Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Izno

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Izno

Final: (173/4/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

WP:RFHM also means Anthony Appleyard would get some help (which I guess he would appreciate ). So if you want to give a helpful and clueful user more tools so they can be even more help- and clueful, I think Izno is a good choice. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Co-nomination

After me telling him to run for RFA for a while now, he had the bold suggestion that perhaps I might nominate him, so here we go! I have worked with Izno for many long years now within my editing space, and frequently turn to him for advice and help myself. He's very knowledgeable about the structure of Wikipedia and its policies, how the community and its processes work, involved in wide ranging discussions at various WikiProjects and the Village Pump. His technical knowledge of the wiki and the underlying software has frequently aided me in resolving issues with templates and modules quickly. I find him to be level headed and a welcome voice in any discussion, even when his voice might go against my initial position (Because he'll know a policy nuance I missed!). He'll be a great help in areas that need a careful hand, such as RFHM, and I trust his judgment for the full toolkit. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: --Izno (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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've had the toolkit on two other wikis; in both cases, I had access for use of the delete button, but I've mentioned onwiki that there are other permissions in there that would be useful as well (such as move over history--i.e. for trivial history on a redirect). Wikidata and a non-WMF property were the two wikis; I am inactive on both now and resigned the tools on the former accordingly. I do have experience with history merges offwiki, and I suspect it would be nice if Wikipedia had a backup admin or two for that queue. I'll note here that NPP and RC patrol have not been in my bailwick, but I think my present AFD record should speak better to the use for deletion. As for the block and protection tools, I would start from the position that I would only use them in obvious cases (that mostly cross my watchlist), and likely not be doing extensive patrolling at AIV or RFPP. (I would tiptoe into those areas when they became of interest.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am a
the technical village pump
, among other contributions at centralized discussion fora.
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: Yes, I have been in conflict on Wikipedia. Rarely has it been over content in the mainspace (i.e. some sort of edit war of a reader-facing page); in those cases, at worst I can say I've hit the
revert limit
and then either sought external opinion or simply disengaged. I'm still working on not reaching for the revert button. Most conflict I have been involved with, consequently, has been located on talk and meta spaces; in those places, I think conflict is normal, and that sometimes discussion will get heated. When I've gotten really steamed, I've just walked away. It's not worth it to stress out over Wikipedia. There are some situations in my editing history I still think about to see if something couldn't have been handled a different way to have avoided getting into conflict in the first place. I think probably the biggest thing I could work on is displaying empathy and saying more about where I am coming from, so that people don't misunderstand the reasons I say the things I do.
Disclosures.
I have not edited for pay. The only accounts I have used to edit Wikipedia, besides a few random instances unregistered where I forgot to log in before the edit, are listed on my user page: IznoRepeat and IznoBot.

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 Xaosflux
4. Hello Izno, with adminship you will gain additional access to gnomish technical areas such as: all templates and modules, gadgets, and interface messages; and you could further gain access to site scripts. Would you describe your approach to how (or if) you will participate in these areas?
A: I have access now to many of our most-used templates and modules as a template editor (and I have patrolled the semi-protected queue as well at times). In that regard, I have used that toolset (and would use the admin toolset) to enable other editors to make non-controversial changes to widely-used interface pages. For those changes which have been non-controversial but non-obvious as to testing, I have tended toward declining with a request for testing. For those changes which have been controversial, I have myself given comment so as to help generate (or oppose) consensus for implementation (I do not recall whether I usually turn off the edit request or not in all these cases). I have followed similar patterns with the semi-protected queue, though the two are naturally not equivalent in how the workflows go. I intend to follow a similar process as an administrator. (On a complete aside, I need to look in to how to soften the language, as was discussed at VPPRO [I think], that EPH uses for declines.)
At this time, I do not know if I would request access to interface administrator rights; while I feel comfortable with CSS, Javascript is beyond me and is moreover the (more-)dangerous component. I also need to understand better what the requirements are for 2FA on Wikimedia projects.
Additional question from Dolotta
5. What two areas of the English Wikipedia do you consider yourself to be the weakest at?
A: Weakest? I think content creation is actually super-hard. I don't know if that makes it a weakness, but I don't—and have never, even offline—just spin out even the most-basic prose. It takes time and effort to summarize sources in your words; further time and effort to integrate one sentence based on one source with a second sentence from a second source. And so on.... Some of the edits on those DYKs I created were over the timespans of hours (never mind that 2 of the 3 are
not done yet
and I just haven't felt a desire to hit them back up again).
