Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maile66

Additional question from FiendYT

20. What are you thoughts on paid editors? Less volunteer editors are signing up, and are being replaced by paid editors.

A: I think I'm not one of them. And I think it's above my volunteer pay scale.

WP:PAID disclosure is required to do it. I don't agree that unpaid volunteers "are being replaced" by paid editors. Declining participation in Wikipedia is a separate issue from paid editing, which is solely motivated by the vested financial interest. No money to be gained, no incentive to pay someone to edit. Quite probably, most of the articles on Wikipedia offer no incentive for paid editing, and we have CSD and AFD to help catch the self-promotional articles. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional questions from Ivanvector

21. What are your views on

WP:NOBIGDEAL

? Specifically, do you think that administrators hold any special social power or authority within the Wikipedia community by virtue of being administrators, beyond the additional technical abilities granted to them?

A: Like what? I have no opinion of this. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22. Do you think that the administrator toolset currently represents the functions which should only ever be performed by editors who pass RfA, or do you think that some current administrator functions might some day be performed by differently-qualified editors? By "differently-qualified" I mean only that they did not pass an RfA. You could mention specific functions or not, I'm more interested in your general views on the subject of unbundling the admin toolset.

A: I'm totally neutral on this issue, at this point in time, in spite of comments below assuming otherwise. I simply have not formed an opinion on it, one way or the other. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Links for Maile66: Maile66 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Maile66 can be found here.

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

Support

1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I've worked with Maile66 in the past and have absolutely no qualms about supporting this RfA. As explained, Maile66 has all the content contributions one would expect and their temperament is well-suited to mop-swinging. I'm only sorry I couldn't be the first to support this endeavor. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - absolutely for all the solid reasons given above. Gosh, we need more good admins!! 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - nothing wrong, so everything right, hmm?
   talk) 16:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Support. Good content contributions, trusted user. utcursch | talk 16:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support based on the strength of the nomination/nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Maile66 has earned the trust of the community with both high quality content work and vandal reversion. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Looking at the candidate's edit history, answers to the questions posed here, and their overall work, they would make for an excellent admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support: Appears sufficiently experienced and suitable for the role. --
    HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support: Maile66 is a fine, patient and impartial editor. This user will make for a great Admin.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support: all my interactions with Maile66 have been pleasant. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support – There isn't (or there shouldn't be) an iron wall between the content-side and the administrative-side of Wikipedia, and this candidate healthily incorporates both sides to their experience here. The candidate's solid work in both content creation and, well, content deletion demonstrate strong familiarity with Wikipedia policies and best practices. The encyclopedia would benefit from their adminship. Mz7 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Qs are good. Q1 appropriately restricted, so I don't expect trouble. Good side-step. Now I need to find some paint thinner. Glrx (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - no issues for me; already a rollbacker. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support- Good content contributor, looks like a good candidate for the mop. Edison (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support The edits I reviewed look good generally. It seems they can and will put the tools to good use. Gap9551 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Nice to see an experienced editor interested in administration. This not always the case with Administrators. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support A great editor and a fine content creator. Worked with the candidate on Audie Murphy's military record. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - active, has some use for the tools, and seems to keep a level head in interactions with other editors. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Don't see anything to make me think they'd misuse the tools, and we need more admins. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Looks like a good contributor and someone who could help out with some of the more gnoming type of admin tasks. Fences&Windows 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Liking the constructive, selfless work such as this nomination. Browsed for contraindications and couldn't see any. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Good Candidate - CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 22:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support, no-brainer. Long-time contributor with a solid track record for professional collaboration. My only hesitation would be the potential distraction from Texan/Texian articles the new buttons would provide. :) Kuru (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support I've seen Maile66 around a fair bit, as our areas of interest overlap somewhat, and they've always struck me as a consistently good editor who I think would make a good administrator as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Almost entirely because I trust the nominator's judgement, but the candidate is clearly here for the project's benefit and has a grounded attitude, so no hesitation. fredgandt 00:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Never come across the candidate before, but checking out their contributions, I'm very impressed with their balance between content and maintenance work. A good amount of counter-vandalism and deletion work as well as 3 FAs, 4 FLs, 4 GAs and a lot of work at DYK. Good luck! Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Long term user started in 2006 and has been editing regularly since Jan 2010 and good content creator with over 340 articles.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - absent a strong reason to oppose I will typically support, and right now I don't see any strong reasons to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support
    missfortune 01:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support Solid content contibutions and appreciation of the other tasks that need done around Wikipedia. Talk page and answers to questions show both civility and prudence. They have opinions, as any intelligent human being does. I trust them not to let their opinions get in the way of their following policy. After all, they hold the view that IP editing should not be allowed, but I cannot find anywhere where that has caused any issue whatsoever. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - Maintains a great balance between content contributions and administrative work. The great majority of the AIV reports I spotchecked were accurate, and Maile's AfD record shows they are not excessively hasty with deleting articles. User is also a prolific content contributor and can definitely be trusted with the tools. Altamel (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Experienced candidate. INeverCry 05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - Graham Beards (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - a clueful nominator plus I know Maile's outstanding content work from the Audie Murphy set of articles. Nothing I can see to make me at all concerned about handing over the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Obviously competent, and evidently fair and reasonable. FourViolas (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support -- great content production, need for tools, and I like the concise answers (including Q4). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support happily. Azealia911 _talk 08:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support No problems that I can see. Peridon (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I see no issues here. SQL^{Query me!} 09:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Good candidate. Aparslet (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
46. —Kusma (t·c) 10:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
47. likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Denisarona (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - Seriously?... There are no reason about candidate from vote Support. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
50. Of course. Graham87 12:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Strong candidate. Though we don't edit too much in the same content areas, and so I haven't dealt with him personally too much, when I have seen him around, I've been left with a good impression of a quality editor with a good, reader-focused view. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Definitely has strong content creation credentials. Discusses issues in a concise yet polite way, an admirable skill of which we could use a lot more. I also see no reason to oppose. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Thank you for your willingness to serve in this role. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Great content contributions and trustworthy. FiendYT ★ 14:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I've seen Maile around for a long time. Most of their Wikipedia work is to talk pages rather than article space, and most of their article work is automated edits. I see a lot of edits at the Village pump but it's not to help other users, it's raising requests for help. Still, I see a calm demeanor most of the time. The answer to question 13 showed quality administrator behavior. They would be a good admin. Prhartcom (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you have the wrong user? If you have a look at Maile's edit count, you will see that of their 53,029 live edits, 19,768 are to the main namespace and 4,509 are to the talk namespace, and that they only have an estimated 1,283 automated edits. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Maile appears to understand her own limitations well, which is a valuable quality for an administrator. Deryck C. 14:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Moved to oppose after Q17. Deryck C. 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

