per noms. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns. Nihlus 02:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. per Dennis. Their work over the last 12 months is alone enough to qualify , and Amanda makes a pertinent observation with:
Carelessly and being aware that we are all humans and that super dedication (addiction) to the project burns people out which makes them bad admins, are two very different things.
- not likely to be any more careless than the admin who stained an otherwise clean block log. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC) - Support. Does excellent work, good demeanor and interactions, trustworthiness well established. Donner60 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I usually have a feeling for RfA candidates, recognising names &c., but here i have no idea if i have run across the candidate previously, i'm confused by the similarity with at least one other user. Regardless, i am contented by all i read that giving out the mop here is the correct thing to do; happy days, LindsayHello 07:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support and all the best with the admin tools. Tolly4bolly 09:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support a big net positive to the project. Roller26 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Looks OK. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Belated support. To be quite honest, I was hoping for a little more substance in the answer to my question, but after a few days I have not found anything of actual concern, and that nobody else seems to have done so either speaks volumes. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support per the good temperament, clear need for the tools, outstanding work in areas that attract more newbies and non-Wikipedians (e.g. OTRS), and great skill in content creation. Thank you for all your contributions so far as a non-admin! — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support great temperament, demonstrable need for the toolset, and outstanding work with new users. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I support this nomination. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, seems to be a net positive. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I support this nomination as per the above comments and my experience. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Net asset, (probably) won't screw up. Harrias talk 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I imagine adminship to be very useful to the candidate Naleksuh (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No reason not to support, and reasons to support. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Stephen 02:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Appears to be thoughtful and open-minded. Particularly impressed by willingness to change their mind when presented with new evidence as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrowdStrike. Cbl62 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - FitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 18:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - definitely. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Gladly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Based on answer to Q8. The correct answer was "count votes". Also acceptable, would have been "skip". Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trusted user, clear need for the tools, net positive, no concerns on my end. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Cavalryman (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
- Support - an impressive record already. I'm sure they would make good use of the admin tools. the wub "?!" 10:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Definitely. Solid participation in several areas. Good luck! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support' Has a clue, knows what he is doing. 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.)
- Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- Neutral low article creation and main space participation. High delete !votes at AfD and many speedy noms. The only thing that kept me from opposing at this time was the fact that the AfD !votes are not just drive-by. My criteria for an administrator involve protecting content and content creators and I am not sure this candidate would do both. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- WRT AfD participation, I don't think it is fair to judge how deletionist an editor is based on these summary statistics: there is a big bias depending on how editors tend to find AfDs. Looking over the delete opinions where the outcome was keep, the only ones where I found LuK3's overall participation could be said to count as deletionist were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn You Auto Correct and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great White of Wildwood NJ (when the article looked like [5]). In both instances his delete argument was made before alternatives were suggested. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your editing pattern is very inconsistent, and have had big gaps between your editing periods. What if you were to take a hiatus again? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Foxnpichu, what if? We're humans with lives. And volunteers. Glen (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Somebody should not have admin tools if they’re not even going to be here. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- And we have a process for that. Come on. Adminship doesn't have a job description or a daily task list.--WaltCip-(talk) 22:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- But it should not just be given out carelessly. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Carelessly and being aware that we are all humans and that super dedication (addiction) to the project burns people out which makes them bad admins, are two very different things. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Any one of the admin corps could take a long break right now without warning or explanation. That's just how things go. I think a year of constant editing is more than enough to show that LuK3 is at least actively engaged right now (and so isn't likely to disappear right after getting the bit). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- But it should not just be given out carelessly. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- And we have a process for that. Come on. Adminship doesn't have a job description or a daily task list.--WaltCip-(talk) 22:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Somebody should not have admin tools if they’re not even going to be here. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Foxnpichu, what if? We're humans with lives. And volunteers. Glen (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose. Same as User:Lightburst, I am rather disappointed by the candidate's delete-bias at AfD and low non-automated mainspace participation. The only things that are stopping me from going to the oppose section is that the nominators are editors I hold in very high regard and there are no allegations of misconduct since this candidate's last RfA. Deryck C. 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan, re 'delete bias' I suspect that LuK3 shows up at AfD the same way I do - either they're nominating or they find a page already nominated for deletion while patrolling and decided to chime in. That usually leads to an editor's stats favoring "delete" (as opposed to people who show up at AfD via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:48, 18 September 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.