I know there are many other areas I have little or no experience with, some of which are intimidating, and wouldn't stop at 2 accordingly. :)
@Izno: I'll hold your feet to the fire a little bit and give you another chance to name a second area that you are at least relatively weak in. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I made note of in q1, I would consider NPP one of my weaknesses—I'm not particularly a patroller by nature (hats-off to those recycling-center-sorting-people!).
Additional question from PCN02WPS
6. Have you ever dealt with a problem on Wikipedia in a way that you now regret? If so, how would you now resolve the problem differently?
A: I commented on this to some degree with q3, but one of the items I think of in that question was where I submitted an article to AFD and the creator was quite busy in real life. Wikipedia is perhaps the better for it now, as the creator improved the article in question, but in retrospect it feels a little like I was leaving a threat over his head. I should have, but did not, displayed the empathy referenced in my answer to q3.
Additional questions from GregJackP
7. Why should someone who doesn't create content be in a position to decide issues involving content creators?
A: I assume, for the purposes of completeness, that this question is both about my editing and a question about all editors whom are not best-known as content creators.
To the latter, I also generally endorse Ritchie's essay on how important content is to administrating. Perhaps that will assuage you on this point.
To the former, I think my answers to q5 and q8 get a little into it. I have a deep appreciation for content creation, and hints of awe for those users who can churn an FA up in any amount of time—I wish I could be so obviously eloquent with such patience as many of those editors display in their efforts to improve the world. I don't expect my use of the tools will provoke a conflict as a result, but as required (and as a personal rule), I certainly won't do so where I am
WP:DTTR
in there). People shouldn't generally know you're an administrator when it comes to content, or even any other question, except where its required to be one to do something (contentious XFDs, use of the tools themselves, and other cases). In this regard, I tend a little toward "being an administrator is a big deal, but you shouldn't be acting as an administrator unless you're doing something that requires the administrator tools—you should be acting as any experienced editor would".
8. What do you see as the role of administrators in a conflict between a content creator and others, and do you feel that it is more important to protect the content or to follow the rules?
A: An editor's responsibility, including both this nameless content creator and his opposing others, is usually to do both (with
to do so within certain bounds. The role of any experienced editor, in any conflict to which he is not one of the parties, but which he has volunteered to help with, accordingly should be to guide the editors-in-conflict toward a consensus that accords with community norms, which we call our policies and guidelines here (where those norms are both conduct- and content-related). Where that process fails, it is the administrator's responsibility to protect both the wiki and the wider-community through enforcement of those norms. Sometimes that means a block, or a partial or total ban, or a protection, or no action at all; and sometimes it's not in the favor of the editor who you might prefer; the discussion regarding which should be considered, considerate, and hopefully make everyone, or at least the wider community for whom the administrator serves, content
with the decision to enforce. (Rarely is the community even content after any conduct resolution of many "basic" situations as I have observed, never mind those complex ones such as the "vested contributor" problem, but I think there are other brains in this community who have been chewing on those questions for some time longer, in a more-productive way, than my answer in this RFA.)
Additional questions from Bbb23
9. You don't have to answer this question, meaning you can leave the answer blank, but how did you pick your username? I mean, really, it's caused Newyorkbrad to deviate from his usual "fully qualified candidate" to making a PUN! And there are others lurking out there, e.g., "adminship izno big deal". Over to you, maestro.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: A friend of the family I stayed with in Sweden for some time in my childhood played Counter-Strike as "Iznogood" (the derivation of which I do not know—possibly from Iznogoud). When I later needed a nickname when I started playing, I had liked the nickname but didn't want to steal it... and I had some inspiration to be other than "Iznogood". So I took the name "Izno" as my own.
Additional questions from Catfish Jim and the soapdish
10. Why are there subject-specific notability guidelines? Surely the
WP:GNG
are sufficient?
