Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MB

1. Oppose.
   blank-and-redirect things instead of simply deleting them. We need to build the web, not destroy it. Their AfD stats only shows them aligning with the community about three-in-four times on AfDs that were closed with a consensus. MB is only only slightly better when looking at nominations created by the user, and many of those nominations (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naranjo Museum of Natural History and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Right Hand) do not look like any effort went into them to find sources before nominating the article for deletion. Much like MB said here, people with a low "success rate" should proceed more cautiously and have a better understanding of where the community stands—especially if one wants to become an administrator. God keep our land glorious and free (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   MB's Afd stats are not particularly bad nor is their prod log stats, considering the areas they work in. Prods by definition are contentious and its incorrect to state its only for uncontroversial deletes. If that was the case, the process wouldn't be used. I see you only created your account at 15:25. For clarity, what is the IP address you edited under previously, please? scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Scope creep: By Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, PRODs are supposed to be uncontroversial. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Scope creep:

   1.

   WP:PROD

   says that Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. Your claim that Prods by definition are contentious and its incorrect to state its only for uncontroversial deletes" is false.

   2. Regarding what is IP address you edited under previously: I was on a dynamic IPv6 Rogers Communications range and living in a New Brunswick city centre. I've been moved to a Bell Canada IPv4 when I recently moved to another part of the province (and I think this one is static). What about you, Scope Creep: may I ask your internet provider and where your IP address geolocates to?

   God keep our land glorious and free (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, that isn't what I was meant. It states on your on your userpage "Formerly a longtime IP editor." It was that IP on Wikipedia that I was looking for, so I could look at your contributions. scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Please see my talk page, @Scope creep. God keep our land glorious and free (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion [...] PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Thinker78 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   There is nothing in the text of

   Avilich (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   This was God keep our land glorious and free's third edit ever, made on the same day as their first edit. I tagged as an spa, but RZuo undid it without explanation. I guess it's preferable to have this longer comment tacked onto the bottom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose I was sorry to see MB was up for administrator. I did work with MB on
   WP:ARS (article rescue) editor and he said this about the group: "...they collaborate to "win" by any means and then disappear without actually improving the article". MB had to know that this was a complete falsehood, but they made this inaccurate statement in an anti-ars ANI thread. MB has demonstrated that they will not be an impartial administrator. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   As a lead coordinator of NPP, I’m not certain this user would be able to patrol from a purely neutral standpoint based on their record at AFD - This comment doesn't seem to be about your match rate (which is 70%), but about your !voting to keep more often than to delete (2:1 ratio), which is a rather more pernicious reason to prevent an editor from receiving permissions. I say this, because MB is not claiming that you lack the competence or accuracy, but that you are not capable of neutral editing because of that record. That has squat to do with match rate. You can contrast MB's AfD record which is heavily skewed to deletionism and his 'accuracy' is barely better than yours.[1] Mr rnddude (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Articles end up at AfD specifically because in most cases their suitability for the encyclopedia is usually correctly challenged and probably the vast majority do end up as 'delete'. That's the whole purpose of the exercise and why the system was created. It's a fail safe instead of NPP being simply a binary process; AfD does its job and that's why indeed a few articles do get kept or merged. The statement about MB's ANI comment justifies a thorough read of that case before singling out it as an RfA oppose rationale and certainly read more than the closer's accurate statement. - many well known admins made similar comments. If I had seen this comment - as I do still occasionally comment at PERM - I would have endorsed it. I sense there is more to this oppose vote than is wholly appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   That is a rather cryptic thing for you to say about my concerns - you yourself were desysopped for cause and you also have a history of questionable admin noms. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   You definitely do not want to respond to Kudpung's rebuttal with ad-hominems in an RfA.--v/r - TP 18:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I was the lead nominator here, so if you're going to attack anyone's record that's me you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Reaffirming my oppose. I was one of the early opposers based on personal experience with MB. After reading the other oppose rationales that followed my own I was genuinely surprised at MB's inability take criticism of any kind and his repeated dismissal of all criticism. I think enough significant editing and behavior issues have been raised in this RFA. Several administrators teed up softball questions for MB but they tripped on them, especially in their answer to 12 and 19. MB showed that they are stubborn and certain with their answer in 19. I also take note of the many administrators who opposed based on real concerns. This is now much more about MB and their seemingly intractable positions than it is about dismissing

   WP:BEFORE. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. I cannot support a candidate who replaces an article with a redirect to draftspace and tags it for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect, or one who thinks that "Recreation by same author of declined Draft:Newport" is a valid speedy deletion rationale. I can accept someone who tags pages in a way that is in the grey area of discretion, but things like tagging an article as a duplicate of a draft (apparently as an experiment, while being unsure of the policy when it was clear at the time) are simply bright-line policy violations. This is a shame, given that he has taken up the difficult role of coordinating NPP, but this is about whether an editor should be given access to administrative tools and not about whether he is a good editor. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   a normal part of NPP. Also, the A10 tagging seems to be justified, as the Draft was deleted for promotion and the article was a recreation of that. Both the draft and article were created by the same (banned) user. It may not of been the correct criteria, but it should of been deleted none the less, so it doesn't really seems like a policy violation. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC) See below - I now understand the oppose, striking comment. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Essentially, regarding the R2 issue, the page

   db-rediruser}} a few hours later. This is indeed a bit of an unorthodox way of using R2—technically, in order for a page to qualify for speedy deletion, all historical revisions must also qualify under a speedy deletion criterion (otherwise, the solution should be to revert back to the non-infringing revision). In my view, R2 can't be used as an alternative to AfD after an editor objects to a draftification by recreating an article. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Mz7 explains what happened with that redirect above. Given that R2 is one of the more "easy" criteria for an administrator to carry out, they're typically deleted very quickly (four minutes this time). As he writes above, it is a very poor shortcut to actual discussion, with the community weighing in.

   The article that was tagged was not G11-worthy. Maybe two sentences that should have been removed, but not unambiguously promotional. The sentence "It may not of been the correct criteria, but it should of been deleted none the less, so it doesn't really seems like a policy violation." appears to contradict itself – if you're asserting that the wrong criterion was used (I don't think it's that simple), then there's the policy violation. I would also hope that administrators (and the wider community) would not just be satisfied with a page being deleted, but that they were deleted for the right reasons. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Understood. I can not see deleted pages, and couldn't see the whole picture, making it somewhat unclear. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   The editor in question also said "I have never closed any kind of deletion discussion and don’t plan to work in that area". Given that, I feel like it's easy enough (for me at least) to say that they'll take caution and avoid repeating these mistakes - they say they only want to work in permission granting and want the tools for deleted contribution viewing, and while I'm sure they'll branch out eventually (pretty much every admin does as far as I know), I'm confident that they know their limits and will do great work with their tools. casualdejekyll 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see how that is relevant, given that my opposition is based on speedy deletions and not deletion discussions. As the candidate himself states while answering Q1, they do intend to work with speedy deletions. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I've reviewed the instance you brought up and I find the candidates actions to be wholly appropriate. Article was created and lacked references, formatting, and needed work. Candidate moved it to draft space w/o redirect. Original creator recreates the article, Candidate initially adds a redirect but then nominated it for speedy delete. What in this chain of events is so egregious that they are unfit for adminship?--v/r - TP 19:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   NPP guidelines (#3b) that say that if a draftification is contested, you should not do so again. The candidate, who is a coordinator of that project, has disregarded all of that and does not seem to understand how that's wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   With all due respect, Sdrqaz, I agree with TParis because what I see wrong here is the strong defense of a noncompliant article. The person who moved it out of draft is where you should be focusing attention, not criticizing MB for doing the right thing. Why have NPP reviewers if they cannot do their job? Liken it to stripping admins of the ability to block vandals and see what happens. If the community wants to keep every article that is not sourced, incomplete, poorly written, promotional, etc. then let's just do away with NPP all together. Why keep it? It is a thankless job, the backlog is growing after we worked so hard to get it down from 18,000 - yes, 18,000 articles, and the responses I'm seeing here now are a long way from supporting a hard working group of editors who are the last line of defense in keeping trash out of the encyclopedia. Sad, but to make it worse, we have to put up with unwarranted criticism over noncompliant articles. It is a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation, and it's not like we're running out of trees. Atsme 💬 📧 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   My "strong defense" is not of a "noncompliant article". I'm defending the community's right to hold people accountable for their actions, and the responsibilities that come with privilege on this project. If I make a mistake with deletions, I expect people to scrutinise me. I expect myself to apologise too, and not

   having no significance? I'm sure that the candidate acted in a way that he thought helped protect the project, but he did not do the right thing by misusing our policies.

   These rhetorical extremes – that we're somehow hobbling all of NPP by insisting that they don't game the system – are simply unrealistic. I know it's a thankless job – I've been active in speedy deletions both before and after I became an administrator – but an "at all costs" approach is untenable. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Agreed. To quote

   WP:CSD (as I should have in my !vote), A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible, so making a page seem eligible for CSD – such as what has been observed with R2 – is very much at odds with the speedy deletion policy in the letter as well as the spirit. ^Complex/_Rational 01:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   As one of the first opposers, I am reaffirming my vote (though I'm not a huge fan of this new-ish tradition of giving greater weight to the voters that choose to do so). Virtually all of the ripostes to opposing concerns, both in the "support" section and elsewhere, concentrate on whether BEFORE or

   WP:ATD-I are policies. Beyond the fact that I believe that those replies are missing the point, the crux of the issue for me is that the candidate has been accused of making a page seem eligible for speedy deletion, which is a clear example of misusing the system to evade scrutiny – the supporters have not sufficiently addressed this issue, concentrating on issues less grave. The candidate has been given opportunity after opportunity to address concerns, and has failed to show any degree of introspection, choosing instead to accuse voters of "baseless accusations", saying that "there is no abuse of policy, there is no real need to oppose or cast doubt on my knowledge", crowning the responses by saying that they are "taking things out of context" and "resorting to PAs". This behaviour – exacerbating already heated situations, displaying an inability to admit fault – are not qualities I want to see in my colleagues. What a shame. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Oppose. I don't recall interacting with this user but reviewing their edits shows a lack of understanding of basic deletion related policies and concepts. Some examples:
   • WP:BEFORE (cf. Talk:Devil's Right Hand#Sources
     )
   • WP:ATD-M
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garland J: AFD !vote to delete when the nom (also erroneously) already pointed out that there are multiple people who might be referred to as such and thus the DAB makes sense.
   • WP:ATD-M
     fail from less than 2 months ago
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downshift: AFD nom from less than 1 month ago with multiple valid ways to handle the page (redirect, keep or merge), none of them requiring deletion
   • WP:BEFORE
     fail from last month
   • WP:BEFORE
     fail
   • WP:A7
     correctly
   • WP:BEFORE
     fail
   • WP:ATD-M
     fail
   • WP:ATD-R
     fail
   • WP:ATD-M
     fail
   • WP:NOTDIR
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona: Candidate actually identifies potential merge/redirect target correctly but still !votes "delete"
   • PROD for a suburb that can, should and has been merged to the city's article
   • PROD (also) for "unsourced for almost 10 years"
   • PROD without checking the history (self-reverted)
   • PROD where ATD-R was possible and preferable
   • PROD and
     WP:ATD-R
     fail
   • PROD and PROD: Two
     WP:ATD-R
     fails for the same redirect target
   • PROD Another example of not checking the history
   • Trigger-happy A7 without checking the history (self-reverted)
   • BLPPROD without checking history