Ajpolino
Final (124/4/0); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
I am delighted to nominate Ajpolino for adminship. In my view, he is the epitome of a stealth candidate - someone who works hard in the background, always willing to lend a hand, and happy to pick up the slack where it's needed. I first encountered him in January 2017, just after my return to active editing. While working through the orphaned article backlog, I had discovered quite a few related to genetics. After I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology, Ajpolino jumped in and offered to work on all of them. The workload was substantial - I think it amounted to several hundred orphaned pages, all told - and Ajpolino patiently took the time to deal with all of it, for no other reason than that a stranger asked for help.
Not simply a hard worker, Ajpolino is a consummate team player who excels at reaching out to collaborate with other editors, whether that means nudging editors into reviewing GAs, or seeking partners for GA/FA work. When SandyGeorgia approached him about RfA, he was humble but willing, and quickly identified areas where he could help. I have no doubt that he will be as patient, even-tempered, and helpful as an administrator as he is as an editor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Co-nomination
A very knowledgeable and reliable biology/medical editor who consistently gets the job done, Wikipedia could really benefit from giving Ajpolino (talk · contribs) the tools. I was aware of Ajpolino’s steady work in initiating collaborative improvements of medical content (sample), but the quality of his work came more prominently into my focus when he and Spicy took on improvements at Chagas disease during its Featured article review, resulting in a saved bronze star for a 15-year-old badly neglected and outdated Featured article that would have lost FA status without their intervention. Ajpolino is currently working Buruli ulcer up to be presented at FAC, and is very active in reviewing Good article nominations for other editors. Willingness to review and improve someone else's very dated work for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers is typical of Ajpolino's character, work ethic, and steadiness. He is unfailingly civil, professional, calm, trustworthy, thorough, and reaches out to other editors to encourage a collaborative spirit: see samples here and here. Ajpolino has helped bring new life to the Medicine Wikiproject by starting, producing and delivering a monthly newsletter. Wikipedia is chronically short on admins in the medical realm—a difficult editing area—where content and policy knowledge is helpful in sorting the disruptive from the merely unknowledgeable about medical editing guidelines. Medical journal access is key in tracking down and dealing with copyvio and distinguishing disruptive edits. Ajpolino has an interest in, and has been helpful in, dealing with copyright problems: see here, here, and here for samples. More help is always needed in sorting out move discussions and determining when semi-protection is needed, and when it is not: see samples here, here, here and here. I enthusiastically join PMC in bringing forward Ajpolino as an excellent candidate for adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the kind words. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay. The only alternative account I have is User:Ajpollino, which I made to use in an airport one day, but ended up never really needing. Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 14 September 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: I plan to stick largely to my "home" areas of the encyclopedia, molecular biology and medicine, both areas where a bit of background knowledge goes a long way in differentiating inexperienced editors (who need a helping hand) from the truly disruptive (who occasionally need administrative intervention). In my free time I'll continue dipping my toes into text and image copyright; in spite of myself I find the convoluted half-logic of copyright law intriguing, even beguiling. I'm happy to lend an occasional hand elsewhere in the project, wherever I can be useful. I'm not a specialist in any particular Wikipedia process, so I'll enter new areas cautiously and seek more experienced help as I need it.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm pleased with my reviewed content contributions. Spicy and I overhauled Chagas disease earlier this year after SandyGeorgia posted at WT:MED looking for help. That got me interested in neglected tropical diseases and I'm working on a major overhaul at Buruli ulcer now. I've also done some heavy lifting at a handful of other articles, mostly related to Earth's predominant (and most interesting) life forms: microbes. An incomplete list is at my userpage. Putting together coherent medicine/biology articles is probably the activity here that brings me the most joy. I'd like to be useful in the administrative sphere, but article building will likely continue to take up most of my Wikipedia time.
- I've also been gratified by the positive response to the new WikiProject Medicine newsletter that SandyGeorgia mentioned above. I can only claim some credit, as the format is lifted entirely from Enwebb's excellent Tree of Life newsletter. I hope it can stimulate collaboration and a sense of cohesion among medicine-interested editors going forward.
- 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 I alluded to above, editing here brings me joy. I try to avoid spending my editing time engaging in unnecessary conflict (and thus dissipating that joy). When conflict is important or inevitable, I try to be brief but human in explaining myself. If I can't agree with someone, I'm happy to bring in other editors and abide by whatever consensus is reached. I haven't been in any particularly explosive conflicts, but off the top of my head, a couple of fairly recent examples when the temperature of discussions rose: 1 (after 1 and 2) and 2 (followed by this).
