Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Modussiccandi

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Modussiccandi

Final (196/0/1); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

It was just recently when I saw the great work of Modussiccandi, but they've made a strong impression. Apart from his large amount of high quality work outlined by Barkeep I've been especially impressed with how they deal with difficult situations. In his many thoughtful comments I've seen lots of positive qualities I find valuable for admins. He takes the opportunity to learn and improve where he can, reevaluate his position when questioned and reflect on situations where they could have acted better. Because of this, I'm convinced they will make an excellent admin and it's my pleasure to co-nominate them. --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, Barkeep49 and Trialpears. I accept your nomination. I have never edited for pay and I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than this. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: We have a shortage of new sysops and I believe that editors who have some of the right attributes and an appropriate level of experience should consider serving the community in this role. I want to help remedy the current situation by contributing to the areas that I’m already working in. For the time being, I would like to help out where I can, definitely in deletion, perhaps

DYK in the future. I can see myself moving into other admin areas that interest me, but I would do so cautiously, one step at a time. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: What made me stick around and become a long-term editor was the prospect of adding high-quality content about my own discipline. So naturally I’d say the contributions I’m proudest of are my articles on classical literature. I’d probably point you to the biographies of classical scholars which I’ve brought to a high standard (particularly my two FAs on R. A. B. Mynors and L. D. Reynolds). I had a long-standing plan to expand Eduard Fraenkel, one of the most impactful, but also controversial Latinists of the 20th century. The article was recently made a GA and I plan to bring it to FA soon. My work there was particularly rewarding since Frankel’s life and work are more complex than those of any scholar I had tackled before. When I started editing, there was hardly any detailed article on people in this field – it’s a great feeling to have improved the project in an area that used to be a bit neglected. Outside of Classics, I’m fondest of my small collection of articles on topics in German history. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Fortunately, I have been able to avoid sustained conflicts since most articles that I have strong feelings about lie in a niche that very few editors beside me work in. Of course, I have had disagreements with other editors in the context of

WP:AfD. I’ve been able to keep a cool head in these situations and have managed to keep things in perspective, which I think is important to avoid Wikipedia-related issues stressing you off-wiki. Besides, I typically have a decent feel for when it’s time to disengage and/or involve a third party. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Serial Number 54129

4. Hi Modussiccandi, and thanks for standing! Just a quickie from me; could you briefly explain how you see an appointment to adminship as changing your future editing patterns—if at all of course—e.g., by workspace?

A: Thank you for your question, Serial Number. I don't suspect that my overall editing patterns would change much if I were to become a sysop. The only thing that I can say for sure at this point is that I would keep a similar division between maintenance tasks and content. Like many Wikipedians, I tend to add new articles to my list of content projects all the time and so I don't foresee my maintenance work taking over completely only because of the additional tools. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. With an (albeit brief) passage of time, would you like to expand on your !vote to keep a poorly-sourced BLP last December?

A: Thank you for this very valid question. My approach to AfDs is normally to do a

WP:NPROF, which calls for the subject to hold a named-chair or equivalent in countries where those are uncommon (Spain being one of them). Now, the AfD later reached the consensus that the Catedratico position is in this case not equivalent to a named-chair, a decision with which I can live well because it shows that reasonable editors may still disagree over the interpretation of our notability guidelines. Your question mentions the fact that the page was a poorly sourced BLP; this is correct, but my !vote at the AfD was, in the first place, a statement on the subject's notability, not the current sourcing of the article. It is absolutely clear that we don't want to have poorly sourced content in our BLPs, which is why I would have recommended reducing the article to a stub containing only the verifiable bits. I hope this answer sheds some light on why I !voted the way I did. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional questions from اِفلاق

6. Under what circumstances should an admin indefinitely block an IP address?

A: Thank you for your question. It is generally not advisable to block a newly-offending IP for a very long time. This is because different people may use one a IP address or the IP may be reassigned, which means that an indefinite block will often overshoot the target. So I would only block indefinitely if an IP proves to be a consistent offender over an extended period and after being blocked for shorter amounts of time. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the deciding factor in whether an IP should be blocked for anything other than a short time is that there needs to be proof that the IP has been used by one user over an extended period of time. Otherwise there would be no evidence that a long-term block would still serve the intended preventative purpose. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7. What is your opinion on

WP:AOR

? Will you be a part of it ?