   These examples paint the picture of an editor who is quick to nominate articles for deletion instead of putting in the work of checking whether

   exploring alternatives. Such behavior is concerning in an editor but it's alarming for an administrator who - especially when it comes to speedy deletion - will oftentimes be the one to "pull the trigger" (with little to no oversight in practice). I understand that in their answer to Q4, the candidate has said they don't want to close deletion discussions but in Q1 they indicated an interest in working in CSDs. I don't see how they could though because either they know deletion policy or they don't. Thus, at this point in time and with this many (recent) examples of mistakes and trigger happy nominations I cannot in good conscience support this user getting access to the ability to delete other people's contributions. Which is sad because they otherwise seem like a good editor. Regards SoWhy 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I've just randomly looked at three of your concerns. The Trigger-happy A7, as you noted, he immediately corrected it. He did what you wanted him to do. The Union Jack PROD, PROD is meant to be for uncontroversial deletions and, frankly, I still think that article doesn't belong. Its only source is pretty weak at best. And the process worked, someone opposed. Honestly, I'm tempted to AfD it right now. Regarding the Garland J one, his rationale is solid. It's such an extreme niche thing to put a J after a justice's name that you'd have to be in or around law to know. I won't fault him for having a blind spot - one that only came to light for me as a result of trying to understand the controversy here. v/r - TP 21:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, they did revert it. But they wouldn't have to do so if they had checked the history first (which is what we expect admins patrolling CSD to do). Same goes for the Union Jack article. You can question the notability of the subject and that is valid but being unsourced, even for a long time, is simply not a reason for deletion per

   WP:DEL and I would expect someone running for admin to know that. As for the Garland J, the candidate wrote "There are not multiple people commonly referred to as "Garland J"" despite the fact that the comment before theirs made it clear that there are in fact multiple such people (two of which were in the DAB at the time of the nomination). Regards SoWhy 09:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'm not going to look into any of the rest of these, but your assessment of

   boldly redirecting it to somewhere would have been disruptive and out of process given that it had just been at RfD, and not one person advocated this at the AfD discussion. Keeping is of course always an option, but then MB's argument for deletion was pretty strong (a DAB page which doesn't follow the requirements) and the primary keep arguments, while perfectly valid, were along the lines of "useful"/IAR, which I certainly don't think justifies criticising bringing this to AfD (which is supposed to be a discussion after all). As to merging, I'm not sure what it could have been merged to, and there was no discussion of this either in the AfD (and again, I think it would be inappropriate to boldly merge an article only just created as a result of a different discussion). So then while some (or perhaps most) of the issues you've raised above may be valid, I think anyone citing them in their opposition should take care to look into these a bit more carefully. A7V2 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Their own argument was (in part) that "Downshifting (lifestyle) [...] should move to Downshifting, with this title redirecting there", so they did not argue for deletion of the page but changing it into a redirect.

   simply making the change and it's not unfair to expect an admin candidate to know that. That said, if this were the only example I could find, I would not have opposed. Regards SoWhy 09:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   On the one hand, what you are saying here is not the same as what you said above about this case. On the other hand, I disagree that it is inappropriate to suggest something other than deletion as a nominator at AfD.

   WP:BLAR states that an option where users cannot agree is to either discuss on the talk page, or to nominate the article for AfD. And the findings of Special:Permalink/998395765#Request for comment: Proposed blank and redirects is that for controversial cases (which this would obviously be, given the article had just been created as a result of a different discussion), whether or not to BLAR should be discussed at AfD. There is also an older discussion Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 4#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? which found there is a consensus to allow AfD nominations which advocate for redirection. I don't doubt for a second that many of the concerns are valid (indeed, I can contribute this strange RfD nomination) but in this particular case I just don't see it. A7V2 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @

   WP:BLAR does say that but it requires that "users cannot agree" with a blanking and redirect. The candidate has however not blanked or redirected nor tried to discuss this, either at the talk page or at the RFD. They just took it to AFD despite not actually arguing for deletion. As I said above, this is not the most egregious example and I would certainly not oppose over it alone but it fits in the pattern of misunderstanding deletion policy. Regards SoWhy 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   PS: The evidence presented by

   WP:OWN behavior is incompatible with what the community should look for in an admin. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

5. Oppose. Oppose basically per SoWhy and Sdrqaz. While I am aware that this editor has done good work, and I don't believe I have interacted with them much, I think the opposes by SoWhy and Sdrqaz, two experienced and trusted admins, are sufficient to give me some pause. Hopefullyif this RFA is not successful, they will take those lessons to heart for the future [regardless of the outcome, editing per request on talk Andre🚐 22:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)]. Nobody is perfect and they seem overall a good editor and a net positive for the project with their work, but I would like to see attention to the issues noted. Andre🚐 21:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Just want to add on that I find the below opposes by Ivanvector, ComplexRational, Extraordinary Writ and Elinruby all give me more reason to oppose at this time. Andre🚐 21:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose MB Seemed to be a good candidate, but there are few too many fresh red lights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   To clarify my oppose after MB's answer to Q12.

   WP:BEFORE might not be a policy, but ignoring recommended practice is not what I expect of an admin. WP:BEFORE was not ignored once or twice some years ago, but several times in recent months. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   For me it is confusing that several respected editors appear to have contradictory opinions regarding WP:BEFORE. Then also that other respected editors don't share the candidates view regarding WP:BEFORE but support a candidate who defends that he did not do a WP:BEFORE in answer to Q12 and since the 5 January also to Q18. What if now editors nominate articles for deletion without a WP:BEFORE and cite this RfA as an example? I would understand anyone who follows the reasoning and defended practice of an admin (much more of an NPP coordinator) and therefor oppose the candidate. Maybe their answers were just unfortunate, but the potential of more nonsense AfD's like the one on Buffy (Q18) I just can't support.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Also reconfirm my oppose. Another issue I found is that today a questionable article reviewed and approved by MB was at the main page. The article had three paragraphs with no source at the end and a whole paragraph without a source at all when he approved it. Of course before he made sure that there are no policy issues. Who cares about a paragraph without a source on the main page? MB not apparently. Is it a policy? Probably not. Suggested practice...? Is MB really an example to follow?

   As I became aware it was at the main page I adverted at the DYK talk page. MB was pinged but didn't show up. Who said if a mistake happens to an admin he should try to fix it? MB. Who suggests to others to apply best practice? MB. Is WP:BEFORE a policy? No, but a strongly encouraged practice. This RfA is a contradiction in its self. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per SoWhy. Clicking the link to the Wikipedia search for reliable sources doesn't take much effort. Others had no trouble doing it. Dream Focus 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   WP:BEFORE state that ‘before’ is mandatory. Oft cited, especially brought up at ANI (to mention just one recent example) and the community has more than once rejected it as a requirement. Whether or not it should be a requirement will need to be put before the community in a major RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   When something comes up, is he going to rapidly click through it, or take time to look through all the information and consider all options? Dream Focus 22:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   WP:BEFORE subject the volunteers to additional work and they are disruptive. They also may inadvertantly get content deleted. My often repeated refrain during RFA is that admins are here to protect content and content creators. I have no confidence that this candidate will do either. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   It also wouldn't kill the people creating said articles to follow policy by, let's say, providing actual sources. I've only ever created one article, and it was 11 years ago, but I somehow managed to do just that. Unlike

   WP:N are core policies. Also, as I'm not only an admin but an oversighter, I can say with confidence there's a good amount of admin work that quite pointedly involves not protecting content and the people who create it; anyone who's ever seen deleted content can attest there's a lot that's best hidden from public view and forgotten, I've seen "articles" and "contributions" that would make your stomach turn. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I don't think I said anything about misuse of tools, but I do agree that failing to observe BEFORE or that AFD is not cleanup is not what I want from an admin Andre🚐 23:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I've already stated that there is no failure to observe policy. You have it your way, but it's not a valid oppose and it's an odd to an RfA for someone who is actively engaged in getting NPP improved. Do you want him to drop that? (Rhetorical question) Perhaps reading some of his answers to the questions might help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Bare minimum adherence to letter of policy has never been the standard that we expect for admins: neither now nor when I was a bureaucrat. Reading his answers only affirms my oppose, which is entirely valid. I expect some diligence to be done before draftifying+CSD or AFDing summarily as it's that much more difficult for new users to navigate if the user is an admin. As far as NPP, I said I think he's doing good work overall and I hope he continues. On the other hand, if he's holding his participation hostage contingent on adminship. You and I both as former admins know that adminship isn't everything, and there is plenty of productive contribution to make to the project as a regular extended-confirmed user. Andre🚐 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, if "adherence to policy" is the sole criterion on which to evaluate potential admins, we have really lost our way. Dishonesty in most circumstances and disclosed paid editing are all allowed by policy and yet I suspect they would instantly tank a RFA. Some !voters want a GA or FA and those opposes seem to be counted as valid too. --Rschen7754 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   tell us that deletion is not an option if "editing can improve the page". Which is why, for example, the editing policy also contains a clear command to consider "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" when encountering an article lacking sources. As Andrevan and Rschen7754 correctly point out, the standard we (should) expect from admins is more than just slavishly follow those pages marked "policy" without demonstrating any insight of why we have those policies. If your only argument is that the violated pages are strictly speaking not part of the letter of the policy itself, you might want to reconsider your support. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

8. Oppose WP:BEFORE, while recommended, is not a requirement (i.e. WP:POLICY). NPP is faced with many thousands of new articles every month, and has only a small number of active reviewers. is not the attitude I want to see from an admin. This is a significant problem I have seen from NPP recently. Also agree with SoWhy. --Rschen7754 01:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   As this is likely going to a crat chat, I also share the attitude concerns that have been expressed here. --Rschen7754 18:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose with regret, because the candidate would likely not misuse the tools. But it's a

   WP:GEOLAND, etc.), and so on. I encourage the nominee to carry out diligent work, not to prioritise quantity over quality, and 'll be glad to reconsider in 6 months or so. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Moved to Neutral[reply

   ]

   Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe

   WP:NOTYET should redirect to Wikipedia:Not quite yet as that is probably what Kashmiri intended to link to. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   WP:NOTQUITEYET is exactly what I meant. Thank you, and apologies for the confusion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

9. Oppose per SoWhy; I also find it concerning that the proportion of blue links in the CSD and PROD logs increases over time, meaning that either a) MB has gotten a bit more rash with his deletion proposals/tagging recently, or b) the old noms were (on average) eventually deleted by a different process from what MB did, suggesting a lack of knowledge of the exact deletion processes notwithstanding a "gut feeling" for what should or should not be deleted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Do note that I am not opposing due to BEFORE issues; while it's certainly a best practice and I highly encourage MB to take it into account in his future NPP work, it's not a policy as others have said and MB is legitimate (if suboptimal) in not working with it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW John M Wolfson, I'm not sure the rate of accuracy for PROD drops significantly if you account for the number of those blue links that are currently redirects. Similarly, their CSD log shows accuracy above 90% throughout 2022. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Rosguill that's fair, but assuming those redirects are valid it still has poor implications for BEFORE adherence (especially since PROD is supposed to be for uncontroversial stuff). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. People should be careful and detailed before they delete the hard work of others—this is supposed to be the place for all knowledge to be made freely available to the world. A pattern of trying to delete articles instead of improving them worries me. Maine 🦞 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In some cases the subject could be unnotable, you cant improve an article when you cant find sources for it.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, but the person running for admin still does this for notable subjects. Maine 🦞 06:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    top 100 and there are admins out there who have deleted over half a million pages, yet the encyclopaedia still has 6.5 million entries and there are 57 million pages on the website and nearly a million files. Separating the wheat from the chaff is an essential maintenance task, and "A pattern of trying to delete articles" is to be expected from an editor who specialises in that task. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Sometimes pages about notable subjects need to be deleted. Since people have been tossing around the guideline

    WP:TNT; even if something is about an ostensibly notable subject, what's there is often completely worthless. In several of SoWhy's examples, I'm seeing absolute trash that people dumped on Wikipedia and then people demanding already overstretched NPP reviewers clean up their mess, often without lifting a finger at these AfDs to do it themselves. If an editor dumps a bunch of unattributed or poorly sourced text into the middle of an existing article, the community doesn't generally take kindly to screaming about "deletionists" who remove it or preemptively start discussions to remove it; I don't understand why so many people have this through the looking glass mentality about new articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Wikipedia:ARBBLUDGEON.Jahaza (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @The Blade of the Northern Lights Where am I "screaming about 'deletionists'"? Maine 🦞 03:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11. this user often moves articles to draft but still doesnt know Wikipedia:Drafts.--RZuo (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What? Someone who moves pages that aren't yet ready to be articles to draftspace knows exactly what draftspace is for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose. Enthusiasm for speedy deletion is IMO one of the worst manifestations of zealotry to "clean up" Wikipedia. Martindo (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I will bear that in mind the next time I delete such good-faith draft creations as User:Dansmacksshayintheass/sandbox, Draft:The Battle for The Polish River, and User:Niggredicque. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, come on, you should know that Martindo is talking about Sdrqaz's oppose. @The Blade of the Northern Lights - you're putting up strawmen. casualdejekyll 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per concerns raised by SoWhy //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I am not impressed by the insistence that WP:BEFORE is not policy. Thoroughness and adherence to good faith are the most important qualities I look for in an NPP reviewer. It is true, best practices like WP:BEFORE cannot always be followed given the volume of new articles in the queue. But I expect from an administrator that he or she follows them as closely as possible. I therefore think that the answer to Barkeep's question does not fully allay the significant worries raised by SoWhy. What's more, the candidate doesn't mention Good or Featured Articles in their answers or on their user page. I don't usually support candidates without either. Despite their good overall work at NPP and their excellent nominators, I'm not convinced MB should be an administrator at this point. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    The Night Watch (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apologise wholeheartedly! Modussiccandi (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying that