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 Dolotta
- 4. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
- A: The massiveness of Wikipedia has spawned many necessary but specialized working areas, each of which operate by distinct and somewhat siloed sets of guidelines and norms. UAA, TfD, CfD, and even SPI jump to mind. In my five years here, I've engaged relatively little with several of these processes. Not out of intentional exclusion, rather my wandering interests haven't yet taken me there. It is important that we continue to recruit talented and dedicated editors to work on each of these process queues, but sadly—at least for now—that's not me. Ajpolino (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Eddie891
- 5. While perusing your old AFDs, I saw quite a few where you talked about WP:NPROF, particularly WP:NPROF#C1 (1, 2, 3). What is your understanding of this SNG, particularly how it relates to GNG?
- A: Speaking of silos, WP:NPROF is somewhat distinct from other SNGs in that it explicitly sets a different notability bar for academics than for other biography subjects. The theory goes that since academia is rarely covered by major media, but we still wish to have encyclopedic coverage of exceptional academics, we need a different standard by which to judge academics' notability. In many cases, the NPROF criteria give unambiguous guidance. However, in some cases the guidance is less clear. Many academics-related AfDs center on NPROF criterion #1, which suggests we include articles on academics whose research has "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". In practice, articles are typically kept if the subject's work has been cited more than we think an average academic's work has been. This defies easy quantitative thresholds as citation counts differ over time (higher now than in previous decades) and field (more published fields like biomedicine are more highly cited). Now I'm all for including academics, even with scant published information available, and I've written several short academic biographies here. But you can see in 1, for example, my growing unease with criterion #1. As I said there, I worry that while GNG-centered discussions are about finding and discussing sources, NPROF#C1 discussions can be about calls to authority ("I work in or am familiar with [insert field] so I know what highly cited looks like"). That said, it's easier to point at problems than solutions. I don't have a big idea for how things should be, but would welcome some discussion to clarify (1) where do we want NPROF to draw the line, and (2) how can we clarify to non-academics where that line is? Pardon the wordy response. Ajpolino (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- 6. Could you expand on your answer to Q1 and specify somewhat where you intend to use the tools (i.e. blocking, page protecting, AFD)?
- A: Sure, the short answer is that I'll start conservatively and expand my use of the administrative toolkit as I feel I can comfortably act without breaking anything. This probably means starting with the easy stuff: patrolling the CSD G12 and F9 categories (which, along with G10, are the CSD categories that should be truly speedy!), looking at deleted content to help understand new users' questions/concerns, and enacting the occasional uncontroversial move over redirect requested at WT:MED (e.g. 1, which spawned 2). Eventually I might expand to actioning items at WP:Copyright problems (which can include RevDels, page deletions, and blocks), managing page protections (I'm forming the opinion that many medical articles carry indefinite protections of various levels in response to spurts of vandalism in the distant past. The unprotection of malaria earlier this year hasn't led to any problems. I'm interested in trying lower protection levels of pages that I or others at WP:MED have the time to keep an eye on), and where necessary, investigating disruptive users in the medical space (could include blocks, et al.). I'm happy to help out elsewhere if needed, as time and ability allow.
- Additional questions from Fastily
- 7. An editor uploads a self-taken photo of a newly unveiled statue in Bellevue, Washington, and tags it
{{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
. Do you take any action to address this situation or is it perfectly acceptable as-is?- A: Of course for either I wouldn't unilaterally make a call until I checked with an image copyright regular. That said, my hunch is that this image should be viewed skeptically. Unfortunately (for us; not for sculptors), U.S. law is fairly protective of the rights of sculptors. Since the statue is installed after 1977, a photograph of it likely infringes on the sculptor's copyright. I would try to explain the situation to the uploader. It's possible that the uploader is the copyright holder (though unlikely), or that the copyright holder could be found. I've had some luck reaching out to copyright holders and requesting they release a photograph under a compatible license (1 comes to mind as somewhat recent). We could have the same kind of luck here. If not, the image will have to be deleted. Of course, there's no clear reason this should be happening on English Wikipedia. If the image were to be kept, I'd move it to Commons so other projects can also make use of it.
- Incidentally, a couple of years ago I stumbled on a similar FFD regarding a slightly older statue. Sadly my confidence waned and I didn't follow through. Perhaps I can make that trip to check for a copyright notice later this year. Ajpolino (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- 8. An editor uploads a self-taken photo of a child's Iron Man doll, and tags it
{{Self|Cc-by-sa-4.0}}
. Do you take any action to address this situation or is it perfectly acceptable as-is?- A: Also unfortunately, toys are basically art in the eyes of U.S. copyright law. Similar situation to above: a glance at Iron Man suggests he's much too young for his image to be in the public domain, and the uploader almost certainly does not hold the copyright (which I assume is held by Disney?). So my guess would be explain to uploader, delete file. But I'd take a minute to check with a more seasoned image copyright hand the first time I encounter a given situation.