A: Personally, I would not want to stick around as a sysop if the community feels that I've ceased to be a net positive. This means that I would join AOR and detail my criteria for recall in my userspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Panini!

8. (This is an opinion question based on a specific field; please ignore if you express no interest): I've already supported, but this would be good information to refer to in the future. I often see users who have been blocked who request an unblock appeal, only to receive a snarky decline or a

magic 8-ball

"ask again later" message. While it's certain that admins have their reasons that run well into the background, what are your personal opinions on giving second chances?

A: Thank you for the question, Panini. I will accept your offer to stay silent on this question because I have no immediate interest in working in this area. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lee V

9. A new user removed sourced content from L. D. Reynolds. What would be your response? At what time would you use administrative tools on the article or the user? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A:Thanks for the question, Lee. In the first instance, I would revert their edits and initiate a discussion on the talk page. This is how I handled such issues when my FAs were TFA. In general, I would be very reluctant to even consider the use of administrative tools on this user because I would have a good reason to see myself as

an involved admin. The one occasion where I would turn to use of the tools is if said user were to escalate their behaviour to the level of obvious vandalism. The same goes for any article I'm involved with. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from Andrew D.

10. Your account name seems to literally mean "dry mode" and is perhaps a pun on

modus significandi, right? Please elaborate. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A: My name was inspired by a passage of Columella's De re rustica, a Roman treatise on agriculture from the 1st century AD. In Book 2.18, Columella say that a middle course that is neither too wet nor to dry should be followed when curing grass. He calls this 'middle way' of drying modus in siccando. When I read this passage, I was for some reason struck by the phrase and I created the username as a pun on phrases such as modus operandi or modus vivendi. I must admit that I didn't know the phrase modus significandi. Still, you got quite close to decoding the whole thing. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Asartea

11. At the risk of restating Q1 and in relation to my comment below: Which areas do you see yourself using the toolset in?

A: Thank you for asking, Asartea. Should I become a sysop, I would begin using the toolset in the areas adjacent to those I'm already working in. In the context of NPP, this could mean that I begin by evaluating the most common CSD taggings (I think here of G11, G12, A7). I have successfully tagged for these criteria a good number of times (G11 in particular) and so feel that my potential admin work would build on what I do now. I would also like to explore closing at AfD, where I think I have a good understanding of what goes into consensus building from my experience as a !voter. As I said in Q.1, I might move into further admin areas in the future, but I plan to take things slow at first if I do become a sysop. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from HouseBlaster

12. Why do you edit Wikipedia?

A: I edit Wikipedia because I think it's a beautiful way to share topics that I'm passionate about. I love the idea that everyone with an internet connection can now enjoy free, well-sourced articles on subjects that I only learnt about at university. I enjoy the collegiality and collaboration. And finally, I edit Wikipedia because I used to be an avid reader of the site (still am) before I started editing. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Celestina007

13. You already have my support. It has become somewhat customary for admin candidates to expressly state that they have never edited for pay, & I note you affirm this also when accepting this nomination. My question is, seeing the negative impact of UPE, do you see yourself getting involved in tackling UPE in any capacity?

A: Thank you for raising this topic, Celestina. I have definitely noticed in my work at NPP and AfC that UPE and issues surrounding it make a noticeable negative impact on our project. I must admit I haven't given active involvement in anti-UPE measures like SPI much thought so far; but given that I agree with your assessment of the situation, I might well lend a helping hand in this area once I've familiarised myself with the use of the tools. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Kavyansh

14. What is your understanding/opinion of the essay—No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability?

A: I think the essay touches on the same point that I have tried to make in my answer to Question 5: notability and content are two separate issues. In deletion discussions, we mainly argue about notability. Even if you polish an article on a non-notable subject up to GA level, it will probably be deleted if notability cannot be demonstrated. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15. You have expressed particular interest in helping with deletion process if you receive the mop. Suppose, in a deletion discussion, there are seven 'keep' !votes, all arguing that the subject is notable without providing any sources. The only one to !vote for deleting the article is, well, the nominator, saying that the subject fails

WP:GNG

. It has already been relisted many times. What would be your rationale when you close that discussion?