58. Support No issues found - and the record at AfD is fine. Collect (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Per answer to question. TJH2018talk 15:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Excellent candidate for addition to our List of Wikipedia defenders. wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support No evident problems, cool temperament. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - I'm seeing years of high-quality content work. The usual, routine areas of admin work (AIV, CSD) look good, as does AFD. The "support" list has all the right names, too, and I certainly trust the judgment of both the candidate and nominator. I do not entirely agree with some of the answers to questions, but I respect the admin-to-be's desire to focus on certain venues more than others. Overall, it looks quite impressive to me, and I wish them the best of luck. GAB^Hello! 16:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Seems pretty much an ideal candidate. Gricehead (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I believe this user can be trusted not to misuse the tools. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support because the candidate seems qualified with his contributions to Wikipedia. I didn't see any problems. epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Spent about an hour learning about this editor. Saw nothing but good stuff. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Good contributions. Solid answers to questions. I would have preferred proper archiving of his talkpage as it makes it easier to read for situations like this (years 2006 to 2011 are deleted rather than archived so can only be read in the page history), but that's a minor quibble, and one he hopefully might resolve one day. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - Perfect candidate, No issues, Good luck. –Davey2010^Talk 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Good answers to questions, and temperamentally suited for adminship. Miniapolis 22:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support No reason to oppose. Quite a few reasons to support. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Experienced and well qualified editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - I've had positive interactions with this editor and have been impressed by their thoughtfulness and level-headedness. No issues. --Laser brain (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Well-rounded candidate who will certainly be a net benefit.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Based on his answer to my question, I don't think we will have any issues with him. --Peter Sam Fan 00:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
76. Absolutely, no reason not to support. —
    foxj 00:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Good contributions. I can't see why not. clpo13_(talk) 04:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 04:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support – nice interactions with the candidate at DYK.
    SSTflyer 05:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
81. Support - I am not really satisfied with the answers to the questions (especially mine, in which one answer is clearly wrong) but I consider that the questions might have elicited similar answers from me at my own RFA, so I can't really fault the candidate. Being an admin is a learning experience and Maile66 strikes me as someone who will treat the new tools cautiously, and will be a good admin. My only regret is that we'll lose a good content editor, because the endless mopping up activities leave little room for much else. ~
    talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. As someone who once had an argument with Maile (about potential bias against Mexican sources on
    Iridescent 10:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Support - WOW!! Definitely need him for the admin jobs around Wikipedia :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - No issues. Lectonar (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support: I believe that Maile66 would be a net positive as an admin. From the brief interactions I've had with them they seem level headed and experienced. Good luck. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support: I am impressed by Maile66's solid content contributions and answers to the RfA and optional questions. In my opinion, this demonstrates this user's strong grasp of policy and commitment to improving Wikipedia. More than simply knowing what the policies are, Maile66 demonstrates knowledge of why the policies are in place (such as Maile66's answer to What do you think of, "Verifiability, not truth" from QEDK). I do not believe that Maile66 would abuse the administrator tools and I believe that Maile66 would use them sensibly. « D. Trebbien (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support great answers to the posted questions. I believe this user will make a great admin.
    ZettaComposer (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
88. Support I think this user will be a good admin, especially based on his answers to the most recent questions Ian Waithaka (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support I second everything that Dtrebbien has said. MarnetteD|Talk 14:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Good enough for Strad is good enough for me.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. I've not really worked with Maile, although I've seen his name around, and he seems capable and he has the confidence of many Wikipedians that I have come to trust. He seems to be focused on editing, but in my experience this is not a bad thing.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
92. Support I have examined the users talk page history and their responses here. I have also waited a few days for anyone to make a reasonable objection and I don't see any. So I am supporting this candidate. HighInBC 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
93. support nbd -- Y not? 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
94. Here for the right reasons and has clear admin areas where they have experience and want to work. Jenks24 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
95. Been around various parts of the project, always calm, good candidate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    
96. Support: Long-time editor in good standing, appears level-headed from the candidate questions, has a clear idea of what they will contribute as an administrator. No good reason to oppose Maile66 has been given. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support The candidate appears to be level headed, clueful, and very articulate. A clean block log, after almost 10 years on the project, surely suggests that they are here to build an encyclopedia and can be trusted with the tools. I think they will make a fine administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support: Maile66 is a conscientious editor with a strong knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support we need more good admins --Coolman207ee (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support with a note of caution. You're clearly trustworthy, which is why I'm supporting, but you don't have nearly as much experience in maintenance tasks as most do when becoming an admin. Please don't jump in head-first. Observe areas you may be unfamiliar with first, learn how things work there, and then edit cautiously until you gain confidence. If you do that, you'll make a fantastic admin. ~ Rob^Talk 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - seems fine. GiantSnowman 20:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support based on work I've seen this candidate do its time and past time. Clearly HERE, and trustworthy. I'm not entirely happy with some of the answers (#4, #6), but there are some tough questions that would be near-impossible to fully answer. I really like answer to #13, which is where I expect candidate to most fully use admin tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support, I see no cause for worry here at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support - As he says, Maile's best contributions to Wikipedia is his gnome work. It builds the type of admin that we need. I have worked with Maile and find him agreeable, intelligent, and even-handed. Why he wants to be an admin, I don't know but I have every confidence he will be a good one. Buster Seven Talk 21:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support per Jason Quinn's response to the oppose below. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support—Yes, please. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support: Well-qualified. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support - I like the proposed Admins answers, including the ones with which I disagree. I don't need someone who happens to agree with me, I need someone who thinks, decides, explains, and moves on. This is what I see in the answers above.Shajure (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support - A bandwagon worth being on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support - Fully qualified candidate. Jason Quinn hits the nail on the head (again). The oppose votes are just the kind of thing that deter candidates of the right calibre from running for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support Appears to be the type of editor who would be good at administrative work. Good experience in various areas; enough to know policies and issues of concern. Great content work. Articulate and good interactions with other users. Good answers. I supported unbundling page mover but I do not think it is necessary to put a negative interpretation on the answer to the question about it. Caution is not a bad trait for a new administrator. Maile66 did not participate in the discussion so may not be aware that some cautions and limitations are built it. I think the candidate is trustworthy. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support I have been reading and thinking about all this for several days. Nothing negative of substance has emerged, and the nominee is a productive content creator who is also thoughtful and involved in the maintenance side of the project. Looks like an ideal candidate to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support I've had some fun interaction with Maile66 at DYK (remember the grammar debate?). We had a pleasant discussion even though we disagreed with each other. Solid content contributor with a calm demeanour, perfect admin material. -Zanhe (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support A true net positive for the project. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Support I am satisfied with Maile66's responses to the posited questions, though one remains unanswered at the time I lend my support. Barring a totally left-field response to that question, I find no issue with adding the bit to their account. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral given responses to additional questions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