I'm not sure if your first question intended a lesson in digital archaeology, but what we call the SNGs today showed up first as guidelines, not the GNG. The GNG wasn't identifiable on a guideline page even as a proto-summary until September 2006, whereas this is what NORG, NPEOPLE, and NWEB looked like around that date. (There was some previous discussion on general notability, but that page was not a guideline for use as we would see it today.) We can see here the efforts to summarize the subject-specific guidelines led to what we call the general notability guideline. I think this answers the literal question. (See also
WP:PAGEDECIDE
)
The less literal question behind the leading second question is whether I believe that we should still have SNGs. To be straight, I am not a fan of their continued existence. I think they cause confusion by setting out different, arbitrary, standards for each particular domain, and in some (I have my hobby horses that I'd prefer to see removed), less-stringent standards than holding those pages to the GNG. However, my personal opinion doesn't matter when it comes to administrating in this regard. Consensus in their continued application as guidelines is a community matter, to be settled by the normal consensus-change process.
Additional question from SQL
11. Do you intend to be active at
CAT:RFU
?
I don't think I would be comfortable here in the same way I wouldn't be comfy regarding AIV. If there was a queue related to blocks/protections I was interested in (though it seems non-existent), it would be
WP:RFUP. If you take a look, the requests for edit semi-protected pages queue is hanging around in the 80 pages region
right now. Many of those pages are indefinitely protected, some of which it is not obvious to me why that is the case. I could rationalize maybe rolling 1-year or 2-year or 5-year protections, but indefinite semi (outside of template-space) seems over the top for some of the pages I have seen in that queue (not necessarily the ones currently waiting for someone to help).
Additional question from Govindaharihari
12.Hi and thanks for your contributions. Would you still be interested in the advanced permissions of adminship if the raised level of authority over content and other users and additional responsibilites that creates required you to take some formal training and to formally identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to answer the question of Would you still be interested in the advanced permissions of adminship [...] if those permissions required you to take some formal training and to formally identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- the rest is a non sequitur. To answer that question: yes, I'm generally interested in what-I-assume would be training in dispute resolution (but perhaps you mean some other kind of training?). Yes, I would have no issue identifying.
Yes, I was thinking about dispute resolution primarily, thanks for your answer. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Reyk
13. What in your opinion is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?
I think there are many in the list that would fit for "important" or "most important": some of the content, conduct, deletion, enforcement, and one miscellaneous, policies; almost all the legal policies; and almost none of the procedural policies. Most-important to me? One of the few which identifies the guarantee to the right to re-use, re-distribution, and modification of the text of the encyclopedia, for any purpose whatsoever, under the appropriate terms. Why? It's the underpinnings of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and moreover enables very real impact in the rest of the world (examples include court cases and embedded in websites and the fact that we can change each other's words in our articles, never mind the efforts of our medicine-focused editors or our Wikimedians-in-residence).
Additional question from Bruce leverett
14. This edit: [1] has made a popular MOS page harder to read with certain browsers, notably Edge and IE. Is there a policy regarding which browsers a page must support? More generally, do you have a plan for dealing with this situation?
A: Is there a policy regarding which browsers a page must support? None of which I am aware from a local point of view.
WP:LISTGAP
. I've done a little more testing as a result of poking me here and it looks like the issue is unrelated to what I found the other day. Right now the template is generating a div with class module-shortcutanchordiv, which is not currently set to float right or display none. This is still a bug with IE/Edge that will cause the div to have a visible space like it does now. I'll stop by the template talk page in a minute to see if there is a preference there for how that is fixed.
Additional questions from Locke Cole
15. What are your thoughts on article neutrality, specifically, that the
WP:NPOV
policy is not something that operates on consensus (This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.)?
I read this as having a policy on neutrality is non-negotiable. Doing exactly what the policy says, mayhaps not, as it's the principles which do not operate by consensus and which are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, not the policy itself. (The policy and the principles are not equivalent and may not even be congruous; see also
the map is not the territory and all models are wrong
[some are useful].)
16. If an editor in a dispute pointed to NPOV as a reason to include widely reported information (from reliable sources), how would you weigh that against a majority (even a consensus) of editors that wanted to exclude that information?
A: I am sleeping on these. I've spent some time thinking them over, written some stuff, did a little research, and still do not feel comfortable with my answers.