A: In this hypothetical situation, it would be important to remember that AfDs are not decided by majority, but by whether a policy–based argument can find a rough consensus among !voters. If, as you say, the seven editors who want to keep the article have not provided any reliable sourcing and have failed to adduce the relevant notability guidelines, I would not close the discussion as a 'keep' because no policy-based consensus has been reached. At the same time, I would not close as 'delete' either. One !vote, even if it's well argued, does not represent a rough consensus. I think I would close this discussion as 'no consensus' without prejudice against a re-nomination. I realise that this close would probably lead to some complaints from the 'keep' !voters, but a positive 'keep' close would not be justified if they offer no more than 'the subject is notable'. Let me add that I would not have the guts to attempt such a close any time soon. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lomrjyo

16. What are your plans after adminship?

A: I don't have any specific plans in case this RfA turns out to be successful. Should I become a sysop, I would continue to pursue my current content creation projects. For the near future, this includes tweaking Eduard Fraenkel for FAC and (if I have the time) getting started on a new version of Investiture Controversy. Apart from that, I would carefully begin using the tools in the way outlined in my responses above. I hope this answers your question, Lomrjyo. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Sea Cow

17. What is one field of sysop Wikipedia you plan to never be involved in, if you are successful in your RFA? And why?

A: I can't say for sure at this point that I will never get involved in any one area of sysop activity. However, I can say that it's very unlikely that I'll be involved with

WP:ITN. In contrast with DYK, I have never submitted a candidate for that section and consequently have no experience of the process there. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from Kudpung

18. In the context of NPP, do you intend to work at PERM, and if you do, what depth of due diligence will you apply before according user rights, especially NPR and Autopatroled?

A: It's interesting that you should ask this question, Kudpung; I actually am somewhat interested in

PERM. I used not to have an opinion about it, but that changed after this discussion. In the case of this editor, we had given someone a tool for which, it later turned out, they were not qualified. Fortunately, they made only a small number of problematic AfC decisions before they lost the permission; it's still easy to see that they could have caused quite the headache in the long run. With this incident in mind, I would opt for a fairly thorough vet before granting an editor autopatrolled or NPP rights. Of course, we still need to take their self assessments, usually written in good faith, into account, but a good depth of due diligence is absolutely necessary. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from Jason Quinn

19. Suppose an editor loves to take macro photos of insects and has added many high-quality images of insect species (say 100) to our large number of such articles without even a single image. The editor has no expert background in entomology and identifies the insect species on their own using the web (as the experts often do too). They are a hobbyist entomologist. You have no reason to doubt the user strives for truth but it is true that it is sometimes hard to identify with certainty a specific species of insect within a genre from a photograph. This can be due to similarity of other species in the genre or due to the variation of individuals. Is this editor violating our OR policy by including their insect photos on the species articles and what, if anything, should be done about it?

A: Thank you for the question, Jason Quinn. Our policy on

original research states that image captions are subject to the same standard as the body of the article. If this user has made a less-than-straightforward identification of a species on one of their photos and then proceeds to add this photo to an article, I'd say that that they are violating our OR policy. What I would do about this is to talk to the editor and ask that they limit their illustrations to species where a non-OR identification is possible. (Please accept my apologies if this last point makes no sense — I have no clue about entomology). I see that it's not ideal to discourage this hypothetical editor because their work could help close a big gap in our project. But still, OR is one of our content policies and the need for illustration has to be balanced with it. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from AlexEng

20. Would you please comment on your understanding of

CFRD

.

A: Thank you for asking, AlexEng. The vast majority of my experience with

REVDEL has been in copyvio situations where an article had what I would call a partial copyright violation. In those cases there was no need to perform a G12, so I removed the content in question and requested revision deletion. This is the use of the REVDEL tool (CFRD 1) that I'd be most likely to make. To give you an example of a CFRD 2: an editor adds grossly offensive and clearly non-factual statements to the biography of a living person. And for CFRD 3: an editor has inserted into an article a large shock image that depicts something that clearly is not suitable for the consumption of minors. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from RadioKAOS

21. When the encyclopedia reached six million articles a little over two years ago,

WP:MAW

who make a lot of edits just to make make a lot of edits because they appear to be in some sort of competition, in the process flooding watchlists with low-quality editing activity which doesn't necessarily move the project forward?