116. Support – enough experiences and articles. Almost nothing goes wrong. 333-blue 09:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support no issues here for me.
     Bencherlite^Talk 09:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
118. Support For me it's mostly about trust, grokking what it means to create content, and having a good interpersonal approach. Maile passes easily on all counts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support The candidate seems to be adept at the rules of wikipedia. Another reason to accept him is because he seems trustworthy and we are already experiencing a decline on the amount of admins wikipedia has. I believe that he will not intentionally destroy wikipedia. I do like how he answers the questions because he shows knowledge in answering the questions. I wish the best of luck as he becomes an administrator. I did not anymore look at his contributions because we could already see from how he answers the questions that he has the experience and the rationality that we are looking for in an administrator. if he commits too much trouble he could be desysopped. Daniel kenneth (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Good content creator and responsible editor who understands the rules -- no reason he should not be promoted! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support seems to be a decent candidate! st170e^talk 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support. Strong content contributor, excellent answers to the questions. A pleasure to support this person. Now, this is the kind of person we should be elevating to admin. Unless something comes up that I hadn't noticed, he/she should be a template of sorts in determining who to give this basically lifetime position to. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support because Wikipedia needs more active active admins, and this editor is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Solid contributor, no red flags, pleasant temperament, absolutely no concerns that they will misuse the tools.
     Keri (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
125. Support Candidate looks very good to me. I see no reason to oppose. Marek.69 ^talk 18:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support I see no issues here. Looks like a fine candidate. Mkdw^talk 18:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support: not least to counter the opposes, the first of which is a non-reason and the second of which criticises the candidate for following current practice. No concerns presented so far. BethNaught (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Fine, but how about if we update the official blocking policy supporting this so-called current practice, rather than mop more people who intend to run around like a chicken with its head cut off blocking IPs based on a WikiProjects opinion vs. official policy? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