- As an addendum, I noticed your examples are under different versions of CC-BY SA. After a quick read of New in 4.0, I don't see any additional complication from 4.0 vs 3.0. If there is something I should be aware of, please let me know so I don't cause any problems going forward. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Nosebagbear
- 9. In the Caroline Ford AfD, could you explain what (in that specific instance) you'd have felt was a sufficient citation level to stand out per PROF#1, and then (somewhat more importantly), why the conventional coverage in the sources (with the text) that RebeccaGreen dropped in was insufficient for a switch to a Keep !vote? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- A: Sure, per NPROF#1 we're looking for "a significant impact in her scholarly discipline" through citations. Sometime early in my career here, I picked up a common threshold from other AfD voters: 3 papers* with >100 citations (*with a few minor additional constraints I'm happy to expand on). So that's what I was looking for. Is this a good threshold? It's ok; I have my reservations, but we can discuss them elsewhere. As for the second part of your question, I just dropped the ball. Real life stole my attention, and I missed the rest of the discussion. I dropped an apology note at RebeccaGreen's talk page a few days later. I try not to be in the habit of leaving drive-by commentary and disappearing, and I can't recall another AfD where my participation fell off a cliff. In this case, the AfD outcome was correctly swayed by RG's work, all is well that ends well. But in general, AfD is not a ballot box. You can't have discussion if each commenter plugs his/her ears after commenting. So hopefully that case can remain an exception for me.
- Additional question from Ktin
- 10. What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Wikipedia welcoming to fresh editors? Ktin (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- A: Administrators come across new editors for a couple of reasons. First, while performing administrative actions (mostly deletions). Here, an administrator's role is to understand and clearly explain the relevant policies/guidelines that underlie their administrative action. I find a human message goes much further in this regard than the templated messages we're accustomed to slapping on new users' talk pages. I try to make the time to leave explanatory messages, especially when undoing a new editor's work or seeing them struggling at AfD. I'm not the right person to provide ongoing oversight and mentoring to most new editors, but I can at least explain the situation, and point them to somewhere like WP:TEAHOUSE where they'll find the help they need. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
- Most administrators also engage in non-administrative tasks, and run across new editors while engaged in tasks that don't require the administrative toolset. Those who note administrative status on their userpage should be wary that new users could misconstrue an administrator's opinion as weightier than it really is. For this reason, an administrator's role is to avoid acting like a jerk whenever possible. Obviously this applies to all editors, but is particularly salient when administrators interact with new editors. The "over and beyond" version of this is to reach past not-being-a-jerk and try to deploy some human kindness in one's interactions with new users. So that's the goal I'll shoot for. Ajpolino (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also just a note for question-askers, real life will keep me mostly or entirely offline tomorrow. I'll be back Sunday evening (UTC-5) and will be available for the rest of the RfA period. Feel free to pile up the difficult questions between now and then. Ajpolino (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Most administrators also engage in non-administrative tasks, and run across new editors while engaged in tasks that don't require the administrative toolset. Those who note administrative status on their userpage should be wary that new users could misconstrue an administrator's opinion as weightier than it really is. For this reason, an administrator's role is to avoid acting like a jerk whenever possible. Obviously this applies to all editors, but is particularly salient when administrators interact with new editors. The "over and beyond" version of this is to reach past not-being-a-jerk and try to deploy some human kindness in one's interactions with new users. So that's the goal I'll shoot for. Ajpolino (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Robert McClenon
- 11. What experience have you had in resolving or trying to resolve disputes between editors, either article content disputes or conduct disputes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:12, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
- A: For better or for worse, I have little experience with Wikipedia's more formal dispute resolution processes, and my tendency is to avoid dispute-rich content areas. When I do bump into disputes during my normal editing, I'll only engage if I feel I can contribute useful information and/or lower the temperature of the discussion. A few examples that come to mind: (1) Here, when a normally quiet talk page burst into flames for a few weeks. Peppered throughout, you can see my (sometimes ineffectual) attempts to guide discussion and pull something useful out of a messy situation. A few sections later, I tried to bring some small closure by implementing a few of the more actionable suggestions. (2, an older one to show long-term behavior) A heated content dispute. I made a short content note there, explained at user talk, had another brief talk exchange, and the issue was resolved. (3) Two instances of problematic GA reviews. One brought to my attention here, leading to this message (The user's talk page happened to stay on my watchlist, so I interjected briefly here as well). The second here where I jumped in for a moment to add some information.