A:

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Support As co-nom. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as unrelated. Panini!^🥪 12:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. An excellent nomination. I mostly know Modussiccandi through their nominations for featured article status, where they handled having their first one picked over by reviewers and ultimately bounced (by me, as a FAC coordinator) with grace and a determination to bring it back better. Which they did, gaining their first well deserved and hard earned bronze star. I note that their second nomination ran through more smoothly, with minimal suggestions for improvement, which suggests an encouraging ability to take on board feedback. I only hope that reaching the exulted heights of adminhood will not prevent a third nomination in the near future. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Modussiccandi clearly shows the right temperament for an admin. A 90% matching consensus record on AfD is a good sign for an editor continuing work there. All discussions I have seen at AfD and on talk pages have been very polite and civil (see this talk page discussion). Modussiccandi's work on article nominations is very commendable, and shows generally good editing choices. I wish my fellow Cambridge-ite well should this nomination succeed! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Can be trusted with the tool. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 13:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Need more admins, good vouching.Polska na zawsze (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC) LTA struck, other comments removed. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8. Excellent content and DYK work. Happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - no issues here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, Seems fine to me. _{دَستخَط،}
    ^{(کَتھ باتھ)} 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support Good work with article creation, level headed, and communicates well. All I need to see to get my +1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Per nom, happy to support! SoyokoAnis - talk 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. This RfA has been on my watchlist for quite some time now, and I'm delighted to see it materialize. I know from personal experience that Modussicandi's content creation is superb, and his work at AfC, NPP, AfD, etc. shows both a solid knowledge of policy and, just as importantly, an unflappably calm and pleasant temperament. I have no doubt that he'll use the tools judiciously. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Made my day. Competent, pleasant and strong track record. JBchrch talk 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. [majestic titan] 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Lots of great content, and I trust Barkeep's sage nominating skills. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Precious, excellent answer to Q5, no other concerns. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Looks good to me, thanks for running. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support for meeting my mins, no big deal, and no reasons in the opposes. Best of luck! Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support will be a net-positive to the project.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Support Has a clue. ––FormalDude talk 17:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - I've never heard of this candidate, but they look to be an excellent editor and an excellent addition to the mop corps. Their deletion question answer was an excellent example of nuanced AfD reasoning, and alleviates any blp concerns (which their content work would indicate against anyway). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, I have not come across Modussiccandi previously, however am encouraged by positive content creation and reasonable responses to the questions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, I believe they will be a real asset. Cavalryman (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
27. Support. Seems to be a reasonable person who will be as reasonable in adminiship areas as he has been in non-adminship areas. – Athaenara ✉ 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support -- Absolutely no qualms at all. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support per User:Asartea's "neutral"; I don't know Modussiccandi, and I can only delve so far into their contributions, so the trust placed by other editors (in particular one who is inclined to oppose) is important in helping me decide. I don't believe that "need for the tools" should come into consideration for an active editor; a lot of admin tools are editing tools. You learn to use them by cleaning up your own mistakes and being able to check a deleted page you might be interested in recreating. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - My two criteria are good temperament and has a clue. Good temperament is shown for instance at
    talk) 18:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support shows a need for the tools, good communication track record.
    talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Support per nom and
    WP:NOBIGDEAL. Seddon ^talk 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support - Hardworking user who understands how to handle tools. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support – Answers to all questions are well thought-out. Candidate is polite and well-reasoned, and shows incredible dedication to building the encyclopedia. A model of what an admin should be. — GhostRiver 18:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support – If Barkeep49 trusts you by extension I trust you. Furthermore, I’m appreciative of the candidate's well thought out responses thus far. P.S, Modussiccandi gave a very important reply to my question. Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
37. Pleased to support. Thanks for stepping up! DanCherek (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support -
    Here to build an encyclopedia. No concerns, and the mop is NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlaster^talk 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support - Sounds like is worthy of a mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I am willing to see what direction this person takes Wikipedia as an admin Kirbopher2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Their content work speaks for itself, both in terms of generation and reviewing; the project needs more people willing to work in administrative areas; I also have confidence in the nominators. Happy to support, good luck with all those questions! Girth Summit _(blether) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
42. SupportGood content creation, good answers Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support user has done good work and can be trusted with the tools. They have outlined a few areas in which they'll use them, which is sufficient for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support per nominators, and the fact that Modussiccandi shows ample clue whilst not being a jerk. We should ask ourselves, why not? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I haven't come across the candidate but I trust the nominators' judgment. Deb (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. A skim of contributions and talk page comments shows the candidate has good AfC judgment, is extremely civil, and seems willing to admit errors and constructive feedback. Politanvm ^talk 22:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. With best wishes given everything so far: noting others comments and answers to questions and a little AfD scruitiny (always hoping no problems beam in from somewhere). Shows signs of being able to make careful use of the tools. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. No red flags. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Great track record, answers to questions demonstrate good policy knowledge, as well as a good attitude in general. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support based on thoughtful responses to questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support -- lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 22:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
52. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Dracophyllum 22:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Trustworthy noms, good temperament and answers to questions.
    WP:NONEED. Miniapolis 23:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support. Seems like good responses to the questions and overall good judgment. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Finally! Vaticidalprophet 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC) striking vote and recusing -- don't mind it too much, it's not exactly going to impact the outcome Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