128. Support What is left to be said? The oppose votes do not sway me at all, and the candidate seems to be doing some great work on WP without any major drawbacks. Although I have never interacted with Maile personally, I've seen their name around. From what I've seen, they have a good policy background and an even temperament. Exactly what I want in a sysop. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 00:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support Seen them around and the look more than capable. I also think some of the questions asked are a bit silly. AIRcorn (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support - No reason not to. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support - we need more admins like this. Understands the important of content, and can be trusted with the admin tools judging by the nomination and answers to questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support certainly, per the many opinions above. Andrevan@ 07:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support Seems to have a sterling reputation, excellent skills, and answers questions (even silly ones) well
     talk) 10:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
134. Support: No concern. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support Maile is a great all-round editor with the right skills, experience and capabilities to become a productive admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support: An editor who has done a lot of good things already is willing to do more work in the job of an administrator. Give them the tools.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support
     WP:100. Excellent, prolific editor, and some of the neutral comments don't convince me, or even sound like reasonable arguments. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
138. Support We need more administrators that actually add and improve content! --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support Haven't been too active the last few years but I've seen them around nonetheless and they do good work from what I've seen. I see no indication they will misuse the tools and they are clearly dedicated to the project if they put in as much work as they have. Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support - Seems like an excellent candidate. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support excellent answer about preferring to add refs to an article rather than just sticking a tag on it. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Excellent editor. Not sure how following current policy merits an oppose vote unless one actually support rogue admins (well I guess rogue in what they want done) nor does having a view in opposition of a single RFC on a particular issue. Unless the person has shown an interest in actually ignoring a consensus, I'm not sure how one's views change their abilities as an administrator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support, and good luck with the tools! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support. Qualified, articulate, gets along well with others. There is every indication that they will use the administrative toolkit responsibly. /wiae /tlk 03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support - A good content editor with a solid feel for current policy. During review I found no issues which would cause me concern with Maile as an admin. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support -FASTILY 18:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
149. Strong Support: (leaning neutral) No reason that user will abuse the mop.
     talk) 20:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     Just curious, how can you be a strong supporter if you're leaning neutral? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Because he was school blocked one time, and so proud of anti-vandalism work and gets along with users nicely, I tried to do anti-vandalism work but others catch me up fastly.

     talk) 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

     ]

150. Support Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support Really see no reason to oppose. --Tow (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
152. Risker (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support User clearly has a good reason to obtain the user right, and can be trusted with them. — Music1201 ^talk 05:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support No issues. Wise choice. TheOverflow (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support Response about the IP vandalism shows me that this user can be trusted with the mop and bucket.--5 albert square (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support - Looks like a fine candidate to me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support Fine candidate with good and long experience. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support ... GELongstreet (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support After a review of contributions it seems like there is both good enough and numerous enough participation in admin and content creation processes. The opposition points on school-block length may be taken as advice, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support: A great asset to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support - moving vote from Neutral. Yes, the answers to questions could have been longer, but I don't see anything there to be worried about, and the answer to my question is well thought through. It's good to see the community not getting too hung up on lack of particular experience these days, and of course I have the utmost respect for content contributors and FA/GA writers. Please don't stop doing that side when you have the mop, because that's our bread and butter here. Without quality content, the behind the scenes processes and AIV are irrelevant. Best of luck, and welcome to the admin corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support - Nothing I can see which would prevent this editor being anything but a brilliant addition to the ranks -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support Yes, yes, yes, yes. Need more be said?
     [majestic titan] 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
164. Support: Maile66's has solid content contribution history. He is involved in antivandalism in constructive way. He answered the RfA and optional questions well. Q.E.D. he has a fundamental grasp of policy, combined with a long term and demonstrated commitment to improving Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support - I see several reasons to support and no compelling reasons to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support - I see no reason to oppose Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support. I think the candidate has an excellent background and experience, and is articulate in the answers to questions. I can't think of much more that hasn't already been said here, so I'll grouse that there are too many questions to the candidate, and that RfA is where candidates can be opposed for having either too little or too much content experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support Based on their experience and responses to questions, it is evident that they will make a level-headed and competent administrator. Opencooper (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support solid history. Should do well with the mop. C679 08:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support believe that the tools will be used properly and would learn and grow, an overall benefit.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support
     talk) 12:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
173. Support - Answer are short, but I see no red flags in the user's contribs or any indication that granting him administrator rights would be anything short of a
     net positive. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
174. Support - Nothing in their history indicates that they would not use the tools in any other way but fairly and diligently. I sometimes think that gnomish activity is undervalued on the site, and that during these RfA discussions that becomes even more so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support- You seem trustworthy, knowledgable and dedicated to helping Wikipedia. CLCStudent (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose A worthy editor, but so are many. Not all good editors need to be admins. I see no indication this editor has any special plans on what to do with adminship. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Specifically what special plans are you looking for? SQL^{Query me!} 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Being an admin is pretty routine work. I would be worried about any admin with special plans. HighInBC 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I think