I assume you are asking how I, as an editor, would weight some opinions in a talk page or other discussion needing closure, rather than as administrator, since this question does not make much sense otherwise. I assume also that when we say RS here, those RS are appropriate for the quality of the information (i.e. MEDRS for medical information, high-quality for BLP information, and so on, such that
ignore the rule
. In such a case, assuming those parameters, I would decide in the direction of the editor in the dispute. Now, that was a few assumptions. Tweak one just slightly and I think the answer that pops out may or will change.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As co-nom. :) -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Experienced, trustworthy, no reason to think they'd be anything but beneficial with the toolset. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've crossed path with Izno a few times and he has always shown to be considerate and levelheaded. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Looks good admin candidate. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Why not. FitIndia ✉ बात 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Izno reason he shouldn't be one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as nom. Regards SoWhy 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support rather competent editor who will use the toolset wisely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - smart dude. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. supporr: Izno is great. intelligent editor who is a benefit to the project Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support exceptionally technically competent, and with a far better understanding of policies than most, particularly accessibility. Add that to Izno's keenness to help others and I'm certain they will find good use for the extra tools. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per SoWhy and long term user has been around since Jan 2007 and a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support ~ seen him around, no reason not to, respect for the nominator, definite plus. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Izyes. Long term trusted user who is a net positive to the project, a long history of thoughtful, well considered contributions who presents minimal risk when promoting. Nick (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've seen the candidate around for a long time, and I feel like I have a clear picture, and everything looks good. Smart, articulate, considerate, trustworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Izyes per Nick. – Levivich 16:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Why not? I thought he was one already, actually. Double sharp (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Net positive is an understatement. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to expand on this given the concerns about content creation. There are tons of things to do on this encyclopedia beyond content creation. Most are not glamorous, many require special permissions, and some require admin tools. Izno has shown over the years an ability and willingness to take on many of these behind the scenes issues and giving them access to the admin tools not only makes the jobs they've been doing easier, it also expands the areas they can help out in. Xaosflux below gives the great example of full protection edit requests, but it also includes full-protected requested moves (a problem I ran into just the other day). The bit would give Izno the ability to do history merges, and I'm sure the few admins at
    WP:PERM often has various backlogs which Izno is capable of handling without having written a GA. While I understand the point that content creation is important for admins so they appreciate content disputes, the admin tools are a lot more than the block button. It's not obvious Izno will even use the block button, but it is quite obvious that they will use all the other buttons that are not as dramatic but no less important. Izno has been scrubbing the encyclopedia by hand for years, and giving them the mop makes everyone's lives better. If Izno was interested in blocking or wading into content disputes, I would sympathize, even strongly agree, with those who want content creation, but this is giving a gnome more tools to keep gnoming. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Support. Great user. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this closes, I wanna say that I am excited to see the overwhelming support there appears to be for this nomination. Izno is an active and really helpful user on WP:Discord, and I can't wait to have another admin there to constantly hassle bug give a friendly nudge to about getting any particular thing revdel'd or a vandal urgently blocked. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Going over their contribution history, looks like a great asset. --
    talk) 17:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. Izyes Adminship Izno big deal. There Izno reason he shouldn't be one. he blows right past
    all of my criteria. Izdefinitely a net positive. Also, Bbb23, you asked a question about puns right as I was making a comment about puns. Teehee Squeeps10 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Support. Izno will be an excellent administrator. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Why not? There really izno reason to oppose as far as I can tell!
    talk) (contributions) 17:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Support. Experience on content creation is desired, but not indispensable. He is aware of the time and effort it takes, so that is a plus in my book. Give him additional access to gnomish technical areas if that is his talent and wish. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good answers to questions and sensible contributions at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Past interactions suggest low-key competence. --
    talk) 18:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Support per ferret, SoWhy above and Why not below. Lourdes 18:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Insufficient number of edits in namespace 8. —Kusma (t·c) 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I throw numbers in places. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Yes, clearly. (One of the better long-term editors.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I mean, he has experience in namespaces that I hadn't even realised were their own namespaces. I'm not necessarily sure he actually needs the toolkit as vs just several other userrights, but some aspects would benefit and I don't think he'll do anything bad with it - a clear positive. I'm not an aggressive creation-ite, and obviously he contributes heavily to the content side of the encyclopedia, even without creating many articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Clueful User, been around a while and clearly knows what they're doing. GirthSummit (blether) 18:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Over a decade of sound, helpful contributions. No reservations. Support.