56. Support, seems fine. SVcode(Talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, no stop signs, your contributions seem great.
    storm28 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
58. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
59. I’m not familiar with the candidate, but trust the nominators. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support, trustworthy editor and could do lots of good with adminship MrMeAndMrMe_{Contributions} 01:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, seems more than qualified and makes sense.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
62. Slightly weak support — I only see one field that he demonstrates the need for administrators’ tools, but he states that he will cautiously move into other fields. Wikipedia is quickly losing sysops, and I trust that in the future he’ll prove me wrong. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    WP:NONEED. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    WP:NONEED, I have struck some of my text. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

63. Support - no obvious reasons to not support. Has a clue and is enthusiastic. Anarchyte (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
64. Passes my "criteria" Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support, Yes! I agree too! Esaïe Prickett (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Per the above. Reply to this post if you feel you need and deserve some particular articulation. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support — Very thoughtfully answered my questions. Great work on other aspects as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - Trusted wikipedian with good knowledge and application of relevant policies. Hand him the mop! If he's not currently working in areas that need the tools, he can be recruited to help out with areas that do need said tools. Someone's gotta do it, and it might as well be someone who isn't reckless. I like his caution. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - Back in mid-2020, Modussiccandi asked me to assess one of his future FAs (R. A. B. Mynors) for WP CGR and it was very well done. Very skilled when it comes to content creation & I'm glad to see this RFA. 0qd (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - Content creation is fantastic. Seems to have a good grasp on the enclyopedia. Previously stated that we are in need of additional ranks, so a no-brainer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Per nom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - No concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - I see no reason not to pile on :) Excellent answers to all questions so far. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - Per everything said above, I've also taken time to read their answers to questions and I'm amazed. I'm sure They'll do a good job. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - Add one to the list. Our 1062nd admin. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - although hopefully this will not detract from their excellent work at AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - We need more admins. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
79. Excellent editor, unlikely to break things, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - Brilliant. - Amras (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Anyone nominated by Barkeep is a yes from me. We very much need more admins, and I don't see an obvious reason not to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. I haven't personally looked through their contributions, but it's clear from reading this page that they are a clueful and competent editor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Demonstrated competence, good work at NPP. Vexations (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support – EthanGaming7640 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - this is the kind of editor I like to see at RFA. An experienced Wikipedian who hasn't necessarily devoted their lives to the drama boardz and other admin haunts, but who is willing to step up and help out as and where.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 16:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support on the basis of one or two excellent nominators and super answers to questions 7 and 8. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Strong candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support LGTM Seren_Dept 17:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Yes please, ticks the boxes for me Victuallers (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
91. SUPPORT per my criteria: good edit history, good social skills, good knowledge of WP policy. It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Trustworthy user; will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 18:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Significant contributions to the encyclopedia and excellent answers to the questions. No problems identified. We need more administrators. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. A Strong RFA canidate, with a great edit history, and supurb answers to questions. Sea Cow (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support I've reviewed their contributions and didn't find anything that concerns me. I haven't encountered the candidate on my watchlist or edits, but I respect the judgement of the nominators and other supporters. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. A good content creator in the classics in the tradition of Beard, Vout et al and would be similarly useful as an admin, in the mould of Adam Bishop. Mathsci (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - Solid contributor. Not seeing any good reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - A trustworthy candidate. Good answers to the questions. That they are a great content creator and they want to work at AfD are pluses. Is qualified to put the tools to good use. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - Just checked out some of their contributions, they are excellent. Great nomination! Gün (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Not a jerk. Has a clue. Knows how to create, improve, and defend content. Tenure sufficient in length and quantity to reasonably judge candidate won't purposefully delete main page. Has clearly outlined how having extra tools will benefit the project. Plus per nominators and many of the above statements in support. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support great answers to questions and I trust the nominators. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. We need good admins and this candidate appears to be willing and able to use the tools responsibly.
     ed. ^put'r there 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
106. support good answers to some good questions. Good contributions. Looks like they will do a fine job. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Essentially my ideal for an admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
108. We need admins like fish need water; this user seems experienced, competent, trustworthy, collegial, and level-headed, and I trust them with the extra buttons. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 23:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Has the right background and the right attitude. Will do well as an admin. Schwede66 02:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support No concerns.
     talk) 04:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
111. Support no red flags, good content creator, seems very balanced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support No concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support, while I don't see strong inclination to use the tools per Q1, you will able to help in someway as you clarified your response to Q11. We also need more admins, so good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support as a good content creator and handing deletion of articles.
     talk) 08:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     Also, it's about four-five months since the last admins, and you show a good reason for the tools.

