Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/331dot


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

331dot
'''Final (186/5/4); Closed as successful by ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! at 22:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination
– I've been aware of 331dot for some time through his diligent contributions at the In The News section of the Main Page. His specialist topic is geography and politics in Maine, but his real flair is in the back-door maintenance areas. He's a regular at new pages patrol (a perennially backlogged section), usernames for admin attention and vandalism patrol. He's got a good track record of being civil, polite and helpful, and is a frequent contributor to the Teahouse, as well as fielding replies from new users on his talk page with tact and diplomacy.

Some of you may not be aware of 331dot at all; he doesn't go out of his way to make himself known on the noticeboards and project discussions. I don't think that's a bad thing. I know we like to see candidates we're all friends with and who should have been made an admin years ago; but to be honest, what we really need are good, solid, dependable people who will do the job with a minimum of fuss. And that's why I think 331dot deserves the mop. I hope the project will benefit enormously.

In the interests of full disclosure, 331dot has never used another account and has never edited Wikipedia for pay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Co-Nomination
Fellow Wikipedians I would like to take this opportunity to second the nomination of 331dot who is a solid contributor to the project with a tenure of around five years. An examination of their record reveals an above average edit count for RfA candidates (more than 3x what mine was), along with excellent records of participation in all the areas one would typically look for in a prospective sysop including CSD, AfD, UAA, NPP as well as ITN/C. (I would note that we are not exactly drowning in admins who are active in NPP.) His content creation is respectable though it's fair to say that he has been more involved in the behind the scenes work. My personal interactions with this editor have usually been at WP:ITNC where he is a huge asset. In closing I would commend to your consideration that 331dot has the sort of disposition that I like to see in an admin... calm, knowledgeable and articulate, not easily provoked and possessed of plenty of clue. Thank you for taking the time to consider 331dot's request for adminship and I hope you will join me in supporting him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank both Ritchie333 and Ad Orientem for it, their kind words, and their guidance. I would also like to thank the community for participating here.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would work in areas that I work in now; AIV, ITNC(when I haven’t contributed to the discussion), CSD, UAA, NPP, and RPP. I would also be interested in using the administrator ability to view deleted pages to better help new users at the Teahouse.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think my best contribution is adding to coverage of Maine (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. I would say I am most pleased about Sagadahoc Bridge as I had to do some digging to properly source it.  I am aware that sort of thing(expanding coverage of a subject or subject area) is what almost everyone is working towards in good faith and I consider that every day in my comments and edits.


 * 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: Like other users, I have not worked on Wikipedia without conflict. A recent one was in November with MPS1992, regarding an issue on the article The Pentecostal Mission. The conversation is still on my user talk page under "November 2017".   I've also had my fair share of hostile comments on my user talk page, but I try to keep a cool head with such comments.
 * In a dispute I work to encourage discussion on the matter, stay focused on any relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep the focus on the content under discussion. If that is not being entirely successful I then disengage for a period instead of adding to the disruption with little to show for it.  I've also sought outside assistance such as with page protection, which I did in that case. Everyone here has different views and opinions on just about everything; respect, politeness, and civility are vital towards the work we are all doing and I keep that in mind every day. Staying cool and focusing on the content are vital and those are things I would continue to do.
 * I'm also not afraid to admit fault and correct a mistake when I make one, such as on the article Les Paul and Mary Ford. I saw a short stub that looked like trivial nonsense and tagged it for deletion. I felt something was wrong, so I checked the history and realized the article had been vandalized. I immediately self-reverted and cleaned things up. I think part of dealing with conflict is preventing it in the first place by admitting to mistakes. This edit was an error and a learning experience.

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


 * Additional question from Alex Shih
 * 4. You have recently ran into a minor argument with . In hindsight, would you have approached the situation the same way or differently? Alex Shih (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A: Thank you for your question. In retrospect, I would not have carried on the conversation on their talk page as much as I did, and apologized before disengaging. (For what it's worth, I do apologize to TRM for giving offense) I might also have given a few hours before making the inquiry in the first place.  Both would have been less disruptive. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Amorymeltzer
 * 5. What are your thoughts on Administrator Recall? Is it necessary given our other procedures for removal (e.g., ArbCom, inactivity) or is current community oversight sufficient?
 * A: Thanks for your question. I have not given administrator recall a great deal of thought.  I can say that I have not seen anything to suggest to me that current procedures for dealing with administrator misbehavior are inadequate. In my time around Wikipedia, I have observed cases where an administrator overreached, but was corrected after community members engaged them in discussion.  I would hope that would be sufficient in most cases; anything more extreme would probably best be dealt with by ArbCom as is current practice.  That said, I'm ambivalent about the need to have an administrator recall process.  I wouldn't stand in the way of one if it came about.  331dot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Dolotta
 * 6. What do you think your biggest challenge would be as a new admin?
 * A: Thank you for your question. I think that my biggest challenge would be to keep good faith editors from leaving.  For example, a user created an article which was legitimately deleted per policy might get upset, think their work was in vain, and quit.  I have seen that often a user will be more upset with the deleting admin than with the person who actually tagged the page for deletion.  It would be important for me to be understanding and sympathetic to the user.  When appropriate, such as with an A7 or G11 deletion, userfying or emailing the text might help.  That can't be done in other cases such as G12 copyvios but giving a good, polite explanation would hopefully clarify the situation for the user involved.  It is important to hold on to good faith editors, as that is what Wikipedia runs on. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from User:Anachronist