    WP:BEFORE is a policy and the candidate is incorrect, or that you don't like the fact that the candidate is correctly pointing out that it is a policy? ~TPW 16:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I find this a surprising follow-up: I admit without hesitation that WP:BEFORE is not policy (it is true, best practices like WP:BEFORE cannot always be followed...). My criticism, like many of those below, is concerned with the candidate's attitude towards this important practice. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for clarifying, despite your surprise. I asked because I couldn't tell from the exact words you chose. ~TPW 16:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose concerned about giving someone with this deletion history speedy deletion rights. Jahaza (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16. Weak Oppose noms such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naranjo Museum of Natural History reflect a perfunctory search and a rush to delete when there is no reason to do so. This is not a BLP where deletion was pressing that they couldn't do a BEFORE, and I'm not impressed by MB's doubling down here that it's not policy. It's good practice. Rushed noms could be indicative of poor decisions, and I don't think we have time for that as a community where there aren't enough admins active in the various fora where these decisions are brought up. Star Mississippi 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per SoWhy ResonantDis_tortion 19:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18. per concerns regarding deletion expressed above. ansh.666 21:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose - I'm rather alarmed that the candidate's response to Q12 suggests that long-established community best practices can be ignored in favour of speed when faced with a backlog.
    WP:ADMINACCT says that admins are held solely responsible for every action they take - there is no room for expecting someone else to clean up after your "I'm too busy" mistakes as an administrator, and I don't see that the candidate fully understands that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    As has been pointed out over and over - WP:BEFORE is NOT policy. Years and years of discussions and debates has resulted in it NOT being promoted to policy or even a guideline. Which means it IS a mere suggestion, is NOT required, and is considered "best practice" at best! Those of you who disagree with its status, fine - propose, once again, it become policy or a guideline. But do not fault a candidate who ACCURATELY categorizes it as...optional. Because it is. v/r - TP 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    WP:ATD instead (in your mind). And I do think we can fault a candidate for doubling down on it instead of reflecting on the concerns brought up and addressing them. Regards SoWhy 08:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    What I see wrong is the selectively choosing something that isn't a policy over two core policies:

    WP:ATD exists but there isn't any evidence that Nom has acted egregiously. Only that in the realm of discretion, you'd lean one way and they'd lean the other. I view their actions as reasonable and well within the norm and I'd offer the same benefit of the doubt towards you. Just because it's not your way doesn't make it wrong. I'd hope others would offer the same grace but I see a lot of hard stances being taken here. v/r - TP 17:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @

    WP:BURDEN (which explicitly contains "See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems")). It's not "taking a hard stance" to expect an admin candidate to know that and to act accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    WP:PERM/PM)? Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I actually meant to link to

    WP:PMR but your target is better. Updated my link. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

20. Oppose with regret. The answer to Q12 does not sit right with me and many of the links above only confirm my concerns. Hat to Sdrqaz and Ivanvector's articulation of the issues here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per Ivanvector.
    LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Oppose (moved from support), with regret, in light of the issues raised by Sdrqaz and SoWhy. As a fellow NPPer, I have a very hard time overlooking these. I took a closer look through
    wikilawyering – specifically the notion of Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles – and although I don't expect perfection, I'm just not comfortable seeing such a pattern or mindset, especially were it to carry over to admin actions. Even if some practices are not formally codified as policy, their emphasis in the NPP tutorial and newsletters must carry some weight.
    In fairness, this is not entirely MB's fault, as the patrolling admins have the responsibility of not enacting inappropriate CSDs. However, I would like to see more careful consideration when marking pages for deletion (after deletion, potential damage is less easily reversible), and active demonstration of best NPP practices from an NPP coordinator. ^Complex/_Rational 01:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    So... if MB nominates something for deletion it's a problem, and if MB moved something someplace where it can be worked on without being deleted it's also a problem? A lot of those moves out of draftspace are by users who aren't familiar with basic policies and guidelines; sometimes it takes a bit of insistence to get the point across. There's no

    a policy that says not to get caught up in "the process" in order to do something that will improve Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    "A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time." Is that or is that not the rule? Because it sure seems like this user and the NPP aren't observing this. Andre🚐 03:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrevan, I'm not looking to badger you, I'm just answer your question: It is neither a policy nor a rule. There isn't even a vestige of an RfC for consensus on it. In fact where it appears, it was made up as a user's unilateral wishful thinking because they 'thought' it was implied from a 'synthesis' of scattered discussion threads. And if it were a rule or a policy, there are clear exceptions - that's why we have IAR, which is a policy. Among the tens of thousands of patrols the NPPers make, the number of times they allegedly do not 'observe the rules' is negligible in the extreme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. It is not a rule, or a policy. However this is not an IAR or exception situation in my mind, and I am a great admirer of IAR. The point is that for a new user, contesting a draftification should not be met with a unilateral re-draftification. I will grant that is not policy and not a consensus. It is my view and the view of a few essays, that the NPP process of re-draftifying articles over a contesting of that draft is undesirable for improving the encyclopedia and is not a best practice for an admin. I recognize that NPP is a lot of work with a huge backlog full of garbage and crap. But what I would expect from an admin is to also to engage with users. It's possible that this view is out of sync with some or much of the community. I came from a Wikipedia without a draft namespace and without a speedy draftification of new stubs. And while it keeps out the riff-raff, I've also seen perfectly well-sourced articles die in draft despite meeting GNG. I don't know the solution to that and I don't want to pin that all on MB, but I think that my opposition reflects my desire for a better bedside manner attending to this, and a reasonable expectation despite it not being an official policy. Because the point of IAR is to remember and respect the spirit of the encyclopedia than ANYONE can edit. Not to ignore the ideals for expediency. In fact you should ignore the process to embrace the ideals and not vice-versa. Andre🚐 04:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose. Moving from support for the reasons provided by SoWHy, Sdrqaz and ComplexRational. I havent had the best interactions with the user. But looking at his AFD discussion votes and deletion requests, this user needs to recheck the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Some of his answers make me question his mod request as well, like how ComplexRational described it, it gives a strong impression of
    WP:LAWYER.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 01:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Oppose per Ivanvector - Irrespective of whether it's policy or not "WP:BEFORE, while recommended, is not a requirement (i.e. WP:POLICY)" is not something I would ever expect to see from a candidate at an RFA, BRD is a guideline but it's still followed, NOTHERE is a guideline but it's still followed, BEFORE is a guideline but is still followed. I expect someone's going to reply chapter and verse telling me that BEFORE has been the subject of discussions before and that no consensus has ever been reached ... and to that I say I'm not bothered - I've always been told to do BEFORE before nominating any article and that's something I've always done and I would expect others to do the same irrespective of whether it's policy or not. –Davey2010^Talk 08:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
25. I don't agree with everything the opposers here have said: many of the points about draftification, WP:BEFORE, ATDs, etc. largely involve grey areas where the community hasn't spoken decisively, and I can't really fault the candidate for his position on them even though I personally disagree. But the two recent issues Sdrqaz raises – the replacement of an article with a speedy-able redirect at
    fix the problem—none of which gives me confidence that MB would handle conflict well as an administrator. On balance, while I certainly appreciate MB's NPP work and other impressive contributions, there are enough red flags here that I must regrettably oppose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Oppose - One of the earliest diffs posted in this section gave me an unpleasant feeling about the candidate. The evidence presented by SoWhy, the assessment of Ivanvector, and the candidates answers to question 10 and 12 further reduced confidence. The schoolboy conduct of the 'lead nominator' puffing out their chest and saying 'come at bro!' alongside every other sardonic comment they've left here all but eliminated any possibilty of support. The above oppose by Extraordinary Writ just seals it. The answers to both Q3 and Q7 are outed as untrue. Neither the candidate nor either of the nominators have left an impression of good temperament consistent with expectations of an administrator. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - I am retracting my support. Although their answer to my question gave me hope that they would make good use of the tools, I am no longer confident in them - particularly, their apparent lack of respect for BEFORE (which, yes, isn't a policy, but it IS a good idea) gives me fear that they will be too aggressive in deletion and need to gain more experience there despite their lack of interest in the area. I am generally a "we should give the mop to basically everyone" person, but consensus is by far the most important part of adminship, in my opinion. I already was supporting on the understanding that they were not a good judge of consensus but would respect it (a position that gave me pause to take), but I can't trust them to respect it anymore. casualdejekyll 12:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose Regretfully. I had originally intended to withdraw my support and move to neutral due to the badgering of oppose !voters by the nominators. This really is not okay. However, rather than staying neutral, I am moving to oppose. I have found MB's answers to some of the questions uninspiring, particularly q12. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strongly oppose per question 9 above. The user's answer is somewhat inaccurate and furthermore still dismisses the issue, saying I "claim" to be an experienced translator. I don't want to bog discussion down with what should have been a minor and easily resolved incident, (which is my point here) so I will try to be brief unless someone asks me a question. Here's the TL;DR: I misclicked, and dumped an incomplete translation into mainspace. This threw errors, I am sure, yes. MB ran AWB with a misfiring new regex he probably didn't know about yet. Without checking the article, its history or his output. Or answering my requests to please stop as he was causing edit conflicts and making the situation worse. Then he welcomed me to Wikipediaand invited me to the Teahouse.As discussed below, my bad, I thought this was included in the canned template) Kudpung insisted MB was correct, and that all of this was appropriate. Bottom line, they both came across as fatuous self-satisfied mansplainers, and MB as unwilling take responsibility for editing faster than he could read. Somebody else noticed this kerfuffle and pinged me over to the AWB Noticeboard talk page, where the regex problem was amicably resolved by, I believe, John of Reading. The article still sits in Draft because that is not how I do translations, and it was a pro bono project to begin with, so...shrug. I guess it can wait until we get another French translator. It's not like there isn't an ever-increasing backlog of Romance language translation work, and nobody else working it. I remain completely unimpressed by this user's uncollaborative attitude and unconcern about the accuracy of his account of events, and strongly recommend against putting him in a user-facing position of authority. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You begin by saying that the answer is "somewhat inaccurate" but your post doesn't identify any inaccuracies. (It is clear that you and MB have different perspectives and judge different parts of the interaction to be most important / salient / emotionally resonant.) --JBL (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Noting a response to this by Mr rnddude below. --JBL (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I can say for sure that a teahouse invitation to an editor of 16 years with many thousands of edits comes off the wrong way, but this seems to me like a situation where all participants have done near equal wrong, in my opinion. Mistakes and communication errors happen. My main concern about MB is that they have had these communication errors in multiple instances and do not seem to be an accurate judge of consensus. casualdejekyll 22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Elinruby. I checked the last 1000 diffs on your user talk page and I'm not seeing where MB invited you to the Teahouse. Perhaps I'm missing something. Would you mind linking to it? Also I am concerned that you accuse him of being a "mansplainer" without evidence. Is there a diff where any kind of gender was mentioned in any of your interactions with MB? Sorry to nitpick but I just want to make sure that this situation is being described accurately and fairly. Thanks in advance for any clarification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    WP:PNT to me, when for years I have worked, off and on, *from* the list that this template produces. I do not know what either of these editors believes my gender to be, although many people make assumptions based on the name. For the record, I identify as "they" but do not care what pronoun people use for me and am frequently called "he" and "mate" as well. I am not asserting that gender had anything to do with the behaviour. Nor am I ruling it out. But I want to clarify that I used the word in the descriptive, not diagnostic, sense. Stand by for diffs. I will answer the other two editors above later also. But sure, I made a mistake, Mis-clicked. Said it above, said it several times in the interaction, which I originally approached (see "A kitten for you" and "I am still asking nicely") from the attitude of oops, I understand why you keep slapping templates on this mess I just made, but my last edit was minutes if not seconds ago and I just lost a bunch of changes in an ec, again, so don't worry, I got this. Check on the article in ten minutes if you don't trust me, but hey let me fix my mess. The correct response to this, according to me, is not to run an English-language spell-checker when you are complaining that the article contains untranslated French text. I doubt his silence was malicious; I actually don't think he was at the keyboard. Which is a problem, but the one I am trying to point out here is that of not simply saying on his side oops, I don't know why it changed "a eu" (had had) to "an eu", either, that is weird. I have no idea what Kudpung was thinking when he insisted that "an eu" was an improvement, so that could have been better, absolutely, and no doubt there was a more tactful way for me to respond than to demand that he tell me what it meant. But I am not asking for the tools, MB is, and the question was, "how do you handle conflict."? I am here to say: not well, and lest I seem "disgruntled" maybe I should point out that I commented on Tamzin's RfA and gave him/her five stars for conflict resolution. Elinruby (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I am editing links into my previous remarks where appropriate, to save on scroll. This is a fairly good summary of my issue at the time, particularly "being actively translated at the time." (The previous problems with NPP that I mentioned date back to my work on Panama Papers, and actually predate MB's tenure there, I realize now. An example that epitomizes these for me: trying to explain to someone who only ever writes about rugby that Congolese can be notable even if they have funny names and embezzle from people in places the editor has never heard of. That is a hard problem to fix and predates MB, who is not responsible for prior events). More in the same thread; I am scolded for the manner in which I help Wikipedia, and don't take it well. Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Elinruby, MB has only ever made three edits to your talk-page, all in November and all concerning this same topic [3]. None of them invite you to the teahouse. (@