     talk) 16:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

     ]

115. Support—No reason not to. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support, user appears to have clue. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support Good answers to questions. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support, finally remembered to recheck and convinced by several of the comments -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support, user has made many fine contributions, answers to questions are also good -Kpddg ^(talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. Don't see any reason to oppose, and we need more admins. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 15:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support From what has been pointed to on this page and what I've looked at myself, Modussicandi seems to be considerate towards others, to have a careful attitude towards powerful tools, and to be open to feedback. PJvanMill)talk( 15:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Seems thoughtful, civil, and willing to ackowledge mistakes. Rusalkii (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support: strong content creation, great knowledge of PAGs and community norms, solid answer to questions and a very professional attitude with no temperament concerns. My only concern is that they went to The Other Place. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support No reason to not support after going through their answers above. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support no issues - has a clue - good attitute. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support No concerns. Mkdw ^talk 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support good editor, I would trust them with the tools, more than happy for them to become a sysop. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Seems like a fine addition to our team. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. Involved with several areas of the project and good tone on talk page interactions. Loopy30 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support Happy editing--IAmChaos 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Nothing I can see to preclude giving Modussiccandi the mop, and that's what we're looking for. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support Not a jerk, has clue, and the answers to questions show maturity and make me confident they will be a positive for Wikipedia as an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support – Don't usually vote in runaway RfAs where I don't know the editor, but this is someone who reads Columella. Must have good sense. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support No problems here. --Ferien (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support. Understands what he's here for. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support I can't see any problems that would put me off supporting. Pahunkat (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support LGTM --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support per noms – Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
139. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support + clue; if you like G12s, you could always try RD1s :) Sennecaster (Chat) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support No issues, like the content contributions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Pile on support. - tucoxn\^talk 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support -- an experienced editor with no issues I can see that can make of a bad admin. GeraldWL 03:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support - Not a jerk, impressive editing record, well-reasoned responses to questions. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 06:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support Not familiar with the candidate, but the rave reviews of them by highly trusted and experienced editors above are convincing enough for me to support their candidacy. JavaHurricane 07:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support Don't know the nominee nor their work, but I don't see a single negative comment either. Seems to be a very solid and capable candidate. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support looks good to me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support No concerns EN-Jungwon 13:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support Great candidate. Real easy choice. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
151. Aye – Reasons in chief: (1) having perused a subset of the last several discussions he's participated in, the candidate's AFD participation and !voting reflect a strong mind for the application of content policy, particularly GNG and various SNG, a perception enforced by (2) the candidate's superb track record for peer-reviewed content creation (FAs, GAs, DYKs), (3) the candidate's thoughtful, articulate answers to the questions posed here (particularly Q5, Q9, Q15, and Q19, which demonstrate to me a clear aptitude for thoughtful deliberation), and (4) the candidate's level-headed, cordial interaction with other editors, even in instances of disagreement (this discussion being a fine example). If there are material concerns, they are not evident to me. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support - Per other users I greatly respect in this section. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support I appreciate the answers to the questions and don't see any issues. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support I don't see any red flags. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
155. Strong Support I do not remember crossing paths with this editor, and per nominations. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support – Adumbrativus (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support – Very good editor,definite net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support: Impressive work so far, and no reason to suspect it wouldn't continue. jp×g 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support - seems competent in CSD and RD1 areas, given NPP experience. eviolite (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
160. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support per nom and per Tyrol5's points above. It's always good to see strong content creators get the mop as well, and I think that Modussiccandi represents the best Wikipedia has to offer. Nomader (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support Having not interacted with this editor personally nor fully reviewed their contributions, my opinion may not be particularly valuable. However, the candidate meets my simple RfA criteria, and I have not observed any problematic issues in their contribution history. That's more than enough for full support. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Support because majority vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Struck as a duplicate !vote. 00:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