- Certainly administrators are often looked at to resolve disputes, either with the administrative tools or (ideally) without. This isn't a side of administration that I'm likely to jump into, especially at first. But if folks perusing my Talk contributions have any feedback for me, I'm happy to hear it. Ajpolino (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Ajpolino: Ajpolino (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Ajpolino 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: I haven't interacted with the candidate before, but I'm impressed with their hardworkingness and continuing work on Buruli ulcer. I was also refreshed by his respectful and defusing interactions in conflicts with other users, as well as just his general genial attitude; I think they're an excellent candidate. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nomination statements which reflect my experiences interacting with the candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Fairly decent candidate. I don't see any conflict or what could be called, conflict. I see rationale discussion, a fairly industrious approach to their specialism and a will to work with everybody. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nothing but positive interactions with the candidate at GA reviews in biology and medicine. As an example, after reviewing Willis J. Potts at GAN, ajpolino went the extra mile by contacting an archivist at Northwestern in an attempt to replace a non-free image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - They seem to be mature and possess common sense + with the general backlog requiring admin attention, the project definitely need more hands on deck. Celestina007 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The candidate seems trustworthy as an experienced content creator. I haven't really interacted with them, but the nominators' statements and Ajpolino's responses to questions seem to indicate that they are suited for the tools, even if they don't plan to specialize something in particular. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that Ajpolino would abuse the tools if given. SQLQuery me! 14:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Don't know much about them but from all appearances is a useful content contributor and plugs away at their own area.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per TonyBallioni. The opposes are just bizarre - it doesn't matter how often somebody uses the tools as long as we trust them with them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Support for those doubting based off of experience in admin areas, there's actually some very helpful, well worded analysis at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 July 31, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 August 9, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 August 20; an admin experienced in copyright work and medicine would be incredibly valuable, given paywalled papers and such. If this somehow doesn't pass, I'd happily appoint you a clerk at copyright problems. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 14:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I don't have any problem supporting a candidate whose need for the tools isn't super-obvious when they have a track record of great contributions and an obvious dedication to the project. If a couple of the tools help them do what they do, even if only a little, that's great, and I trust them not to misuse the rest; if after time they dip their toes in and help out in new areas, even better. Good luck GirthSummit (blether) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom, I don't see any problems so good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per noms from two extraordinarily well-respected nominators and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Primary criteria for adminship should be trustworthiness and cluefulness, which the nominee has an abundance of, not evidence that they will be blocking or deleting all day long. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have not had the pleasure of interacting with this editor but he seems qualified. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Seen them around, nothing of concern, plenty to like. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support very good answers to the q's, in my opinion. Looking through AFD votes, edits in 2020, talk page archives, the WPMED newsletter, content written/reviewed, and copyright work, I see no indication that this user would abuse the tools and every indication that they are a well-qualified, competent, and kind user who would make a great admin. Convincing need for the tools and if they aren't the most active admin ever, that's perfectly fine. tl;dr: not a jerk, has a clue. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – talented, experienced, and trustworthy. – bradv🍁 16:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – likely net positive. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious nom support ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support has a clue, not a jerk. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I found his recommendations at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to be very helpful. MER-C 17:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I certainly appreciate knowledgable candidates because they are a net positive to the project overall. Atsme Talk 📧 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No Big Deal, Ask Self Why Not? - TNT ✨ 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – no concerns. A stated interest in a few favorite topics isn't an issue, especially when those topics are relatively technical and difficult for the average editor to navigate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns and looks like a solid editor.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nothing I see here gives me pause for concern. We can use more admin that are versed in copyright issues. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Candidate is a content creator with good main space participation, which leads me to believe the candidate will protect content creators and content. The very high delete !voting gives me pause, but I cannot argue with the 82%. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per all the above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Girth. No concerns. Lev!vich 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very happy to see this RfA. Ajpolino has done exemplary work at WPMED and I am sure he will be an asset to the admin team. Spicy (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Clueful editor, has done solid work. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Great content creator that can be trusted with the tools. The FAR save was what convinced me. I encourage you to promote one of the many GAs to FA. It is a great experience. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- support admin material. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trust the noms, and always good to have more admins working in copyright. P-K3 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I read the lead sections of half a dozen biomedical/scientific articles this editor has done a lot of work on. They are clearly written, informative and easy for a moderately intelligent person to understand. The editor's understanding of their considerable strengths and few weaknesses is refreshing, and the candidate has a legitimate need for the tools. This is a fully qualified candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support We need new admins, and this person seems like they are trustworthy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support why not? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 04:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – We are almost always in need of additional administrators who understand the intricacies of our copyright policy, and I think it would be a mistake to turn away a knowledgeable candidate who has volunteered to work in this complex area just because they aren't more active in other administrative areas. I don't dislike the answer to Q1; they're essentially saying they'll simply use the toolset as an extension of the content work they already do, which I find reasonable. The relevant question is whether this user will be a net positive to the project, and the answer is yes. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – per Ritchie333, TonyBallioni, Barkeep49, Bradv, and Buidhe. —andrybak (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good answers to q7 and q8, would be great to see you help out more with files/copyright on enwp and Commons -FASTILY 04:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support based on high-quality content work and obviously thoughtful attention to complicated issues around copyright. Good noms, too. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- good answers, good editing history, seems like a fine choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'm impressed by Ajpolino's dispute resolution technique at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Killick. Having already contributed a sound comment to the AfD, they were under no obligation to further engage in discussion – but instead went above and beyond, writing a thoughtful comment to a frustrated opponent of deletion. We need more administrators with this sort of attitude. – Teratix ₵ 08:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, excellent content creator, well versed with the deletion criteria of the area they plan to work in and clearly very trustworthy, would clearly make a great admin. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, we need more admins (and more editors) with these qualities. In particular, I remember his/her thoughtful input here, and subsequent rewrite of Mycobacterium ulcerans – a problem identified, investigated and then remedied. The answers to questions 7 and 8 are good. Ajpolino, the crucial difference for us between CC BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0 is that the latter is not compatible for text; both are OK for images. There'll usually be two copyrights in an image of a sculpture, one for the work itself, another for the photograph. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- You might have to re-read the answer to q7 several more times (I'm guilty), before it is apparent that Ajpolino suggested the "copyright holder" (i.e. sculptor) was also the photographer of the image in question. While their followup discussion of this hypothetical isn't incorrect, I will say that this (e.g. artist donations via OTRS) almost never happens in practice. The candidate has already demonstrated more knowledge of this topic than most editors I know, so I'm not overly concerned with their answer. -FASTILY 21:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I’ve always felt we need a mix of admins who are generalists and those who are specialists, in terms of content and in terms of technical/legal issues. This candidate seems to be an excellent addition to that mix. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support their answers to questions are great. Their civility is a great positive point for me. I can see no outstanding issues related to this user. Based on the large amount of initial supports, I can see this candidate is trusted by the community too. The opposers have mentioned that there is not a need for the tools, but I would say their understanding of copyright and their work in copyright areas of Wikipedia show that they will have use for the tools. Several copyright admin regulars have supported this candidate, so I would say their administrative work there would be useful and needed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, lots of good work. We also need more admins who can help out with copyright issues. —Kusma (t·c) 12:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Let’s do it! Foxnpichu (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the candidates is competent in their areas, has good content work. It's also good to see that they are not just capable of apologising, they do so as a matter of course, not just as an RfA interlude. Mistakes happen to us all, and I feel Ajpolino will make a good admin. To the concerns that "they'll only admin in their limited area" - that might well be the case early on. However admins tend to grow the area they feel comfortable operating in, and I feel that is likely the case here. In the meantime, another admin's time that would be spent here can go elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - nice username. Also seems trustworthy and like they have a use for the tools. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Per Spicy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the candidate seems likely to use the toolset responsibly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns or red flags here. –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It looks like we have a trustworthy editor who can make trustworthy use of these extra buttons. I'm not worried about the lack of specific demonstrable needs for the tools, especially as this editor is praised as a good content contributor, which is the weak side of many candidates. Deryck C. 22:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support for meeting my mins. The oppose !votes aren't about the judgement or behaviour of the nominee but query the need for admin priviledges. I would invoke no big deal; there seems to be no reason to deny this simply because it would only be sparingly used and the ability may spurn them on to learn new things and assist in new ways. Ifnord (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy noms, good temperament and answers to questions. Will make a fine admin. Miniapolis 02:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I see nothing to suggest that Ajpolino would misuse the tools. On the contrary, I think they're reliable and have a clue. As for the question of need raised in at least one of the oppose votes - for the most part, admin tools are editing tools. An active content creator has need for them. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Trust the noms, trust the supporters (trust the opposes too, only, remain unconvinced). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Good enough.--Find bruce (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Ajpolino will likely be an asset to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I love this: "I have yet to exhaust the world of interesting and unusual mistakes to make." It shows a person who knows they will make mistakes, and is not afraid of that because making mistakes is how we boldly develop. And SandyGeorgia's nomination is perfect. I was almost tempted to support on the strength of that alone. Clear and informative, and well argued with telling links. But I did look further, and I like what I have seen. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – With regards to concerns about a lack of need for the tools, I will reiterate the same argument as ever–no one editor needs to be an administrator, but Wikipedia does need administrators. And we should judge who gets to be promoted based on their suitability, not need. Kurtis (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nominators, TonyBallioni and Kurtis. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I was originally worried about activity and actual work on the encyclopaedia (less than 2,000 edits in the last year), but it seems the user is more likely to do a big update in one edit (where I might make 10). User being conservative at the beggining with the tools is wise, but would like to see them take the step out into the wider admin world eventually if given the toolset (kettle & pot) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yikes, thanks for mentioning that, Lee Vilenski. I am one who takes ten edits to do what others do in one, and had intended to mention this about Ajpolino in my co-nom statement, but simply forgot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Cool user-name. No issues Eatcha 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Vexations (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Per NBD I don't really care about "need for tools" as long as the editor is clueful enough to RTFM and not break things. Ajpolino seems to fit that bill, so no concerns. — Wug·a·po·des 21:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Based on answer to question #10, I want to say that this is exactly what we want to see in an Administrator. Empathy should be the corner stone of an Administrator's actions, and it seems like this candidate Ajpolino gets that! Thanks for your candidature and here's wishing you the best. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, every reason to have high hopes. BD2412 T 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nomination statement is reasonable; it's good to have stealth candidates. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good answers. Jaredroach (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Looks like a good candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Echoing what many have said above regarding demonstrated need: the English Wikipedia has a demonstrated need for more people with "the tools", and Ajpolino would do a fine job. I'm happy to support. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 23:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - we need, IMO, more content creator admins. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support have nothing but positive interactions with this editor. Has a level head, content experience, and an interest in using the tools.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support , per Ritchie333, and an excellent answer to Q10. Anyone with this candidate's experience and area of focus will find plenty of opportunities for exercising admin responsibility without needing 'to go over and beyond' with anything at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per nom, Girth Summit, Moneytrees, Cullen, Larry Hockett, Lee Vilenski, Gog the Mild and Kudpung. Little more needs to be said except an experienced and expert contributor, great demeanor and interactions and obviously trustworthy. Donner60 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Seems a good content contributor who may be able to help out with some admin tasks from time to time, and would appear to be trustworthy if given the tools. Hope the strains of admin work do not taint their WP experience but that is no reason oppose. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Salvio 09:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Acceptable answers to candidate questions, I feel Ajpolino will make use of the admin tools very well Sportzpikachu (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support definitely need technical content creators and collaborators. The candidate has shown themseleves capable of handling admin tools. Roller26 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. That about says it all. --rogerd (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: good temperament, excellent communication skills and highly valuable specialist knowledge, along with enough use cases for the tools for it to be worthwhile granting them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support highly likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. Collaborative approach: tick. Demonstrable desire to work tirelessly for the project: tick. Abundance of clue: Big green shiny tick, splangled round with twinkling Christmas lights. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious nom Support, because character and trustiworthiness are what matter, and Ajpolino demonstrates those in spades. (And I won't hold it against Ajpolino for having a co-nom who put a dangling modifier in the first sentence of their nomination statement, although I do think SilkTork should have noticed!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well-rounded candidate; will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 23:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support I believe they're qualified, so I gladly support their nomination for admin. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not. Seems like an excellent candidate. Conlinp (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 08:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support strong addition to the corps. Glen (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: (probably) won't screw up. Harrias talk 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Fully qualified candidate, excellent answers to questions. No concerns. CThomas3 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Supportper nom and answers.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No reason not to support. The answer to my question about dispute resolution shows the common sense to act in areas where they think that they are experienced. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Stephen 02:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Basically what Nosebagbear says. CLUEful editor who can be trusted with the tools. The community has (recently, even!) continued to agree that competent, trustworthy editors with a desire to help can indeed be trusted with the tools. Maybe that's a shift from years ago — I've opposed it once or twice myself — but we've decided that it's not a sufficient reason to oppose a worthwhile candidate looking to lighten the load a bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - FitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 18:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Team player. No civility complaints. Science. All great. --Guest2625 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Solid editor with no red or yellow flags. The opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