    Casualdejekyll: FYI since you mentioned this in your comment just above.) --JBL (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @JayBeeEll: Shrug. I will be back with diffs having refreshed my memory. Maybe he just welcomed me to Wikipedia, if these don't automatically happen together. That's a quibble. Point is, he clearly didn't read the article history, or either my user or talk page, maybe not the text either, then made edits that were clearly inappropriate, apparently on an automated basis. How many other people has he done this to that didn't stick around to find this thread? Everyone I have ever tried to recruit to Wikipedia either told me I was nuts or else told me a story about being completely dismissed in this manner, and said nuh uh". Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not wishing to make a rebuttal (which I’m not), and not really wanting to say any more on this RfA which will take its course, but since I was now pinged pinged and mentioned twice against the advice you were given by others, I think it's only fair that the participants here on all sides have an opportunity to see the actual context to understand the issue more clearly, and the style of your communications. For one thing, as a bilingual English-French speaker I can assure you that at least this assertion is fundamentally incorrect: …when he insisted that "an eu" was an improvement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    if you are offended by being pinged, then I apologize. I personally prefer to be notified if my name is mentioned in an unflattering manner which I may dispute, as in MB's response above about the incident, where he dismissively and falsely accused me of copy-pasting. I will refrain from notifying you in future. The advice given to me by others had nothing to do with pings. It was that I was within my rights to ask you to stay off my talk page because you kept escalating, but that I should drop the stick and stop posting there about the hallucinatory idea that "an eu" is meaningful English, since I have asked you not to post there. Which indeed seems fair, except that I had just deleted the entire ridiculous exchange, while my talk page stalker was composing that advice. I mentioned you above because, to be fair to MB, the claim that "an eu" is English was you, not him. I am unsure what to make of you doubling down on this. Are you saying you didn't say it, or that you were correct? If the latter please *do* illuminate me as to its meaning. You may well be a bilingual French->English speaker but you definitely aren't proving it with that statement. It isn't French either, btw. If your statement is that it didn't happen (later note:see "I am still asking nicely"), welp, I am back to edit in some links and diffs, and I'll start there. Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Elinruby, @Kudpung – I don't want to sound impertinent but would you mind taking your grudges to Talk?

    For the uninitiated ones, the disagreement has nothing to do with MB's qualifications for admin tools. The story is that a semi-automated tool operated by Kudpung made a correction of what it took for a typo on English Wikipedia, whereas it actually was a passage in French that Elinruby had just added mistakenly while translating the article and was about to remove it. Both are now trading accusations as to who is more at fault: Elinruby for working on live articles or Kudpung for changing text without checking its language and not giving sufficient time to undo the mistake. Adding insult to injury, Kudpung placed a Wikipedia welcome template on Elinruby's Talk, while Elin is a well-established editor...

    So, let me politely suggest a move to the Talk or, even more aptly, to the

    Dramaboard. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Actually, no. All of the actions you ascribe above to Kudpung were taken by MB. So yes, the incident is relevant to the discussion. (Your summary of the original train of events is otherwise fairly accurate however. Wrong subject for the verb, though) And since he, no doubt sincerely, misportrayed the incident in this RfA it also speaks to his ability to understand and process constructive criticism. Following the exchange in question Kudpung for some reason chose to jump onto my page and make wild accusations and insults in an acronym-peppered screed about how I should take the advice of my betters and accept that an errant spellchecker knew best. Much, in fact, as he has in a fairly aggressive manner jumped into a number of threads above, shrug. The problem however has gone from "Well MB sure doesn't listen" to "MB just completely mischaracterized an interaction with me in a very public venue, without, incidentally, notifying me" and is now at "MB's momma-bear buddy is in attack mode again and just doubled down on claiming what I said isn't true." I am not sure what to do about this. JayBeeEll asked me to explain what was inaccurate about MB's summary, which I was about to do, having demonstrated that Kudpung said what he said. I think that MB or one of his supporters should impress on Kudpung that he isn't doing MB any favors. This entire discussion would be greatly improved without his bludgeoning, imho. If someone would like to remove his reply to me and the exchange that follows that, I would be completely fine with that.

    But my reputation for telling the truth is important to me and I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to not respond when it gets trashed like this, especially as I've been asked to elaborate. I am open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is

    grossly untrue: ...wild accusations and insults in an acronym-peppered screed about how I should take the advice of my betters and accept that an errant spellchecker knew best. and reflects the style of your other comments I linked to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I derive no benefit from involving myself here, but I've gone over the article's history, MB's response under Q9, and the replies here. I'm impelled to defend both MB and Kudpung here, in spite of being opposed to the candidacy and having qualms with the candidate and both of the nominators. Your conduct in that dispute was less than acceptable and deserves a hiding. For instance, you responded to Jonesy95's courtesy note that he had moved the article to draftspace with a snide remark calling into question whether he even speaks English.(relevant thread)

    You also mischaraterize Kudpung's statement that ""a eu" is not a typo to "an eu"" is indeed correct. He was agreeing with you that 'a eu' was not a typo and should not have been changed to 'an eu'. He was not, as you have repeatedly claimed, suggesting that 'an eu' is English. Indeed, what's galling about that is that you should have been able to tell because "a eu" is not a typo to "an eu" are your own fucking words.

    I have a remark for MB too. It is disrespectful to undermine Elinruby's credibility as a translator of the French language as you have in question 9 ("claims"). It is behaviour unbecoming of an editor, let alone a hopeful administrator.

    Last, but not least, JayBeeEll you indicated that Elinruby did not note any of the inaccuracies in MB's response to Q9. I shall note one for you. Draft:Jublains archeological site is an article copy/pasted directly into mainspace from fr:Site archéologique de Jublains ... is inaccurate. Check the initial version of the article(here) and you will find that sections of the article had been partially translated, though very far from complete.

    Tl;dr - Elinruby instigated part of the conflict in that dispute with her ascerbic responses ; MB's response to question 9 is indeed somewhat inaccurate ; Kudpung is being unfairly maligned ; if anyone is a victim here it's Jonesey95 taking insult for no other crime that leaving a courtesy note. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Mr rnddude, you devoted more of your life to this than I was ready to with mine. I'm sorry for any inaccuracies in my earlier summary. I agree with your assessment and would also share my perception that Elinruby unfortunately came across quite aggressive in her their interactions, both there and here. Yes, linguistic precision and high attention to detail are invaluable qualities in a translator or interpreter, and any disrespect to them may rightfully attract wrath. But to live in a community, one that also Wikipedia is, friendliness and acceptance of mistakes of fellow community members always go a long way; much further than snappy precision and self-conceit. Howgh! — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that. You have hit the inaccuracy that most concerned me: people get righteously blocked for copy-pasting into a live article, whether from English or French. And this in a forum of dozens of administrators who will be assessing my worth in any further disputes! Without notifying me. There are other, smaller, issues, but I am content to leave it at that. It is enough. I do however want to take issue with "instigated". I started the conversation by giving him a kitten for crying out loud ;) and essentially said my tool misfired, now yours did too, haha, now let me fix it, please. If that isn't being nice, then gee, I guess I will return to where I am happy, putting verbs in sentences. As an aside, this discussion has gotten some people working on the draft! I noted this when I went to look at it just now, to get a link to make the point you just made. I got all excited and finished what I was trying to do at the time it was draftified. The state of the article at that point can of course still be seen in the history. It was far from copy-pasted French, shrug. And yes, I admit I was rude to Jonesy, who had just created yet another edit conflict in which I lost yet more complicated translation. Not his fault though; he had no way to know that or that I was still boggled by the previous exchanges, I agree. I do also disagree with your assessment of Kudpung's behaviour, but I don't hold it against you.<jk> I do however prefer to be able to explain a lack of help at PNT without being lectured about OWN, or IDHT, or any of the other nonsense he spouted. I believe someone else called it juvenile chest-puffing come at me bro stuff. I tend to agree. What was wrong with saying "I am agreeing with you, take yes for an answer"? Assuming you are correctly imputing his meaning. He still hasn't deigned to tell me what he is talking about. But that is Kudpung not MB, sure. We are talking about what it is like to interact with MB, however, and as an editor who does far more good than harm, I am answering it. First MB ignores you, then he blames you, and then his buddy comes over to your talk page and accuses you of things that can get you blocked. Sorry, not ideal, not at all. I quit Wikipedia over this and was only lured back with a framework for a shiny new project, a nice safe walled garden, as it were. Dealing with MB was like watching a vintage car be fed into a car-crusher by the Terminator on automatic pilot, after lovingly rebuilding the engine and rehabbing the interior. Not recommended. I now return this RfA to its regularly scheduled hagiography. pinging @Ritchie333: who asked Question 9, which all of this is in answer to:ICYMI, no reply required please as I am no longer watching the page. Thanks for asking. Elinruby (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I do however prefer to be able to explain a lack of help at PNT without being lectured about OWN, or IDHT, or any of the other nonsense he spouted - Ah, yes, Kudpung did accuse you of displaying ownership of PNT because you stated that you were the sole active editor in that space. I had noticed that and I should have mentioned it here. My apologies. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and is still linking to behaviour templates while accusing me of saying things that aren't true. But whatever. I accept your apology. I did however say that I was the French translator at PNT. Not in some undefined space. This is nothing but true, and I am still getting accused of having problems with the truth over it. Frankly I still think I exhibited a lot of patience to not ask what they were smoking over there a lot sooner than I did. Incidentally someone submitted the article in question for review and it is now B-class after very little additional work. I appreciate the apology and realize that you aren't the one that called it copy-pasted, but still. MB, who did, should be the one who apologizes, imho. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose Wasn’t too familiar with this candidate, so at first, I planned to put my name under !neutral until I learned more about him. Now I have. His answer to Q12 makes me uneasy. Just because something isn’t policy doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it. Also, regarding the examples that other opposers have brought up— I looked through a few and these are valid concerns. For example, Using AfD for editing issues, rather than those of deletion, doesn’t indicate an understanding of process deep enough for me to feel comfortable giving him powerful deletion tools. I know that tone can be hard to convey through text, so don’t think I’m trying to sound mean or discourage MB from trying again in the future. There are just some things that he needs to address before I can !support. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 23:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose - For many of the same reasons as
    IvanVector. -- Dane ^talk 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Oppose per above. I cannot someone with that attitude. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose after reading some of the AfD nominations that Sowhy presented. BBQboffin (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose My concern, which I think more generically handles some of the opposes that people are making and maybe some of the light supports, is
    escalation vs. deescalation irt conflict resolution. As an admin, people are going to disagree with you, sometimes get very upset, and in the worst case senario, things will go to hell. MB seemingly wants to help, and I acknoledge that is showing. What I can't shake though is when faced with opposition, the user tends to escalate the issue further instead of trying to come to a reasonable compromise or even appologizing for the mistakes (Q15). Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely times to raise hell. But consistently escalting issues will snowball into larger issues. While MB seems content on at worst just using the right for viewing deleted revisions, they still represent a general administrative behavoiral standard, one that especially needs to be observed if they do step into the other admin areas eventually. We already have enough admins who follow the exact same concerning behavoir, we don't need any more. So per Q3 and Q7-9, I can't support at this time. -- Amanda (she/her) 09:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Oppose, particularly per Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) and Mr rnddude, possible/potential issues of judgment and article ownership. Particularly not per the question the of the role played by WP:BEFORE or the usual ARS handringing over imaginary 'deletionism'. Best of luck for the future MB. Depending on what happens here, I doubt you'll find your next RfA insurmountable, with a few tweaks to your approach. SN54129 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    On the off-chance this does go to a crat-chat (and not, more realistically, closed as an outright fail, I fear), I would like to reaffirm my opposition, and also reaffirm that this is on the grounds of temperment rather than WP:BEFORE concerns, although SoWhy's diligence and research is greatly appreciated in that regard. The candidate has unintentionally copperfastened my doubts with their answers to Barkeep49's (first) and TonyBallioni's question. These were two excellent opportunities—offered days apart—to address such concerns and possibly win over support. This did not occur. Indeed, the candidate effectively doubled-down on the very concerns being raised with dismissal—verging on the IDHT—of either community expectations or the possibility of self-error. A failure of either in an admin can constitute either a lack of ADMINACCT or ADMNCOND; it does not behove us to promote an editor in these circumstances, if only, perhaps, for their own good. I'm not going to strike my remarks suggesting a tweak in behavior would result in a successful next run, but I do not think that I will be repeating them. Best, SN54129 18:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