163. Has a clue, not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support knowledgeable editor —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support well rounded editor with a clear need for the tool. Neovu79 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
166. There is no reason for concern. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
167. AngryHarpy‍^talk 19:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support Purely on the well constructed responses to questions. Though, I'm not sure I agree with the response to Q14Q15. One well argued delete !vote versus many "non-argued" keep !votes should be sufficient to delete. However, not an unreasonable viewpoint and differences in the application of policies is what makes the world go round (don't believe that "fake news" momentum explanation!)--RegentsPark (comment) 21:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     @RegentsPark: I feel a little silly posting this with 3 hours left and a non-opposed RfA, but I assume you mean Q15? And yes, AfD would be boring if there weren't some valid policy disagreements! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

169. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support
     Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
171. Support, quality editor, no concerns from me.♠JCW555 talk♠ 02:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support overdue to be honest. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support Strong content contributions, no red flags that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support I have never commented on an RfA before, but I felt compelled do so here. I first encountered Modussiccandi when he nominated the classicist R. A. B. Mynors at FAC. After a lot of positive comments from others, I waded in and suggested some quite significant additions were needed to make it comprehensive. Modussiccandi would have been quite justified in being rather miffed at my late intervention, but he handled my comments with a patience, politeness and professionalism that is all too often lacking here. He withdrew that nomination, opened a peer-review process, discussed the issues with me and worked out a solution which incorporated my suggestions without unbalancing his otherwise excellent work. I was happy to support when he renominated the article later (and indeed that article was given its well-deserved star soon after). In my subsequent interactions, I have found him to be only courteous and kind. Matched with the exacting standards he has shown in both his AfC and content-editing, these traits will no doubt stand him in excellent stead to be a fair, patient and constructive administrator. Will I cannot comment about his suitability for the more technical tools that come with the mop, I felt compelled to add this support for those reasons. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
175. Support Great nomination and I would welcome more admins keeping an eye on the NPP area Josey Wales ^Parley 15:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support Less Unless (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support. Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support Solid editor. Will make a good addition to the admin corps. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support I don't see any pressing issues which would cause me to oppose. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support per noms. — Ched (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support. Solid candidate. Good luck! :) — sparklism ^hey! 09:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support nomination is solid. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support - Yay!!! Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support − I don't think I have encountered Modussiccandi, but what with the excellent manifesto, above, and the support of several editors I particularly admire I have no hesitation in adding my, by now rather superfluous, support. Good luck with the job, Modussiccandi! Tim riley talk 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
187. Pile-on Support. Seems like a great candidate. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support - good candidate for mop. Tolly4bolly 03:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
190. Support Congrats! – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support It has all been said above; great candidate. Glad to get my support in before the deadline. (Pushing for 200 supporters.) Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 08:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support Sure, why not? Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support without reservation. Seems to have broad experience, covering content creation and behind the scenes. No red flags. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support, seems to be a perfectly qualified candidate with no issues. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support - Per nom. Well qualified and a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]