     ■ 18:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  36. Support. They don't get any better. A boon to this encyclopedia!
    ed. put'r there  19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. 110% - Great editor who no doubt about it will make a great admin. –Davey2010Talk 19:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - No concerns. Nihlus 19:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Per Newyorkbrad, who should however be pun-ished. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Worked with them plenty in the video game space and never had an issue. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Seeing this at
    WP:RFA brought a smile to my face. Nice to see people willing to run. Full of clue and would be helpful as an admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. Support precious gnome --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support This is a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support
    ping}} me in replies) 21:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  45. The candidate does not have significant content creation experience. I consider that to be relevant, but less so if I can find other evidence of strong understanding of content policies. There is ample evidence in this case:
    Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  46. Support I have trust that they will use the toolkit wisely. Polyamorph (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Be honest, you picked this username a decade ago for the sole reason that supporters can one day say “izno big deal”. Well, it worked :-). More seriously, I’m happy with what I see in their contributions. As others have stated, the candidate has demonstrated sufficient evidence that they’ll be able to handle content issues, even if they don’t have a GA/FA. Nothing else I see gives me anything but confidence in the candidate. Good luck.
    Help resolve disputes! 21:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  48. Support Based on their history, I expect Izno will be a drama free admin, and will make use of the tools to help in areas that may be understaffed at times. His prior experience as a template editor, and processing edit requests is something that can easily be expanded to processing fully-protected edit requests. I trust that they will stay out of areas they are not ready for or just don't want to get involved in. No concerns on the content creation history. — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support net-positive to the project. Will do well with the tools.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  50. Support competent gnome, I expect he'll do well with the tools. Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support with due respect to the opposes. He is levelheaded and a welcome regular at the village pump,
    NOBIGDEAL, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  52. Support. An editor that is clearly a net-positive and with no reason to expect that they would abuse the tools. More than sufficient experience to demonstrate level-headedness and maturity. Thanks for running for RfA and good luck. Loopy30 (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Per ToBeFree. I've been exposed to this editor and trust them to be a level-headed admin. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support as a definite
    net positive. Miniapolis 00:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  56. Support Has the technical experience and the temperament to be an admin. Britishfinance (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I've seen Izno around, he has a clue. Daß Wölf 00:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support level-headed answers to questions, 41K edits with 15K in mainspace, and 99.8% edit summary usage... a few aspects of what appear to be consistently good contributions. So, why not?
    talk) 01:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. Support Izno has been level-headed, competent, and a source of calm wisdom in every discussion or content decision that I've ever run across them in—and since we've been editing in the same general area for 13 years, that's a lot. I consider them a solid member of the editing community, and have 0 reservations with them being handed the mop. --PresN 01:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. A constant stream of helpful edits have shown up in my watchlist. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A quick look at their record suggests this is a solid editor with plenty of clue and a good temperament. Their content creation is a tad on the anemic side, but not to the degree that it is a red flag. We must remember that those also serve who work behind the scenes. Other than that they check pretty much all the boxes on my RfA criteria. I have reviewed the opposes and do not find them persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Sure--Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support – I honestly thought they were already an admin. Willingness to help out with history merges is also a plus. Graham87 07:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Plenty of experience and much-appreciated assistance in various areas. I thought they already were an admin. ComplexRational (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. No problems with the candidate. To those below who complain about lack of experience in mainspace conflict resolution - are you sure the nominee at all intends to focus on resolving mainspace conflicts? There is so much more to administering Wikipedia. Also, requiring great copywriting skills for what essentially is an IT admin role is sort of a misunderstanding. — kashmīrī TALK 07:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Strong technical experience and solid contributions to video game topics. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: no temperament concerns have yet been established, the editor has use for the tools (particularly the histmerge queue, which would be very useful to get more eyes on) and the opposers do not convince me. Not that I view it as an essential trait in an admin, but the DYKs are substantial content contributions. — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. will be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support.I have come across Izno a lot. With their experience, what they don't know already they probably won't. What they do know already is more than adequate for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Appears to have the temperament and experience necessary to be a good admin. Just looking through their talk page history, you can see numerous examples of other editors coming to Izno with questions or concerns, and Izno responding politely and appropriately with policy-based answers even when treated very rudely. The only counter example to this I can find is the issue discussed at Talk:Evolution of fish#Not particularly well explained revert, where Izno accidentally broke something it and, apparently not realizing what had happened, responded negatively when it was (somewhat rudely) pointed out. But that sort of thing happens to everyone every once in a while, it was over a year and a half ago, and it looks like a rare exception to their usual good grace. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would abuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 13:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Wants to do useful things, and seems ready to confine himself to what suits his skills and temperament. Saw the point and reacted well when I accused him tongue-in-cheek of having a COI over spelling of organ(is/iz)ation. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Appears to be a good gnome. Nice style, not some who attracts conflicts. You will be a great admin wikitigresito (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support -- Nothing to suggest they lack the skills to hold the mop. -- Shuddetalk 14:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Has the temperament and experience become a good admin. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - I see no reason why not. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support: I understand the objections based on Izno's relative lack of content creation experience, but I think Wugapodes explains better than I could why that is not necessarily a deal-breaker in this case. I like Izno's answers to the questions and I've seen him around and never had any issues with his work. Overall, I think giving him the tools will only benefit the encyclopedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Per Nick. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Trusted and experienced user, has experience with admin tools. Jianhui67 T★C 16:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - From what I've seen, he has terrific judgment and would be a good asset to the project. I get what people are saying about not creating that much content, but I don't see that as being the main driver of what makes someone a good admin. The nominated person has a good amount of experience and as long as he continues to edit with the same judgmentalness and thoughtfulness as in the past, then I think he would only benefit the project more as an admin. Michepman (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. No problems here. TheEditster (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support- I've seen Izno around and my impressions have generally been good. I think Wikipedia needs more wikignome admins, not fewer. Although I don't exactly agree with the answer to my question it's still a thoughtful and mature answer. Reyk YO! 17:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per Xaosflux. -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I'm not too happy over the lack of content; I think there's plenty of places where you can write very substantial articles without needing to create deathless prose; but fundamentally I think the candidate has the ability to make positive contributions with the tools, and that they know their limitations. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support After looking through the contributions, there is nothing to indicate that the user will abuse the tools. Also, this user has enough experience to make the right choices as an admin. William2001(talk) 20:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, easily a net positive. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - I love easy decisions. Nick Number (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I disagree with the answer to my question. Subject specific notability guidelines are important as
    Jim and the soapdish 21:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  90. Support - More admins is always a good thing.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, we need more moppers like this ie. a gnome with no major conflicts who primarily works in the less glam areas of WP. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Sure. Too bad that Squeeps10 and Steven Crossin made the obvious pun before I could, though. GABgab 00:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. support Mostly per the nominators. The tools will help him gnome better. More than meets the rationales I ascribe to and my standards for support. I see no reason to not trust this user with the tools. I do not require large amounts of content creation-- sometimes contact creators don't have time to work on the backlogs-- they're busy creating content. And it's important for an admin to know when not to reach for the revert button.-- Dlohcierekim 03:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Good record and experience in areas where knowledge of policies is needed. Will do needed work in areas that at least at times may not receive enough attention. Right temperament. Per noms and others including in particular
    Mkativerata. Trustworthiness established; certainly net positive. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  96. Support – A familiar name. I think Izno can be trusted with the tools. Kurtis (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, should be fine. Fish+Karate 08:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Weak support. Lacking content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, an all-around good person. bd2412 T 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support absolutely, just don’t F it all up :) N.J.A. | talk 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. My interactions with Izno have been positive; they've been polite, helpful, and knowledgeable. I always like to see content contribution but I have no qualms here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Unconvinced by the oppose comments. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support No red flags and while I see content as important for an admin, maturity/temperament is the most important for me and I see no issues here on the level that trouble me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - no obvious problems. Deb (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Excellent administrator skills, less so content creation but that follows the pattern. scope_creepTalk 15:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support There izno reason this editor should not be promoted. Just to say, I never, ever participate in RfAs, except that I felt I wanted to on Floq's recently. And now I find I can't resist the pun here. But I'm going to go back to no-RfA mode after this, and I want that known so future candidates won't think I'm snubbing them. EEng 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support per noms. I don't see any issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I see a lot of passion and pride in this user. I am impressed. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Izno has a good disposition and sound judgment from what I've seen. I gladly support. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support A quality candidate to be an administrator. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Seen Izno around for a while and never in a bad way. They should be fine with the tools. Number 57 21:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong support Very helpful editor. I've seen no issues from this editor at all. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Looks to be a good fit for the bit. NoahTalk 22:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. I've seem Izno gnoming around and have confidence in this editor's aptitude to handle the mop well. Deryck C. 23:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - can be trusted with a mop. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support has a clue, not a jerk. Find bruce (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support I have never encountered the candidate. Did my own research, found no reason to oppose. Competent, trustworthy. Liked some of the answers too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