36. Oppose candidate has the requisite commitment, but needs to adjust a couple of things before becoming an admin. I agree with most of what has been said in the Oppose section, and would add that I found the daisies in a sewer analogy troubling. I'm not one of those who thinks that Before always needs following, I'd be happy to make an exception for corporate entities with some sort of sticky CorpProd. But I prefer admins who set an example of good practice, long long ago I learned to add references because others were fixing my work, I like to see that sort of attitude at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WereSpielChequers, I will just point out that the WMF have today created a local page here on en.Wiki in which they state that "In accordance to the letter" they have allocated special resources to address the issues in that letter and that the work is scheduled to address this 'major technical debt' in April. This represents a major breakthrough for community collaboration with the WMF. All thanks to MB's own initiative on behalf of the New Page Patrolers and making it easier and more friendly to communicate with page crerators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good to see WMF using the 'technical debt' metaphor. Good Ward Cunningham coined it over 30 years back but it feels like its finally ripened this past few months. I've been using it to good effect in arguments against c-suites making further cuts to team sizes, seems to have gained good emotional salience, much needed in the context of the recent $5 trillion tech wipe out. Hence I added the fact Ward coined the phrase to his wiki page a few weeks back. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

37. Oppose. Far far too deletionist, doesn't do BEFORE etc., admits to blatantly defying
    WP:DRAFTOBJECT with no qualms. We can't have admins breaking the rules in the name of cleaning up Wikipedia or reducing backlogs. Unless he cleans up his act I cannot vote for this candidate. Also, admins must be accessible, and the candidate still hasn't made a talkpage link in his signature despite a request more than 24 hours ago. Admins cannot be rogue elements unilaterally doing whatever they want because it suits them, serves their purposes, or furthers their own highly personal vision for Wikipedia. Admins need to demonstrate that they carefully follow the rules and guidelines before they even apply for RFA. If they don't like the rules and guidelines, then lobby to have them changed, don't subvert them at your whim. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Then what is the purpose of

    Office of Speedy Deletions and Draftifications wouldn't formally approve. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    You already pestered another oppose voter about this; why did you not pester all of the oppose voters who opposed for the same reasons? Please see Bruxton's comments below. Admins are not supposed to take the law into their own hands and operate as unilateral lawless, ruleless, guideless scofflaws. If anything, they are supposed to err on the side of caution, and not double-down when reverted or opposed or disagreed with. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you (generic you in all instances) aren't willing to stand your ground when someone disagrees with an admin action at least sometimes, you need to consider whether that's really the right line of volunteer work for you. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong (indeed, it would be impossible to delete almost any page because someone considers it wrong and will cite some sort of policy/guideline/essay in an effort to give that position some gravitas), and the unpopular decision is sometimes the right one. That comes with the territory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm not talking about standing one's ground or not; I'm talking about operating collaboratively and cooperatively and respectfully within a group system that operates by consensus and best practices, and where admins are expected to be accountable and accessible and to operate with circumspection and to serve as an example to other editors. Again, please read the comments directly below by Bruxton. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And sometimes that requires cutting Gordian knots, even if it doesn't follow "the process" to the letter. Part of being an admin is knowing when to take action even when there's no policy to tell you exactly what to do, even when it might not be popular. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

38. Oppose My oppose is based on temperament and process concerns. Several of the candidate's responses to editor concerns are confrontational and dismissive. I assume that any administrator candidate will be on their best behavior in an RFA and that is why the answers are troubling. Yes editing history and the knowledge of processes are both important, but the right temperament is equally important. If I summarize the candidate’s thoughts on
    WP:BEFORE, Barkeep49 gave the candidate to explain but instead they doubled down (question 12). The candidate said, "Because there is no abuse of policy, there is no real need to oppose or cast doubt on my knowledge". I was surprised that the candidate would ignore best practices in the interest of expediency. In my opinion a backlog does not give an editor the right to ignore protocols.
    Regarding temperament, the candidate has dismissed the concerns of fellow editors in this RFA by saying the concerns are "baseless accusations" and I think that is one example of a temperament concern. Several editors here were also troubled by the temperament of the candidate: Extraordinary Writ presented a clear example (oppose 26) of a what I think is a temperament concern. And Mr rnddude also called out the temperament of the candidate in their (oppose 27) saying, "Neither the candidate nor either of the nominators have left an impression of good temperament consistent with expectations of an administrator". Ivanvector also called out a concern which is an example of temperament when they said in oppose 20 (about WP:BEFORE) "It's not something to be passed off with a condescending hand-wave because the process you happen to invest your time in has a backlog”. I think MB is making some meaningful contributions on Wikipedia and I hope they take some time to reflect on the many concerns about process and temperament which were raised in this RFA. Bruxton (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Oppose per ComplexRational. Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
40. Reluctant oppose per Extraordinary Writ's first paragraph. I say reluctant because I think, in a perfect world, the CSD ecosystem would have room for an admin like MB. But we already have enough admins who exceed bright lines in the criteria for speedy deletion (and like Sdrqaz I see an important distinction between that and admins who make deletions in "gray areas" or, I'll add, who make conscious decisions to IAR). The fact that non-admin new page reviewers have so much de facto power when it comes to BLARs and draftifications, thanks to contradicting community guidance, is already alarming—and also not MB's fault. The amount of unreviewed unilateral power at CSD is worse still. In other words, to the extent MB has shortcomings, they should be surmountable ones, but sadly for reasons external to this situation they are not. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope MB takes under advisement what's been said here and run again in 6-12 months, and also hope the community discusses more ways to instill accountability in the new page review and CSD processes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose unfortunately. I appreciate the candidate's work at NPP, but temperament + policy are the most important factors and there are too many red flags on those fronts. Blue Edits (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose I share the concerns of many above in the oppose section, including, but not limited to Sdrqaz (about R2 taggings; if I go now and replace Charles III with Charles III is a man from [[Great Britain]] {{db-person}} that doesn't make it a valid a7, does it?!) and AmandaNP, however, Ivanvector (#20 above) IMO expresses my concerns best. Tagging things for AfD so they are out of the NPP queue merely makes it part of the AfD backlog, and as such doesn't realy solve the problem. The attitude displayed there (merely shifting tasks around to another process' backlog) is not one I'd like to see from administrators, especially because going for speed over quality is sort of dismissive of one's own error rate (which all of us surely have, even if its very close to zero) and can chase editors away. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Having watched the whole thing both before and after my oppose, I am afraid that since we're now definitely in cratchat territory, I am going to reaffirm my oppose. I am not impressed by several things here, but perhaps the strongest one is this, taken from Q19: Without analyzing the opposes individually, it is nevertheless clear to me that many are genuinely taking things out of context, while others are tangential to the object of an RfA, and using it to re-litigate what is only recommended as "best practice", and others are resorting to PAs at various people. I am not sure what the first part refers too, but the second part almost certainly alludes to the concerns about

    WP:BURDEN, all of which are policies, that the cqandidate does not take criticism on board very well, and gives me pause.

    The third part is IMO no better. As stated in other opposes above and below, throwing an unsubstituated hand wave of "personal attacks where made" into a discussion is never helpfull, and usally escalates things, sometimes grately, rather than deescalating and working towards a solution. If personal attacks have been made, you essentially have the options between ignoring it, removing it, issiuing a (formal) warning, or getting help at an admin talkpage or a noticeboard.

    Finally, I am goint to endorse what Boing! said Zebedee stated in oppose #60, below, and Levivich (oppose #57) Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

43. Oppose per issues raised by ComplexRational, Extraordinary Writ and AmandaNP. starship.paint (exalt) 15:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose mostly due to concerns over temperament. The doubling down in their responses to the open-ended Q12 and Q19, and the discussion highlighted by Extraordinary Writ, lead me to feel that they would be too confrontational as an admin and would lack the ability to resolve conflict and de-escalate. This, as well as their somewhat dismissive approach to what I regard as best practices in the name of reducing backlogs, is enough for me to oppose. I have to say that I don't think they have been helped by the multiple responses to opposers by both of their nominators, which is increasingly coming across as bludgeoning. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose. MB clearly has both a lot of passion and a lot of energy for upholding the integrity of the encyclopaedia, which have been primarily channelled through NPP. Unfortunately my interactions with him there have convinced me that he does not have the temperament for admin work. Extraordinary Writ has already mentioned our extraordinarily frustrating dispute at Help talk:Unreviewed new page; in that and other discussions I've seen that MB's approach of consensus is to avoid discussion and fall back on legalistic objections (i.e. "you don't have consensus this" with no follow-up). Worse, he seems to view decision-making as a question of an editor's position (as the creator of a page, new page reviewer, backlog-fighter, NPP 'coordinator', etc.) rather than the quality of their arguments. I see that again in the doubling-down and 'us vs. them' answers to the questions here. To be fair to MB, these kind of attitudes have been an entrenched problem at NPP pretty much from the beginning, and he's likely just copying what he's seen from others. But still, this is not a set of isolated mistakes, it's a consistent pattern of behaviour that would be really bad if extended to adminship. A good understanding of consensus as a constructive process based on discussion and compromise is essential for any admin, and I'm afraid MB just doesn't seem to get it. – Joe (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose per basically all of Pawnkingthree (do we share a brain?). MB's answer to Q19 is particularly concerning, as it shows an unwillingness to engage with valid criticism while brushing aside the examples provided by SoWhy as merely the opinion of one individual (by my count at the time of my vote, at least 12 Opposes directly and agreeably reference SoWhy's reasoning, not including myself). MB dances around whether or not these were "mistakes" (scare quotes in original), but seems content to brush aside criticisms of them as, essentially, the cost of doing difficult business. I disagree: these concerns deserve contemplation and reflection, not out of hand dismissal "without analyzing [them] individually". --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
47. Reluctant oppose (moved from support). I've vacillated on this one. At first, I was set to oppose per Sdrqaz, SoWhy, and Ivanvector. Then I was reassured by MB's answers (eg Q12) and his restricted intended use of the bit (Q1 and Q16). However, I am further disquieted by the reasons highlighted by Extraordinary Writ (and Joe) and Tamzin. Net-net, I'd love to see how MB reflects on the significant if minority discomfort in this RFA over the next few months before they have the ability to delete pages.
    Martinp (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Oppose Similarly to Pawnkingthree and Pinchme123, I have some concerns with MB's answer to Q19 showing a lack of reflection. However, I am more concerned with the phrase, "others are resorting to PAs at various people." Whether the candidate truly believes that, throwing that type of statement into a debate normally causes a discussion to degrade and tensions to escalate. If you think a PA has occurred, take it outside of the debate and decide whether to handle it discreetly, issue a formal warning or ask an uninvolved editor for a second opinion (sometimes taking a step away from the interaction for a second is enough to cool things down). While I can understand that RFAs are stressful, I would hope that administrators would try to avoid making unsupported accusations of PAs as that almost always pours fuel onto the fire in a discussion. If it was just the PA statement, I probably wouldn't have opposed but coupled with some of the defensive answers from the candidate, this isn't a good reflection on their ability to handle pressure. Whether MB is successful or not here, I hope the candidate does take the time to truly reflect on the feedback after things have cooled off. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose per the specifics listed by User:SoWhy and User:Extraordinary Writ, along with the general concerns noted by User:Ivanvector.  MainPeanut  (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose. Held off because my default is a preference to increase the number of admins, plus I appreciate MB’s dedication to the project. Unfortunately the trajectory of this RfA has pushed me in the other direction. The response to feedback in Q12 and Q19 is not an attitude I’d like to see in greater supply in the admin corps. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose, regretfully, agreeing mostly with Joe and Extraordinary Writ. Too many of the Supports are conditional or made keeping fingers crossed that MB will improve their problem areas once they have admin powers, whereas from the tone of MB's answers it seems more likely that the opposite will happen. (In passing, the bludgeoning advocacy from the 2 nominators probably hasn't helped this RfA much). Ingratis (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose BEFORE isn't policy, but
    WP:OWN this process, they just start it.) Jclemens (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
53. Oppose — sadly, I’m opposing this at this time. Being a sysop is not a big deal (as it has always been put) but we need more administrators that can atleast control their temper + personal opinion and also take correction. I have seen MB around and I must say, he's doing a nice job but he does not have the ability to be an administrator yet. Their stance seems to be leaning towards deleting rather than cleaning up. Telling suppose article creators to clean their article does not give the collaborating project vibe. (See:
    WP:OWN)