   WP:NOBIGDEAL is worth mentioning. If somebody appears to be trustworthy and they want the tools, give them to them. Please look at Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month. Wikipedia has a real problem regarding the declining number of admins. I and many believe it is a threat to the viability of Wikipedia itself in the long term. Something will have to change at some point. For now we need all the help we can get. Under such circumstances it makes no sense being stingy with the bit when good users ask for it. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I've opposed many more RfAs than I have supported, but this candidate meets all the qualifications. He/she is qualified, not simply "not unqualified," by any objective standard. I really don't understand this oppose. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we need to be careful about how we appoint admins as just because their less doesn't mean we should appoint some one blindly. I can see that this person has edited 50k pages which means that are active. Which is good but how many are ones that has not been shut down to lack or logic, research, and good sources. These are things that make a good admin. Also, this person doesn't have anyone running against them. So, this is something the wikipedia community should be careful on.The reader of the world! (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   We are careful. If you look at this user's contribution, they are outstanding. Editing over 50,000 pages in which some might have been deleted and such has no effect on his reputation. An edit to a page that in the future was deleted to maybe fix an error or something doesn't affect your reputation whatsoever. Your comment is absolute nonsense. FiendYT ★ 02:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Not a serious oppose (just occurred to me... duh.....) Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose per answer to my question. Your handling of the fictional hospital IP was spot on, contacting the checkuser for insight, and you referenced official policy. However, I don't like your handling of the school IP. You based your block on the opinion of a wikiproject rather than official policy. Although you did cite official policy in your explanation, you missed the point within that same section of policy, Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address. Unfortunately, a lot of sysops are ignoring this recommendation, which is part of the official blocking policy, and I'm afraid we don't need more sysops who ignore policy. Furthermore, in my example, there were examples of good faith edits, and there were no vandalism sprees or anything to You think school IPs cause too much trouble and should be blocked? Fine, lets discuss policy changes to support that position. I don't think it would be that hard to get some sort of official policy on schoolblocks, a lot of people seem to want them blocked long term. But until then, we need to follow the official policies in place, which are to keep blocks on shared IPs short. Sorry for the strong oppose, I know editing Wikipedia is a thankless, dog-eat-dog world, but this is my position on this matter, and I consider disregard for official policy to be abuse of the tools. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 18:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   In your hypothetical question the IP had a long history of disruption. Surely you must know that school blocks are mostly soft blocks, that allow people to create an account at home and edit at school even if the school IP is blocked? Your hypothetical posited a total of 11 blocks logged against the school IP. This indicates a long term pattern of disruption from an IP with a stable owner. A long term soft block is entirely correct for this sort of situation and that is just what is done routinely.

   While I appreciate that you quoted policy I feel that you stopped reading a bit soon. The policy specifically refers to the fact that "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations." 11 blocks would constitute persistent violations. HighInBC 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a part of the blocking policy that deals with shared IPs:

   WP:SOFTBLOCK. Blocking a school IP doesn't prevent any individuals from being able to edit. They must simply do so under a user name while keeping anonymous vandals out. Very few schools are willing to police their IPs to prevent vandalism. Requiring registered editing for an IP that shows a habitual history of vandalism is reasonable. Mkdw^talk 21:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @Mkdw:, I am familiar with softblocks and hardblocks as someone who has been around here for 10 years and edited Wikipedia from a softblocked school (how a 24 year old like me has access to a school network is something the world doesn't need to know exactly, but I will say I am not a student or an educator, so I must be a support employee, a contractor, an elected official, a hacker, or someone else with access to it). Sadly, Wikipedia is blocked there again by IT for being a "forum/blog" #:[) The policy on softblocks for shared IPs says that account creation is usually left enabled, but in practice, I don't even remember the last time I saw account creation allowed. It says that account is usually disabled to deal with vandalism, but in that section it says nothing about shared IPs. Why else would a shared IP get blocked? Edit warring? Being an open proxy? Please, we all know what was intended with that: account creation allowed for shared IPs, account creation disabled on other dynamic and non-shared static IPs. Frankly, I'm less concerned with registered users being able to edit from their school than newbie editors being able to make their first edit; we already have the @HighInBC:, in the example I gave, there were only a handful of edits in recent history, two of which were constructive, and the IP had been off block for two months. Hardly enough persistent abuse to restrict editing (despite the 11 prior blocks) in my opinion. The pom-pom type vandalism didn't do anything to Wikipedia other than give some RC patrolman something to do. In contrast, the good faith edits could be someone's first edit, which could lead to more good faith edits, account registration, substantial contributions, monetary donations, adminship, 'cratship, CheckUser, ArbCom, and employment at the Wikimedia Foundation, and imagine if we lost a future Foundation employee over a silly block to block silly edit testing? If it had been spewing out vandalism daily for the last two months, I'd say otherwise. Now, you may disagree with my position on this, but that doesn't make it any less valid than your position. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 00:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   It really is hard to judge based on your hypothetical. If I see 11 blocks I read them, and if they follow a pattern I look back in the edits to see what was going on. In your imaginary scenario that information is not available. It makes it hard to make a definitive response. HighInBC 02:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I oppose your strong oppose :) ... though I don't see why you should be sorry for it, as it is a very valid position. As I see it, you are arguing we should only have admins with whom we agree. This will never work as we just...don't. We aren't performing brain surgery... we are feeding brains. If an admin makes a mistake the absolute worst that happens is that some editors are annoyed temporarily, maybe a helpful edit-set won't be made. And most likely if the edit is of any real importance it will be made again, either after the original editor argues convincingly, or someone else makes the edit.Shajure (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If we only had admins that agreed with me, Wikipedia would become Conservapedia. While I very much like Conservapedia, the two are separate projects for a reason. I believe we need a diverse group of administrators on this global encyclopedia project. However, it's hard to imagine someone opposing an RfA without some form of disagreement, and in this case, the issue I take is whether or not the proposed admin will follow policy (as it as written). I'm pushing for policy changes at this very moment here, and one of my proposals may surprise you given my position on this. But until then, policy needs to be followed, even if the norm is contrary to policy. I don't apologize for my position, I apologize for making life more difficult for a fellow Wikipedian, but at this point I don't think he's going to have any problem passing; he only has two oppose votes. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 05:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I just hope you are opposing based on the suitability of the candidate and not because you don't like how the every day enforcement of a policy is handled. Because the action described in the answer is consistent is our best practices. HighInBC 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   RfA is designed to be a tough process to filter out people who will break established policy. While my oppose is based solely on the answering of my question, it is not solely based on the fact that he blocked the fictional school IP, but rather I don't feel he had a convincing, policy based argument to back up his action. Our current policies are

   WP:AGF, we shouldn't assume that, just because a shared IP has problems years ago that it will have the same problems when it had a total of 6 edits in the last two months (two of which were good faith), and the WP:Blocking policy steers sysops away from harsh treatment of shared IPs. Although this candidate has done a lot of good things for the project, I am sorry but we do not need more sysops who break policy, and until policy changes, I am going to be a tough critic at RfA. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 16:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   For what it's worth, I lean toward agreeing with PCHS-NJROTC about this particular schoolblock sounding excessive—although I completely disagree with his view that the question is worth opposing an RfA over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   RfA was not designed for that at all. RfA is intended to be a discussion about whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools. A mistake or a policy misinterpretation is not an abuse of the toolset, just a learning experience. Abuse is when someone repetitively take action(s) that is deemed wrong in the eyes of the community. So going back to your oppose rational, I'm sorry to say, you are the first person I have encountered with your interpretation of the blocking policy. He also never mentioned indefinite blocks. I've encountered school blocks that have been blocked for 5 years, and they had some serious history in disruption. Solution,

   WP:ACC. So in short, I do not believe your interpretation of the blocking policy is correct in regards to the rest of the community. Otherwise these issues would have been raised about admins long ago.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @

   CenturyLink and Comcast. All IPs persistently vandalize, it's just some produce more good edits than others. Nonetheless, I firmly believe blocks should be used when necessary, not as some sort of wholesale attempt to eliminate pom-pom type edits. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day.} 05:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I couldn't disagree more with you on schoolblock issue, but this is not the place to discuss that. In the vandal-fighting that I do, I would say that schools account for a very high percentage of vandalism, on some days the vast majority. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If vandalism offends you so much that you support wholesale blocks on a particular type of IP, then perhaps you should find another hobby. Wikipedia was founded as an encyclopedia project that anyone could freely edit, and everytime we have to put in anonblock or schoolblock in place we reduce the number of people in the world who can freely contribute. I think Benjamin Franklin was spot on when he said "He who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither." But you're right about one thing, and that's that this is not the place to discuss that, Village Pump is. This is the place to discuss the candidates effectiveness in following the policies we already have in place. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 14:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If differences of opinion send you bouncing off the wall, you might want to take yourself up on that generous offer. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If differing opinions sent me "bouncing off the wall" I would have been committed a long time ago. That doesn't mean I won't debate until the cows come home. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 15:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose, regrettably. (Switched from support.) Similar to
   collateral damage when any block is applied upon a shared IP. As an admin who had been regularly beset by collateral damage right up to the day I became an admin (thus rendering me immune to IP blocks), I am not comfortable with promoting an admin candidate who wants to specialise in AIV without an adequate understanding of collateral damage. I guess my commenting here is less intended to change the final outcome of the RfA and more to remind Maile to be careful when blocking shared IPs in AIV work. Deryck C. 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   No, opposing here is pretty much trying to change the final outcome of the RFA. Reminding Maile to be careful when blocking shared IP's in AIV work would probably be an email or a talkpage message. SQL^{Query me!} 02:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - I share concerns with some other editors here over Maile's view of adminship (see the Neutral section). I asked a pair of questions (Q21 & Q22) which I thought were designed to give Maile an opportunity to respond on a couple of related points which I think are fundamental issues about community reform and admins' role in it. I was expecting based on Maile's answers to some other questions that we'd see a reasonably considered response, one way or the other, and honestly I probably would have found a way to support no matter what answer I got. But I really didn't expect to see the one-liner "no opinion" response that I did get only 19 minutes later, and frankly it comes across to me as terse and dismissive. That to me is an enormous red flag for an admin candidate. The way I (as a non-admin) see it, administrators will be asked to take a position on controversial issues frequently, and will be expected to defend that position with reasoned policy-based arguments, probably moreso than other mere editors. I'm also wary of an administrator who is "only vaguely aware" that the Gamergate controversy happened, although I hope I'm misreading that comment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose – I've thought about it, and the more I do, the more I come to the conclusion that this project can't afford promoting any more candidates who are too whetted to the current governance system of this project, and are dismissive of putting more veteran editors to work to help out on maintenance tasks. (It's probably the only set item on my current "RfA criteria" list...) This project can't go on operating the way it's been operating, and we literally can't afford to promote people who don't get that, and who then are going to bring the view forward to governance discussions. Combine that with the various points from QEDK, Bazj, Deryck C., and Ivanvector, and I just can't let this one slide. Maile66 is a good content contributor, and it's probably best if they stick to that. Add: I find the answers to the questions to be generally dissatisfying as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @IJBall: Out of curiosity, do you think that this candidate would actually participate in governance discussions? I don't get that sense myself, and I have a feeling Maile wouldn't have had any opinion if not directly asked about it. ~ Rob^Talk 04:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe not. But I can only trust my gut on stuff like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   You're entitled to go with your gut, of course, IJBall, but unless I'm wrong promoting this candidate to adminship or not won't affect their ability to participate in governance conversations anyway, will it? Whereas not promoting them means one more potentially good janitor is lost, which is the worry underpinning your quession in the first place. But anyways, no biggy...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral The answers are dissatisfying. Furthermore, the candidate seems to be more interested in content contributions and has himself presented no such argument that he absolutely needs the flags. It feels like the CSD log and AfD work are simply there to present a best-effect situation before a RfA. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   An editor who is primary interested in content contributions will find the admin tools of great assistance, whereas an editor who is not has no need of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   So counter-vandalism, SPI, and areas of routine maintenance have no need for the sysop bit? I agree of course with the first part of your statement, but the second seems quite strange. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Those functions (any many, many more) do require the sysop bit; but maintenance tasks should be performed by content creators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, they certainly do but until someone demonstrates a need for it, it isn't a lot really. The candidate has said they're going to be involved in such things when previously they could have done more non-admin work in such places. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't? People are always bickering at RfA all this candidate does is revert vandalism, I want to see GAs and FAs. Now we have a solid content creator, and the complaint is all this candidate does is create content. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   The sysop right is only for you if you can demonstrate need of the whole package (to some extent at least). Also, if you think my opinions are supposed to fall in line with something some people (or someone) said before, you're damn wrong. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Why is it that people like you, who support unbundling and generally think that RfA is broken (at least I think that's you, correct me if I'm wrong) still bring up crazy notions like admins need to use as much of the toolset as possible? Why would they need to do that? There are a lot of rights in the admin package, and as a volunteer nobody should be under any obligation to use all of them. I bet that not every user uses all of the rights available to them - for example, I have never made a book or uploaded a local file here. What about stewards, who have access to the entire wiki interface and all associated rights. Should they be using every single one of them routinely? Why would it be any different for admins if they can be trusted generally and specifically in the areas they plan to spend time in? Ajraddatz (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I've said it before, this is one candidate who is mostly interested and involved in content contributions. I'm not saying you have to do every single thing there is to do but you need long-term involvement in discussions and areas of admin/editor expertise to be qualified, in my opinion. I think RfA is a harsh process and was a literal battleground before (it could me be but I don't remember interacting with you ever). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough, though there are many areas for sysop tool use when making content contributions, particularly with regard to moving pages and merging histories. It just seems strange that most of the people who say that RfA is a harsh process are doing everything they can to perpetuate it. And I don't think we've ever interacted before; I've just recently started editing here again. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If you think sitting out an RfA with a neutral is making the process harsh, well, you're wrong. And what you mentioned is only a couple of the hundreds of tasks we have, isn't it. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think you're being harsh, I think you're basing your comment on something irrelevant to being an admin. And that's fine, you're entitled to express whatever opinion you want here. But if you can say that you think admins should be active in many areas that require sysop tools, then I'd like to counter by saying that volunteer admins should be active in exactly as many areas as they want to be. Even if that is one or two areas, that's still a legitimate use for the sysop tools and a net benefit to the project, unless of course they are demonstrating a lack of clue in general. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   What I am saying is, you should have experience in the areas which require the flags admins have. It's as simple as that. I think giving someone admin rights because they're involved in one or two areas is pointless, there have been a few cases where admins have wanted such a provision where they would work only on very specific areas and they got that. This is almost on the verge of that. I find the lack of participation in discussions concerning, wouldn't you consider that an issue? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral a lot of good things but I kind of expecting a bit more substance to my question, it seemed he just assumed one edit but I guess he wasn't sure of what to write. I hope he sees my comment because it was opem ended so much that it could go anywhere. What I really meant is, what edits (as a series or single edit) would you display on trophy? KgosarMyth (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: KgosarMyth has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account (verify).  Rebbing  03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral, leaning oppose, (Moving to oppose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)) purely based on the answer to question #4 – the last thing we need is YA Admin who opposes unbundling, and continues to view this place through the prism of "Adminship is the one and only answer to running this place". I'll let this one play out some more, and give the candidate some time to walk-back question #4, but right now I'm included to move to oppose just based on Q4. (Q1 isn't particularly strong either, to my mind.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @IJBall: I agree. Peter Sam Fan 00:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Changed my mind, supporting. Peter Sam Fan 00:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @IJBall: @Peter SamFan: I agree that the page mover right could be useful for many non-admins. However, I see no reason to oppose or vote neutral because of the candidates views regarding the user right. I don't see how it reflects on the candidates ability to be an administrator, especially when they haven't indicated that they will work in areas where this kind of opinion could affect their judgement (e.g PERM). Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a culture up there – we don't need any more Admins who enamored with their own righteousness, think the current system "works", and don't believe us mere "peons" are capable of doing anything constructive on the maintenance end. Admin opinions, like it or not, end up carrying "more weight" in governance discussions, so their opinions have outsized influence. That can't be ignored. Note also: I'm not the Admin candidate who answered a "political question" during their RfA (IMO, questions that don't have direct bearing on how a candidate intends to wield the tools should generally be declined) – now that they've answered it, their answer is 'fair game' grounds for opposing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   (