- Support Per all the above, having more help to combat copyvio issues is much appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. A strong candidate who I am certain will be a good admin. An excellent content creation record, and expertise in copyright matters is particularly invaluable and appreciated. Good luck. Nsk92 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Commited and level headed.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Antrocent (♫♬) 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trusted user, and as a user that has requested administrator attention regarding copyright issues in the past, I think having another set of sysop hands to assist in the area would definitely be a good thing. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the wub "?!" 10:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Piling on by this point, but agreed that this user would make a good technical admin. Good luck! --Dps04 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- Regretful oppose; as per below, still not convinced that the user will administrate anything outside their common area, lack of experience in administrative areas with exception of AfD and copyrights a concern IMO. Nightfury 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nightfury, I don't want to badger you - you must vote how you think best - but above there are two admins active in copyright who seem familiar with the candidate's work, and say they would welcome their help. There are certain things about policing copyright you can only do with the tools - that seems to me to be a very good reason to allow this volunteer access to them, so they can give us their expertise for free to help the project in this area. Just a thought. GirthSummit (blether) 19:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit; with all due respect, that is only one area, there are many others that admins need help in. As I said, user needs more experience in a variety of areas.Nightfury 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nightfury, what I fail to understand is the logic behind that position - that if someone can help in only one area, it's better not to let them help at all. Yes, admins need help in lots of areas - this person is able and willing to help in one of them - we want to stop them because one's not enough? I don't get it. GirthSummit (blether) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I opened a talk page section in case either of you (or anyone else) wants to continue discussion there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nightfury, what I fail to understand is the logic behind that position - that if someone can help in only one area, it's better not to let them help at all. Yes, admins need help in lots of areas - this person is able and willing to help in one of them - we want to stop them because one's not enough? I don't get it. GirthSummit (blether) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit; with all due respect, that is only one area, there are many others that admins need help in. As I said, user needs more experience in a variety of areas.Nightfury 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nightfury, I don't want to badger you - you must vote how you think best - but above there are two admins active in copyright who seem familiar with the candidate's work, and say they would welcome their help. There are certain things about policing copyright you can only do with the tools - that seems to me to be a very good reason to allow this volunteer access to them, so they can give us their expertise for free to help the project in this area. Just a thought. GirthSummit (blether) 19:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. First I offer Ajpolino my deepest gratitude for their content creation and other contributions to Wikipedia, such as by using PROD/CSD where due and helping on WP:Copyright problems. However, based on the nominators' messages, on the candidate's answer to the default questions and Eddie891's questions, and on the candidate's activity logs, I am unconvinced that there is enough reason to give admin privileges to the candidate. Without having admin tools, the candidate can do reasonably well most of what they already do, especially because activity in administrative fields is not that large. Their intent to "start conservatively and expand [their] use of the administrative toolkit" is promising, but I'd rather see more activity in administrative areas prior to having adminship. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. No demonstrated need for the tools, no demonstrated proficiency in admin areas, no real discernible desire for adminship. The candidate sounds like a good content creator; let them continue to be a good content creator. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender, without making it an auxiliary debate, I wanted to chime in and just add that just because someone is a good content creator, it is not right that we should expect them to perpetually continue to be just that. Growth is good. Ktin (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Candidates should have demonstrated a need for the tools, and a proficiency in admin areas. This candidate has not. Nor have they any real discernible desire for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand, how does this not demonstrate a high level of skill in an admin area? Even most admins aren't willing to work in the copyright area because of how difficult it is, but Ajpolino is. As for "desire for adminship", how is that not demonstrated by the fact that they're answering questions and accepted the nomination? Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 05:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see filing a detailed CP report as demonstrating a high level of skill in an admin area any more than filing an adequately researched AfD does. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender, I consider consistent filing of adequately researched AfDs and copyvio reports to be outstanding evidence of admin skills and also of the need for the tools, and am surprised that you disagree. People with that kind of experience and those types of skills are precisely who we need as administrators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The diff provided was a single filing. Had they presented more examples, my response would possibly have differed. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender, I consider consistent filing of adequately researched AfDs and copyvio reports to be outstanding evidence of admin skills and also of the need for the tools, and am surprised that you disagree. People with that kind of experience and those types of skills are precisely who we need as administrators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see filing a detailed CP report as demonstrating a high level of skill in an admin area any more than filing an adequately researched AfD does. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand, how does this not demonstrate a high level of skill in an admin area? Even most admins aren't willing to work in the copyright area because of how difficult it is, but Ajpolino is. As for "desire for adminship", how is that not demonstrated by the fact that they're answering questions and accepted the nomination? Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 05:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Candidates should have demonstrated a need for the tools, and a proficiency in admin areas. This candidate has not. Nor have they any real discernible desire for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender, without making it an auxiliary debate, I wanted to chime in and just add that just because someone is a good content creator, it is not right that we should expect them to perpetually continue to be just that. Growth is good. Ktin (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Softlavender. Nihlus 02:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
#I'm not too convinced with the answer to Q1, re the lack of experience in anything admin related, with the exception of AfD and anything outside of their "home" areas, as the OP puts it, I would say not ready for the mop just yet, but not enough for me to deny them a chance at being a mop holder. I was thinking of adding a question for them to clarify, but I see Eddie891 has beaten me to it. Nightfury 14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Still not convinced. Moving to oppose Nightfury 18:32, 16 September 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.
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.
- ^ 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.