    Also, most of the supporters are doing so because they feel they [MB] are being hated on because they are the NPP coordinator—sentiments such as this does no good to the collaborative project. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. Oppose per concerns raised by SoWhy —MdsShakil (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose for the reasons laid out by Sdrqaz, SoWhy, ComplexRational, Extraordinary Writ, and Pawnkingthree.
    talk) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
56. Oppose – due to his slacker attitude that I witnessed last week. Instead of attempting to fix 1 bare reference, he just reinserted the template without giving any comprehensive reason. I think we need those who could fix the problems. The discussion above also confirms his attitude in many cases. Egeymi (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And you did what to fix it yourself? Slinging

    personal attacks without any evidence for the rest of us would probably earn you a block if this wasn't the alternate universe of RfA. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    What are you talking about and why are you threatening me? Yes, I fixed it. It was not a personal attack, but I just described my experience with the candidate. Your statement above is a definite personal attack. If you want evidence, you might have looked at the talk page of the candidate. --Egeymi (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Point me to where I attacked you. And if you can't see why sliming a volunteer as being someone with a "slacker attitude" isn't a personal attack, I'm not sure what else I can say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you had asked me to justify my point with an evidence without mentioning block, it would be a better act for an admin. But you stated "Slinging personal attacks without any evidence for the rest of us would probably earn you a block if this wasn't the alternate universe of RfA". It is both an attack and a threat. And you asked me if I myself fixed it. Why didn't you expect him to fix it?

    Once again here we need hard-working admins with no temperament issues like in real life. It is my first involvement in such discussions, and I'll participate in future from now on, if I will not be blocked for expressing my views about a candidate. Egeymi (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

57. Mostly per Q12, 18, 19, the last two having taken me off the sidelines for this one. Everyone makes mistakes, that's totally understandable, but when you have the benefit of looking back in hindsight, that's different. It takes less time to Google something than it does to nominate it for AFD, and every competent editor -- admin, NPP, or otherwise -- should understand that. It doesn't matter if it's a requirement or not, because Googling the article title is the minimum due diligence one can possibly due before questioning something's notability (much less taking up the resources of an AFD). The nom statement for that Buffy nom did not match the explanation in Q18. MB asserted in the nom that it was "NN TV episode. Article is entirely plot summary". "NN" means "not notable," and writing that is, well, kind of like a lie, if you haven't even googled it to find out. You just have no business asserting something is non-notable if you haven't even googled it or done anything to find out. The second sentence of that nom statement tells me the nom is judging the notability by looking at article content, another AFD 101 no-no. And while everyone makes mistakes in the moment, the answer to Q18 defends this up as an example of a good nom--even with the benefit of hindsight, even after editors explained what was wrong with it. It was, indeed, a sloppy nom. The "a second person will check it" attitude also is concerning: that's what the other person thinks, too, and then no one checks it. I think the CSD and temperament concerns raised by others are valid. Reducing a backlog isn't so important that it's worth rushing like this. Ultimately I believe that someone who takes shortcuts nominating things for deletion will also take shortcuts deleting them. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC) To expand a bit, one of the reasons I'm opposing is because deletions are very difficult for the community at large to monitor; it's hard to know if someone is processing CSDs incorrectly because non-admins can't see the deleted pages. Temperament, on the other hand, is easy to monitor, but concerns about deletion make me more likely to oppose than I otherwise would be. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose. I am landing here for three reasons: 1. The concerns raised by ComplexRational and Extraordinary Writ, as two editors I have worked closely with and whose judgment I trust. 2. The concerns about the tone of responses to questions here. 3. My own concerns about the lack of quality content engagement. I have supported in the past a few candidates who did not have considerable content engagement when the candidate has demonstrated proficiency in areas where we really need admin help (eg copyvio). This candidate does not seem to have conclusively demonstrated specialist proficiency, and I found their content engagement concerning. With a seven-year editing history, I expect to see more than this. I took a look at their highest assessed work from the top pages edited (Red Caboose Motel), and found issues that should not be occurring at the curated (GA or FA) level. When coming before RFA, one would hope the candidate would be sure their top work was in good shape. Look at the sourcing and original research issues (based on primary sources) found only by glancing at the first section of the article. I did not go further in to the article, but I hope that someone engaged in NPP would demonstrate better content engagement than this example provides. Please engage the core of the project (content creation) for a successful RFA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been frequently reported, and is published in the historical booklet "Red Caboose Lodge"

    Penn Central employee, who alerted him to the cabooses being sold at the railroad's rolling stock "graveyard" in Altoona. He also claimed to have bid below their scrap value to ensure he would not win, had not planned to use them as a motel, and that he forgot about the auction until he received a phone call from the railroad in January 1970 telling him he was the highest bidder and had to remove the cabooses that day or be charged demurrage while in storage.^[4][5]

    Even that portrayal of the motel's inception appears inaccurate; Denlinger was likely planning the motel well before 1969 as he created the business entity "Red Caboose Lodge" in January 1967.^[6]

59. Oppose. I oppose this user's rationale in deletion discussions. One of their recent nominations involved a failure to research the obviously notable topic to determine notability before nomination. As well, this user was endorsing another's abuse of NPP rights which they used to attack me. That should be condemned, not accepted and excused. ɱ (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose, with great reluctance. I have very great respect for the thankless task of NPP, for the work MB does for it, and for their nominators' efforts. But I've come down on this side because I think that trying to preserve notable content for Wikipedia is of enormously greater importance than getting the NPP queue down, and I'm seeing the wrong priorities here. It's very easy, when one works on a specific task, to prioritise that task and perhaps fail to fully see what's beyond it - but it's important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. I'm also seeing multiple opportunties for MB to have reflected on critique of their approach, which I think is an essential quality for an admin, but they have not really been taken up.Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to add, having re-read the questions and answers, that I'm really quite disturbed by the reference in Q19 to "what is only recommended as "best practice"". That, and Q12, give me the impression that MB thinks admins only need to follow the letter of policy, and are free to dispense with things that the community considers to be only best practice. I can not support an admin with that attitude - admins should be actively working to achieve what the community decides is best practice, in my view. I'd hope to see some kind of reflection and change of attitude before I could support any new RFA attempt if this one does not succeed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll also add that, in line with what a few others have said, if it were possible to unbundle "view deleted material" I would happily support the granting of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