  120. Support I don't see any critical red flags to oppose. Adminship izno big deal for a candidate like this, that is.
    📞 02:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  121. Support Good answers to questions.—
    (Talk!) 07:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  122. Support A good candidate from what I can see. decltype (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support experienced editor and good candidate to handle the admin tools. Tolly4bolly 11:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Weak support. I would have much preferred to see a more substantive content creation record. However, the candidate has a solid and admirable record of work in other areas, and 12 years of productive and constructive experience as a Wikipedia editor. Level headed, sensible and substantive answers to the RfA questions. Should make a good admin. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Good answers to questions and all evidence suggests they can be trusted. --LukeSurl t c 13:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Good answers, previous experience with tools and technicalities related with adminship.
    No such user (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  129. Support - one of the things I do when evaluating an RfA is compare my interactions with the candidate via the editor interaction tool, mostly to see if we've been in any significant disputes, but generally to see where we've intersected and how they interact with other editors and contribute to project-side discussions. Izno has been consistently insightful in our past interactions, in a way where you always appreciate what they have to say even though it's so generally unremarkable that you don't really recall who said it. I mean that as a good thing: editors shouldn't be given reasons to remember admins, if you know what I mean. I don't have any concerns here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support The candidate will likely make better use of a mop than they have with a pen, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Very pleased to see this! I've found Izno to be superbly helpful, level-headed, and prudent.
    WP:TTWOA applies in my case. Let's make it a reality. — MusikAnimal talk 16:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  132. Support - I've seen his contributions across several articles, but I don't recall ever interacting directly. He's displayed a high level of competency and I see no reason additional tools won't make him more effective. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support: would be a net positive; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. I have only seen positive work from Izno. Even though it doesn't seem like we've interacted much, he seems like a good candidate, especially in the areas for which he's seeking the tools. epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - To the best of my recollections, all of my interactions with this user have been positive, so I trust them. BOZ (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support per nom. Grandpallama (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. My interactions with Izno have been limited, but they are a constructive tour de force and would be a great asset as an admin. JOEBRO64 18:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  138. support wiki-gnomes tend to make good admins. Good answers to questions. SD0001 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support (edit conflict) per TonyBallioni, and also because I thought Izno was an admin already. That's usually a great sign to see with candidates at RfA. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - appropriate candidate for admin. JohnThorne (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support If we had the needed bifurcation amongst admins I'd say that the ability to handle disputes and auto-confirmed user behavioral problems is not established. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support per thoughtful and articulate responses provided. Should make an excellent administrator. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support while the desire for more content creation is understandable, it is not a sufficient reason in my opinion to refuse the tools to an otherwise qualified candidate.
    Lepricavark (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  144. Support - As far as I can tell, there izno reason to oppose. (if I don't read the other supports I can pretend I was the first person to make the joke -- sorry, izno) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Appropriate temperament for an admin. And honestly, this is one of the few candidates at RFA that I legitimately Thought They Were One Already. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support, I'm happy the nominee took the time to answer my question (poorly formed as they were). I'm confident this editor would use the tools to improve the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Suitable for adminship. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support No concern. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - Seems to be the sort of level-headed sensible person we need to help with the administrative burden. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support - per adequate responses to questions and the lack of any particularly compelling reason to oppose. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support, without reservation. — 
    AReaderOutThataway t/c 19:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  152. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. Not concerned about a lack of disputes, reminds me a little of myself when I was at RFA. Has my trust and will be a valuable contributor with the tools. SpencerT•C 02:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  154. I usually think "thought he was one!" is dumb but in this case I actually did. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - I trust that the user will be able to work in the areas they are interested and experienced in, and I see no reason not to trust them in doing so. --MrClog (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - appears to have the needed cluebat for the job. — Ched :  ?  — 12:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support a low-drama maintainer of the encyclopedia that's eminently sensible from question answers and past behaviour - the exact type of editor that makes for a very effective admin in the areas they're needed. SoWhy's nom statement totally summarises my thoughts on the matter. ~ mazca talk 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - based on review, but should work on main space content creation. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - Experienced and all my trust.—Arorae (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support - 42,000 edits over 13 years. Mergetarian at AfD. Trustworthy. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support — I've come across Izno several times, and none of my impressions have been negative. Therefore, I support per TonyBallioni. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support an asset to the 'pedia and that will increase with the addition of the mop and bucket. MarnetteD|Talk 19:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support. Guettarda (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support – Experienced, qualified candidate, per nominations and other users above. I also find nothing concerning at this time. However, I would caution the candidate to avoid contentious areas/resolving disputes until they acquire more experience in those areas. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Of course. Zingarese talk · contribs 11:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support I see no glaring reasons for me to do otherwise, on this one. Good luck (although it doesn't appear that you'll need it, at this point)! StrikerforceTalk 14:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Happy to support. Also happy that EEng showed up to add a !vote, as I felt this page would not have been complete without it (although others certainly have picked up the pun-slack as well). CThomas3 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support: - Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support He izno jerk, izno clueless, izno noob, izno reason to deny mop.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support - just made it, I kept forgetting. Clearly a good candidate. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support, piling on. Welcome to the team. Positive noticeboard participation. Looking forward to seeing your work at WP:WikiProject History Merge, only myself and one other admin have been really active there of late, and we either need more admins, more automation, or a combination of both, to finally clear this longstanding backlog. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support, no big deal, won't intentionally break anything or anyone. Harrias talk 13:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support: A great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. No conflict in main-space translates to a total lack of relevant dispute resolution skills for me. Also, I can't see any prominent content work and that lack of experience in the trenches strongly co-relates with a failure to appreciate that editors have pride; strong oppose from me. ∯WBGconverse 19:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, regretfully, based on my admin criteria. I'm regretful because I like the answers to Q7 & Q8, especially the second half of the answer to Q7. But both answers show a maturity and a level of thoughtfulness that are needed in an admin. As a clarification, my criteria doesn't require an FA, although I obviously prefer that. Going through the GA process twice does the same thing, and it doesn't take the same level as for an FA - but it does give you the knowledge of what it takes to create a good article. You don't even have to be the one creating the prose, you can get help with that, but it is important to go through the process to see what content creators go through. Finally, as to the position of the community on content? That's a misplaced concern. At the very top of my user page, there is a quote from Wehwalt, "Wehwalt's Analogy on Content Creation" that sums it up perfectly. (BTW, Wehwalt has 186 FAs and is also an admin). I would be happy to support if you could get two GAs. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, I think in time to come, he will be ready for this position. However, not currently because I would like to see him gain experience in other areas such as dealings with disputes. CLCStudent (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    CLCStudent for the benefit of the candidate as well as community, some of whom have recently, questioned your RfA voting trend. Please elaborate your oppose. This gnome has not indicated any intentions for working on ANI etc. He wants to continue his good work in non controversial areas that need mop bit. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to see admins that have some degree of experience in just about everything on Wikipedia. CLCStudent (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Based on a very low number of articles started. We are building an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst please help me understand what according to you is a good number of article a candidate must start before opting for RfA to get your support. Especially when the candidate has enormous amount of content work under his belt over many many years.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst Can you clarify why starting articles would be so important to doing good admin job that you are ready to block an otherwise competent person from having the tools only for not having started enough articles? — kashmīrī TALK 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandably some are perplexed at this reasoning but I don't think it matters in the big scheme. For what its worth, anyone can create an article but only the most committed can develop one into something worthy of inclusion. If someone devoted their time developing what we already have and improving existing content, rather than creating endless stubs then I know who i'd sooner support. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I am reluctantly landing here, because whilst the length of commitment to the project is there, along with a clue at AfD, I just don't see the understanding of content creation (and the disputes that can arise among content creators) that happens when you have actually created substantive content yourself. Content is why we are here, and admins are expected to deal with disputes between editors over content. There is no evidence that Izno has experience dealing with disputes between content creators over content. On the content creation front, I don't expect a FA or even several GAs, one GA would probably do if it demonstrated the ability to put an article together from multiple sources, but three DYKs just doesn't cut it for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I would prefer a "gnome" who was well familiar with article creation and with BLP issues. I see neither in the case at hand. Collect (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I don't see reasons to oppose, yet unsure to support a gnome unknown to me. It isn't a big concern yet, but I think it's fair to note that Izno is a Wikipedia:Discord "insider", and co-nominator ferret is an admin on the channel. So if other insiders suddenly pop up at RfA too, that might be troublesome for cabal concerns. --Pudeo (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • I like Izno's suggestion for most important policy - the more common ones are completely legitimate, but the sharealike license is so fundamental that it's only rarely considered Nosebagbear (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Izno&oldid=1138650607"