   WP:PERM. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I concur with Mr. Stradivarius.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral, leaning oppose, based on the answer to Q4. I don't care either way about the candidate's opinion on Page mover but the phrasing of the responses implies an attitude that a successful RfA is the ONLY way an editor's bona-fides can be assessed. In particular, "it wouldn't be a bad thing to execise a little caution in assigning rights" implies a belief that admins assigning rights do not exercise any caution, back to AGF.
   talk) 06:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Striking the lean & staying neutral. It was probably just a poorly phrased reply.

   talk) 06:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Neutral, leaning Support Moved to Support - The candidate's answers are quite short, but so far appear to be strong. I'm going to examine this candidate's contribution history in-depth and make a determination based off of my findings. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral, leaning Support Moved to Support - Like Oshwah above, I will probably support the candidate before the end of the RfA. But similar to others above I find the answers a little short, and would appreciate a bit more research and thought for some of them... that might be just because I went a bit overboard on the answers to questions on my own recent RfA though! In particular, the question about the edits on a resume, which I also faced - this is a good chance to show us a few succinct examples, through the lens of a few isolated edits, of what your editing and contribution is really about. I included one for content creation, one for move review (an admin area I was interested in), and so on. And on question 15, although it's fine that you don't have the experience in user dispute resolution, I would expect you to have some kind of opinion as to whether the procedures work or not... But anyway, as I say, I can't think of a reason to oppose you, the RfA seems to be going well, we definitely need you on board as an admin. I'll come back here again in the next few days. Good luck!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral moved to oppose - Like QEDK, I'm disinclined to support an admin candidate who becomes aware of a well-rounded RfC for unbundling one of the admin rights and dismisses it out of hand, with what looks like an assumption that users approved for it will act in bad faith. What misbehaviour should we assume of admin candidates, then? Also dissatisfied with candidate's answer to Q14, and that there is an answer to Q8 at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Assuming that you are referring to sockpuppetry with Q8, it should be noted that kgosarMyth was blocked as a sockpuppet only after the candidate had answered the question. Widr (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I know, I should have said that I'm disappointed that the question was not removed. As that is not meant to be comment on the candidate, I have struck that part of my comment, for clarity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   It was not removed because it's a valid and interesting question. If the sock hadn't asked it I would have asked it myself. The question section is meant for everyone to look at, not just those who ask the questions.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral - For someone being considered for administrator to have no opinion regarding the unbundling of tools is someone circumspect. I would have hoped that some opinion would have been made; I could have accepted a negative opinion and still maintained my support but the answers given to Ivanvector's questions present an air of apathy. I cannot continue to support this RfA, but I will respect the decision of the community. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]