61. Oppose. I've been concerned about several of the points raised by previous opposers, particularly Extraordinary Writ, but it's re-reading MB's answers to the questions, particularly 12, 17, and 19, which pushed me to put my name down here. It feels like they are responding to legitimate concerns being raised about their actions by digging in their heels and refusing to admit any fault, rather than doing any introspection about whether any of the opposers might have a point; this is the opposite of what I want to see from an admin who has concerns raised about their actions. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose - I've been following this as it's progressed, and was going to sit it out, but like others here I think the concerns are too much at this point. The points that SoWhy makes are valid, and while
    WP:IDHT mentality I'm afraid, particularly remarks like "baseless accusations" and labelling the feedback here as "tangential to the object of an RfA". That said though, MB is clearly a very committed Wikipedian, and their work at NPP is much-valued. If this RFA doesn't succeed, per WereSpielChequers there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't take on board the comments made here, adjust their way of operating and then come back next year (similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2) at which point I'd be happy to reassess and hopefully support. Conversely, if the RFA does succeed, I will of course welcome MB to the corps and urge that they still take on board the points that I and others here have made, and go on to prove us wrong in our concerns. All of us are on a learning curve, drawing on feedback from others. And we're not enemies here, we're all pursuing the same goal and here to support each other. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
63. Oppose per evidence by SoWhy, Extraordinary Writ and others.
    No such user (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
64. Fairly strong oppose. Please don't rob Peter (
    talk) 02:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Oppose. It is unfortunate to oppose this RfA, but per the reasons/concerns laid out by Ivanvector, SoWhy, and others, I'm going to have to oppose.
    (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
66. Oppose for now with regret due to candidate's downplay of
    WP:Before. This consensus essay is vital for the academic BLP AfDs that I sometimes deal with and is too often overlooked there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC).[reply
    ]
67. Oppose very reluctantly, as MB does huge amounts (perhaps too much, too fast?) of mostly very useful work. But I share the concerns expressed by many carefully reasoned opposes above. The answers to Qs 12 and 19, while perhaps admirably honest, have had a rather disastrous effect on the Rfa. Some supporters express the view that MB will learn from the opposes and adjust his behaviour in certain respects, but this doesn't seem at all likely from those responses. I'd support him being given the ability to view deleted articles, if that is possible to detach from the admin basket. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose I'm also concerned about the answers to Q12 and Q19, for many of the same reasons that have been stated above, particularly as someone who also works with problematic articles (and even the back of the NPP queue on occasion). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose - per the concerns about conflict management expressed by AmandaNP and Extraordinary Writ, and the areas of intended focus that routinely include opportunities to interact with new editors, e.g. [4]. I appreciate the answer to Q6 and the intent to make the NPP process less
    dispute resolution. This dispute is presented by MB, not dug up from the mud by others, in response to a question that states If you gain adminship, you can expect angry editors to show up on your User talk page. Q19 was an opportunity to respond to any concerns, but the answer does not directly address the conflict management concerns raised by opposes, supports, and neutrals. The lack of engagement after multiple opportunities leads me to oppose at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Oppose mainly due to the many temperament concerns raised by editors and brushed off by MB. Incivility is a serious and often ignored problem on Wikipedia. Admins who are apathetic to it and/or have their own problems with it make the problem much worse. GrammarDamner how are things? 05:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose per the issues brought up by ComplexRational, SoWhy, and SandyGeorgia. -- Veggies (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
72. Oppose per SoWhy and the candidate's responses to questions #12 and #19. The attitude they reflect in these questions is, in my view, unfitting of an admin. Megathonic (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose unfortunately, per above. I'm not too concerned with the mistakes, we all make them, however, the candidate's poor response to constructive criticism is not the sort of behavior I'd like to see from an administrator. -FASTILY 07:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose largely per SoWhy, Sdrqaz, Ivanvector, ComplexRational, and Extraordinary Writ. The answers to Qs 12, 18, 19 IMO show a combative and defensive stance in response to valid and constructive criticisms. While
    WP:BEFORE is technically not policy, it is best practices, and shouldn't be ignored merely to reduce backlogs at one area (NPP) and add work to another (AFD). Willingness to ignore best practices for minimal benefit at best is not something I wish to see in an admin. That being said, MB puts in commendable time in NPP and I would not have an issue with him being able to see deleted pages, since that would help there, but unfortunately that is not technically possible. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
75. Oppose This was a difficult RfA to consider. The candidate comes across as an extremely valuable contributor, who seems to have found his calling in the thankless task of trying to cut through the backlog of unreviewed articles. I know the feeling well of waiting for an article to be reviewed. Even as someone who leans slightly towards inclusionism, I also understand the need to sometimes discard a submission of questionable importance. I am also satisfied with his content creation, advocacy and proficiency in the use of automated tools such as AWB. But this discussion is about granting admin tools, and that is what gives me pause. The feeling I get is that the candidate is more suited to the high-volume article processing work that he is currently engaged in, as opposed to the more careful, reasoned, and analytical temperament I would expect to see in an administrator. I agree with Dream Focus, Star Mississippi and Ivanvector that an admin-in-a-rush is a concerning prospect. While he has stated that he doesn't plan to close deletion discussions, this option will still be open to him, and his current work does (necessarily) skew towards deletion. The lack of attention to detail in the DYK approval mentioned by Paradise Chronicle, the failure to identify notability in the Buffy example as mentioned by SoWhy and Levivich are concerning. I second Johnbod's point that unbundling a more specific tool where possible might be more appropriate here. StonyBrook _babble 08:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose Unfortunately I feel compelled to oppose this RfA. The user does a lot of good work in a thankless field, but there are too many major concerns raised by users above and poor temperament at AfD is a red flag in an admin for me. Kosack (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose Oppose due to temperament and issues brought up by Sowhy and SandyGeorgia. Noah^Talk 10:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose per numerous concerns above, especially Extraordinary Writ, ComplexRational and AmandaNP. When someone approaches an admin about one of their actions, they must justify their actions civilly and be open to the possibility that they have made a mistake. The dismissiveness displayed in Q12 and Q19 is not what I want to see in admins. Not helping this RFA is what I take as MB's tacit approval of their nominators' badgering opposes, including veiled attacks against opposers by Kudpung elsewhere. I am also concerned about the "us vs. them" attitude brought up by Joe Roe, MB has mentioned "NPPer" four times in this page alone. "NPPers" aren't above the great unwashed masses of "non-NPPers". There are many "thankless tasks" done by a small number of editors that are important for wikipedia. No single process is above the overall project of wikipedia, there is nothing special about NPP to ignore best practices on deletion and transfer the backlog to another process or worse harm the encyclopedia worsening systemic bias by deleting notable content. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose rather reluctantly. I find the opposes that boil down to "doesn't do enough
    WP:BEFORE (which isn't a policy) even though the article arguably breaks another policy. But, that's not a very mature attitude to take and the temperament issues are concerning and the lack of much in depth content work was enough to push me over to actually opposing. (Also - the badgering of the opposes is just not cool, folks. It really leaves a bad impression and frankly, the fact that MB didn't try to rein it in was a factor in me opposing.)Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
80. Oppose per Johnbod, SandyGeorgia, and Softlavender's general comments, as well as Q19. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral at this time. I have not been !voting on RFAs recently, and I have not adequately weighed all of the possible benefits of this request; I have a positive impression of this editor. Yet I am inclined to oppose per the answer to Q12 stating that
   WP:BEFORE constitute "baseless accusations" and constitute "no real need to oppose or cast doubt on [MB's] knowledge and use of the NPP processes or claim that [MB is] likely to abuse the admin tools". If this nomination succeeds, I suggest not responding to negative feedback in this way. Of course administrators often have to deal with bad-faith accusations, which is a pain. But I see no indication that the objections here are in bad faith, and administrators should be willing to recognize that there are reasoned opinions behind such negative feedback. (In fact, things will often go more smoothly when you don't call accusations baseless, even when that's your true opinion of them.) Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   "WP:BEFORE should be understood as an extension of Wikipedia:Deletion policy" - This has been continuously shot down.

   WP:BEFORE.--v/r - TP 03:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   My comment above was not sufficiently precise. Yes,

   WP:BEFORE is not itself required by the policy, and my initial response was not intended to imply that there are policy violations involved here. However, checking for sources is a logical extension or application of the parts of the deletion policy that I mentioned above, and many of the comments on the discussions you linked note that something like this can easily be a best practice without being explicitly codified in policy. Regardless of the existence of any “WP:BEFORE” shortcut, I believe there are significant disadvantages to offloading the question to other editors without an initial check, and I do not think they should be dismissed out of hand. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Ignoring

   WP:BEFORE wastes the community's time and chases editors away. I don't see why we wouldn't expect admins to neither waste the community's time nor chase editors away. --Rschen7754 06:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   On the second point above on deescalation, I don't feel reassured by the subsequent answer to Q19, so I will stay here. Dekimasuよ! 07:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'm unhappy about the attitude that appears to be displayed in the last paragraph of answer 12, starting with "Because there is no abuse of policy, there is no real need to oppose", continuing with "I know some people will not like this answer" and ending with "If you want to please all the people all the time, you shouldn’t be in NPP." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Answer 19 doesn't really help. There are currently 48 users uncomfortable with the idea of granting adminship, and the candidate's response to their concerns is that they're taking things out of context or doing other negative things. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral - I'm moving my "Support" to "Neutral" which is unfortunate and I really don't like doing it, but some of the points brought up by others and the answers to some of the questions (partcularly Q12) are enough to give me pause. Not enough to outright oppose the nom, but enough that if I had waited a few days and seen this RfA in its current state with information I didn't know previously, I likely would not have dropped my name in the "support" bucket so quickly. - Aoidh (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral — I am sitting on the fence on this one. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. I'm not really concerned about the supposed reckless behavior when tagging articles for deletion. As an NPP, I too sometimes place tags that I know are questionable because I know that another person will be vetting them, so it's not a big deal if I mess up; I would obviously be much more careful if I were deleting the page myself, and I trust MB has the sense to do so as well, as his answer to Q14 suggests. I am more concerned about evidence presented by Lightburst and Extraordinary Writ that MB is at times abrasive, as well as a lack of positive indication that MB is receptive to feedback from others (such as complaints presented here); these are red flags for me in admins. I want to feel safe supporting, so I'm going to park here for now and keep watching the developments. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral - While I have prior awareness of MB, we've not had a particularly large amount of interaction, so this is mostly based on this RfA, as someone who has a large amount of AfD activity. MB's Q12 answer is commendably clear - it doesn't muck around, trying to extract a few more (!)votes, but specified their position, their reasoning, and accepts the consequences of that. Up front, I will say that I had planned on being a weak oppose prior to such a good answer - albeit one I disagree with. BEFORE isn't policy, but is only not so because it's oddly broad in its writing. A practical summary of what most AfD regulars do for BEFORE would likely be added without too many issues (and perhaps should be). They fairly note that NPP traditionally has huge backlogs, and perhaps there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. But this tradeoff is only partially at the cost of incorrectly deleted articles, but is also at the cost of more work for AfD participants. Often that will be duplicated work, so I'm not sure the project as a whole saves here. The question of how much beyond the bounds of policy an admin should go to make things easier for the editors as a whole is one with myriad fair answers, and would be unfair to oppose under, but I also don't think I align sufficiently to support. I will note that I don't believe the CSD complaints are evidence of a sufficient (non-self-fixed) error rate that I would be appreciably concerned. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. NEUTRAL - I have never not given a support !vote for RfA. I was torn between "weakest of support" or neutral (which I understand is a non !vote). I went through all the AfDs submitted by MB that resulted in keep (listed by
   before-ish (to be fair, most were not). Regardless, the ones that were obviously BEFORE could have been fixed easily. It seems like it was easier to list it in AfD than do the work to fix the article. For now, for me, I'm neutral. It's me... Sallicio!
   ^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 19:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Now that you mention it, I see the irony with me of all people opposing someone for being a "letter of the law" person. Regards SoWhy 11:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   It's just a management style; not right or wrong. I have been a law enforcement officer for almost 20 years. I have seen many "letter of the law" officers. They are not "wrong" in what they do, they do not violate people's civil rights, and they are extremely knowledgeable of the law. However, they are the ones that destroy people's lives for human mistakes. They are the ones that are always receiving Internal Affairs complaints. They are the ones that make the public hate the police. Personally, I have always been a "spirit of the law" officer. If it's a human mistake and I have discretion in the matter (i.e., not domestic violence-related, certain felonious offenses, etc.), if I don't have to make an arrest, I won't. That philosophy has served me well. In almost 20 years of public service, I have never received a citizen complaint, use-of-force complaint, or a civil rights violation complaint (knock on wood). I carry that philosophy to WP, as admins really are the "police" of WP (whether the community wants to admit it or not). And with "great power comes great responsibility!" Cheers! It's me... Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 14:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. Moving to neutral. The issues raised with regard to overeager application of CSD are worrying, and I don't have sufficient time to take a closer look and determine if I can still support. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Deeply conflicted neutral MB does overwhelmingly positive work, and I don't view the process-based opposes – even in aggregate – as sufficient grounds for denying the bit. However the temperament-based opposes resonate with me.
   Q12 and Q19 (which I think should be tradition given the expectations on candidates at RfA) have been golden opportunities to allay community concerns and demonstrate self-reflection. Instead the responses come off primarily as defensive and dismissive, and admit the possibility that MB struggles to accept the validity of differing viewpoints. It's easy to get defensive in a vulnerable situation where multiple people are ccombing through your record to nitpick your actions, and your RfA has unfairly taken on aspects of a referendum on the greyer areas of your team's workflow. What I hope to see from an administrator is the maturity and self-awareness to step away from their initial reaction (perhaps composed in a separate app and never published) and respond more neutrally and perceptively, or at least read the room well enough to compromise a little bit, even if they don't agree. I'm sure it's easy to develop an adversarial mentality when the bulk of your work takes place in "defender of the Wiki" settings like NPP, but in a collaborative environment it's important to keep in mind that we might be wrong, and I'm not seeing that ability in the candidate's responses.
   Having said all that, I do believe MB would be a net positive if granted the mop, and I have no concerns about misuse of the tools. If administrator status were a reward, MB should be eligible for his actions in winning Foundation resources for NPP. Maybe I have unrealistic standards when it comes to the temperament and attitude of people with the social cachet of an administrator.
   MB, I'm sure this whole process is causing you considerable stress, and I hope sincerely that you're able to alleviate it healthily, and that whatever the outcome here you are able to continue the excellent work that you do. Folly Mox (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Moved from Oppose on further reflection. MB's sometimes controversial way of editing, even though being less than optimal, still does not put the project in jeopardy or obstructs other editors' work in any meaningful way; at least not enough I think to keep admin tools away from them. Considering that an admin is primarily a technical role, most admin actions can be fairly easily undone, MB has carried out over 340,000 mostly diligent edits, and mop wielders are increasingly in short supply, I no longer see myself in the firm Oppose camp and am prepared to extend a benefit of doubt should the community agree. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. MB has done good work over the years. While I respect him for taking a firm stand despite a barrage of opposers, I think he could have shown a sign of willingness to work with them [in Q19]. Q19, IMO, came out as a counter-attack over the opposers. Should the admin tools be granted, I support him and believe he doesn't misuse them. If so, he will land at AE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:ARC. While it would be possible to report admins breaking the rules to Arbitration/Enforcement, I don't think it has ever happened, especially given that Arbitration/Enforcement does not have the capacity to remove admin rights by force. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   There's the admin action review board too, but I don't recall the shortcut. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the notes. I thought AE handles desysopping as well. Either way, my last sentence was just that that he’ll face the community review —

   t · m · c) 20:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

10. Neutral at this time, because I wasn't following this RFA for a few days, and see that time is running out, and haven't had time to consider the reasons for the Opposes, which appear to be a mixture of good concerns and overstated concerns. It appears that one of the factors that causes RFA to become toxic is being seen as deletionist. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral. With regret moved from support. The candidate's content creation is decent and NPP work is excellent. However, in addition to the aforementioned concerns I said when I casted a weak support, the answer to Q19, especially Without analyzing the opposes individually, it is nevertheless clear to me that many are genuinely taking things out of context, while others are tangential to the object of an RfA, and using it to re-litigate what is only recommended as "best practice", and others are resorting to PAs at various people, sadly gives me pause, so with regret and reluctance I am moving to neutral. Nevertheless, MB is in general an outstanding editor and I wish the best of luck. VickKiang (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12. Call this another deeply conflicted neutral, to use Folly Mox's term. I've been reading and wrestling with this all week. The opposers raise valid points. I'm not interested in a laundry list of procedural mistakes; those are valuable feedback but they are a list of easily learnt lessons. Likewise, the concerns about deletionism I feel are unwarranted. Deletion is a necessary maintenance task and I've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that MB would delete articles indiscriminately; the occasional mistake is to be expected. What concerns me is much the same as Amanda observed–a propensity to double down and escalate disputes rather seeking deescalation and a lack of consideration that an action may not be optimal, even if it complies with the letter of policy. The translation debacle is possibly the best example of this. Everything MB did was technically correct but it left a good-faith editor disheartened from an important task that improved the encyclopaedia. Once the editor showed an interest in bringing the article up to an acceptable standard, the best thing to do would have been to back off and let them work, or talk to them without the use of templates. That prevents me from supporting this time, but I hope MB will use the feedback here to grow, regardless of the outcome. None of the criticism is insurmountable. What prevented me from opposing was Hawkeye's remark that the only admins who don't attract controversy are the ones who don't do anything. Sometimes admins need to make tough decisions that nobody will really be happy with. I applaud MB for being willing to make those decisions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral After reading the later answers to questions and some of the oppose !votes, I feel I can no longer support this candidate, though do to the good work they do do, I'm effectively abstaining. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral—The exchanges between MB and Joe Roe cited in the oppose section, coupled with the dismissive tone of his answers to questions 12 and 19, are concerning enough that I can no longer comfortably support granting him adminship at this time. I hope I can support again at a later date, once all of the communication issues have been resolved. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving back to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14. Neutral It's clear MB does valuable work at NPP, and I find the concerns about deletion unpersuasive. Nobody has a perfect record at AfD unless they only ever leave last-minute votes on AfDs that already have a clear outcome. I am more concerned about the temperament issues and the badgering of opposers. I find Amanda's concerns strong, though as a NPPer I am aware of how much crap (spam, things with zero sources, hoaxes, etc) shows up in the queue. I'm not quite an oppose, but I can't support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral - I have read MB's answer to the questions and have reviewed some of their recent work which they have done and it clearly shows that they are overall a good and positive contributor to the project and would probably make a good admin. However, after reading the main concerns and issues given by many editors in the oppose section, they do seem very valid as well. They have done a lot of good work in creating content and in NPP as well, but the issues raised are quite concerning as well. I wish them all the best. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• The ideas that participation in the deletion processes is an inherent disadvantage or that new page patrol dooms an RfA is simply untrue: many candidates with those backgrounds have been highly successful in the past year alone, with multiple passing with 100s and in the high 90s. The issue with this candidacy is his record in those areas, not that he participates in them. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As an old wikipedian who gave up being an admin because of old age, this discuss worries me considerably. Becoming an admin should be no big deal. This discussion is likely to put potential admins off from applying. We might finish with not enough admins. Come on guys, it is no big deal. This candidate will be a fine admin. I have no past connection with this applicant. --Bduke (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understood

  WP:NOBIGDEAL to be a concept that had fallen out of favor with some in the community somewhere along the line. Having followed this discussion and others before it, it seems that my supposition has been corroborated. StonyBrook _babble 23:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I fully agree with Bduke - we need more admins, make it easier to get in and then limit their powers should they prove incapable. How about some kind of junior or interim admin status? I would love to be able to do some low level things but I would never in a million years want to put myself through this process, and I can't imagine why anyone else would either.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be interested in some of the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals, in particular "7A Limited adminship". There are also proposals there for probation and unbundling. The community has ideas but consensus remains elusive. I don't believe any of the mentioned ideas passed. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  6E was close to passing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I opposed and I've been a defender of NOBIGDEAL over the years; I've been around on-and-off for almost as long as that "no big deal" quote, and when I became an admin it really wasn't a big deal. I passed unopposed with 20 supports and 2000 edits (which was considered the bar by some at the time). But back then Wikipedia wasn't providing a sidebar on Google search results. There also weren't discretionary sanctions or administrators' noticeboards back then. Articles didn't even require references. Back in 2003 it would be have been considered anti-wiki and anti-collaborative to draftify an article out of mainspace or to have gatekeeping processes and individuals pruning articles without a community discussion. I also once advocated for a separation of state and wiki-politics. And maybe there is a little bit of that dynamic happening here. However I think, inclusionism and deletionism aside, the community clearly has been able to promote new admins despite the much higher standards nowadays, and the community also reserves the right to weigh in sometimes. It may feel a little unfair but MB can stand for RFA again in the future if he does not pass, and adminship is not a reward or an entitlement for good work done. It's quite simply a responsibility and one that has grown with weight over the years. It's still NOBIGDEAL compared to a lot of other things: we don't require RFA candidates to write a resume or a cover letter, to stand for an exam or a technical interview, or to submit to a panel of judges. RFA candidates don't run against anyone, and someone can have substantial opposition and still pass. So, while I welcome NOBIGDEAL still being invoked, we still can reasonably say: NOTQUITEYET to some candidates and have it be relatively NOBIGDEAL. Andre🚐 06:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing I would like to mention is that the candidate made the bulk of their 328,392 edits in the past 4.5 years. To me this is way too many edits per day/month/year, and the candidate needs to slow way down and learn to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and best practices better. They also need to learn to interact with other editors in a mutually cooperative, productive, and respectful way. Right now only 2% of their edits are to talkpages, and I daresay most of even that is notifications and warnings, not discussions/engagement. There is something missing in the candidate's temperamental makeup, and I think this is caused by too many edits too fast, and insufficient engagement/discussion. I also think spending some time lurking at AN and ANI might be instructive for them. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Softlavender, It's not got anything to do with too many edits too fast, because they are mostly semi automatic AWB edits and AWB is not used for NPP or admin related tasks. Some editors who use AWB have edit counts in the millions. The use of AWB, as WereSpielChequers knows only too well, is essential for cleaning up exactly the king of errors that make even worthy articles look amateurish. It's pretty much a proofreading tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I have seen what I consider to be ample reasoned discourse on the part of this candidate in geographical deletion discussions, also referenced today by Doncram. StonyBrook _babble 10:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, there are a lot of diffs cited in the oppose section, but I'm not sure if any of them are AWB edits. It is possible to muck up badly and muck up fast with AWB, either by running AWB without checking each edit, as most of the default typo fixes have some false positives or in other ways if you get your change wrong. But I'm not seeing MB's AWB edits as causing concern. ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't see why doing a lot of semi-automated edits should be held against anyone. But speaking of AWB, in recent months I've seen wash up on my watchlist a lot of edits by MB where the edit summary will exhaustively detail the minor tweaks but omit mention of the more substantial (and potentially controversial) changes made in the same edit (an example: the edit summary here reads cleanup,

  typo(s) fixed: ’s → 's (2), but the edit has also unlinked two dozen terms from the article text. – Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The unlinking falls under clean-up (

  WP:OVERLINK). Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'd agree that fixing overlinks is reasonably and completely summarized by "cleanup". VQuakr (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: Your Q19, in which you give the candidate an opportunity to respond to general criticism rather than asking a specific question, seems to be more or less a duplicate of Q12 in which Barkeep49 gives the candidate an opportunity to respond to general criticism rather than asking a specific question. Just in case you had missed it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean new people have whacked MB for new things. I don't really see an issue with MB being given an additional chance to write something on this basis alone. Add in the fact that some people didn't like his response the first time and I think Tony's question is a kind opportunity that MB can avail or not avail himself of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a handy opportunity to have, due to the tradition of not making any replies. It also lets you show some self-reflection because, unfortunately, RFA is pretty much the only time you'll get a wide array of users critiquing your editing. You may not even realize that some editors have an issue with what you consider to be common or standard practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If that were the intention of the questions, I don't think the candidate understood, twice. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't meaning to suggest anything untoward was going on, I just thought both that Tony might not have seen Barkeep's question, and that it's an interesting development generally. Maybe we should have a space in the RFA template for the candidate to generally respond, rather than chasing individual comments through the straw poll. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, Ivanvector's right that I didn't see Barkeep's question. I typically ask it when something gets in the 70s if I remember. Just a courtesy I think we should give people given the "no direct replies" custom, which I also don't really want to end. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate concerns about temperament and agree the nominators have done themselves no favours in this discussion and made the RfA far less likely to succeed. However, I'm looking back at the evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, and as far as problematic conduct goes, MB isn't anywhere near that. The recent case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing makes it clear that the community doesn't have any consensus on what's the acceptable ballpark to delete or preserve something, and therefore I think it's unfair to hang some of the blame on MB when he sees his peers doing the same thing and think it's okay. And if there is a problem with existing administrators' conduct in this area, then take it to Arbcom, as we did with RHaworth, and it will be sorted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ritchie333: Regardless of how this turns out, I hope that the bar for adminship is not whether candidates are anywhere near the behaviour that led to unanimous findings of policy breaches and a near-unanimous desysop. I write more on what I think is the most serious issue of this RfA above, dated 23:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been watching RfA discussions for a little while now to see what they are like and I have yet to !vote in any RfA discussions. This one has, by far, the least clear outcome I've seen so far with support now hovering at the 75% mark. The last few were nearly unanimous one way or the other, and seemed relatively uncontroversial. I'm interested to see how this turns out, and to some extant I agree with Bduke's comment above. I don't think I'd ever want to go through an RfA after seeing an RfA like this (I don't think I have any need for the tools anyway). Personally, I think that a thorough BEFORE should be done when opening an AfD and generally I'd say one should not move an article from mainspace back to draftspace if the move has been opposed. However, these don't seem like outrageous or flagrant violation of policy to me either. An AfD can generate helpful discussion and uncover useful sources, and sometimes a newbie insists on an article being moved to mainspace that would have no chance in an AfD with the best case scenario being a TNT. And yet, I'm not sure I feel comfortable !voting in any RfA discussions yet and thought I'd just add my thoughts down here. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was 94 supports versus 03 opposes and no neutrals before SoWhy opposed. The net change in votes including and after that is +79 support, +77 oppose, +13 neutral as of 14:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC) starship.paint (exalt)

This is likely gonna result in a "no consensus" close at this point. Sheep (talk • he/him) 03:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But while most historical RfAs failed to achieve consensus at 69%, one should keep in mind: admin Biblioworm's successful 2015 reform. So this RfA is in fact still ~ 4% above the bottom end of the discretionary zone. Seen via this lens, the vast majority of similar RfAs have passed, and most just on the discretion of a single crat (admittedly, in recent years there seems more pressure for a crat chat on close calls.) It all depends on how the closing crat(s) judge the strength of arguments. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't updated my stats on this in a couple years, but between the 2015 reforms and the end of 2020, only four RfAs passed with support below 75%, and no RfAs have passed with support below 71% since 2009. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: - no RfAs have passed with support below 71% since 2009 is contradicted by Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion - RexxS (64.1% in 2019) and Money emoji (69.9% in 2020) ? starship.paint (exalt) 13:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. In addittion to the useful data added by Starship, it may be worth noting there's been few close RfAs since 2015. There were lots of close RfA's from 2015 - 2009 - but they had not benefited from the 5% reduction to the discretionary bound achieved by Biblio. Personally, Id be a little disconcerted if a crat indicates being at 69% is a reason to fail. That would feel like a slap in the face to Admin Biblio and sizeable chunk of our community who supported his RfC. The one time we've ever got a significant RfA reform after a great many valiant attempts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't

WT:RFA be a better place for this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have a hard time seeing this result in anything other than a crat chat. Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]