 * 7. Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than 24 hours. The most frequent anonymous IP edits involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although he has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
 * A: Thank you for your question. As such a question requires a lot of specifics, and I presume that asking for specifics would defeat the purpose of the query, I take liberty in assuming a few, straightforward things – that the established editor hasn't invited the IP to the talk page yet, that the additions are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL in nature (which would require multiple reliable sources than one to support), that there's no other exigent situation involved (e.g. WP:BLP issues), that the article hasn't gone through increasing levels of protections in the past due to the same issues, that the IP or the editor haven't been sanctioned/blocked/warned for this issue in the past and that this is purely the first instance of such a case happening. In such a case, my answer would be quite simple. I'll decline the semi, and rather than leaving a message at RFPP, go to the talk page of the established editor, leave an apology note and explain that I would prefer that the editor start discussions on the talk page of the article inviting the IP and following the steps listed out at WP:DR, rather than reverting or asking for protection. Then I'll go to the IP's talk page, inform them not to revert again as that would be considered disruptive and liable for a block if they don't stop; I'll additionally advise them to immediately join talk page discussions and reach consensus before re-adding the material, and that leaving explanations on edit summaries is great, but not enough at all for reaching consensus. That's the way I would prefer to proceed. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 8. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, and so on.
 * a. Would you prefer to see escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
 * A: Thanks for your questions. I would prefer to see that almost all the time, with only a few exceptions such as egregious WP:BLP violations, long term abusers, and blatantly promotional agendas and names worthy of being reported to UAA.  I have run into cases where a user was not even aware that they had a user talk page to receive messages, and it took two or three warnings before they did, if at all.  I think in most cases users need a chance. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * b. Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
 * A: I assume your question meant, "Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning and again commits the same mistake for which he/she was warned?" I again take liberty to assume that I'm viewing this issue as an independent admin who has landed on the scene for the first time. At Wikipedia, warnings are sometimes not necessarily commensurate to the level of exigency involved. To broaden my argument, a newbie editor making editing tests attempting to add a citation that is wrongly formatted could end up getting multiple warnings from cluebot, from other patrollers, and so on. If it were simply enough that anyone who has received a level-4 warning should be blocked if they commit the mistake again, then we could have left a bot to do the job. The fact that it is us, editors, who take the call, is because each case is dependent upon many variables that cannot be summarized in this query. Whether it's a case of a newbie adding that citation unsuccessfully, or that school editor who received a level-4 warning as their first warning because they tried to change the name of the principal without reliable sources... well, there's nothing laid in stone. Blocking requires dollops of common sense and much experience, which I hope I'll gain slowly and surely. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Andrew D.
 * 9. I am currently opposing on the grounds that you seem too deletionist. By this, I mean that many/most of your recent actions seem hostile, negative and obstructive.  But I notice that, back in 2012, you characterised yourself as inclusionist.  Please clarify your position on this issue. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A:


 * 10. The username 331dot seems like it might mean something but I don't get it. Please explain. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional question from Nick Moyes
 * 11. If you had the ability to introduce any two changes to the way Wikipedia operates, what would those be?
 * A: Thanks for your question. I think improvements to the notification system would be helpful especially for newer users.  As I noted in Question 8, many users don't realize that they have a talk page to receive and post messages and don't know that others are trying to contact them.  I don't know specifically what I would do at this time but it would be something to help people feel welcome and assist them in directing their contributions to the right place.  Second, I think having threaded discussions much like Facebook or Twitter would be helpful. Something with a more modern GUI but backwards compatible with existing talk pages. I understand that the WMF has made some attempts in this area, but did not get anywhere.  331dot (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from QEDK
 * 12. I think I barely ask questions to candidates and you seem already to be a fitting candidate, but this is just a question I was asked fairly recently so I thought I'd ask a prospective admin candidate on their outlook as well. Consider a group of editors who are observed to be editing as a group, one particular article and the situations are as follows:
 * One of the editors says, "We're part of a firm working on the orders of our employers to improve our article page." No supplementing information except they're editing that company page adding promotional language.
 * One of the editors says, "We've been paid by a firm to bring this article to a proper standard." Only 2 of the 4 editors are declared as paid editors and they're editing the company page but with no editorial mistakes.
 * The editors claim they do not know each other but are adding promo language, and the firm mails OTRS saying someone contacted them to edit the page in exchange for money which they subsequently turned down and kept sending them revisions with puffery to entice them.
 * How would you deal with each of these scenarios? -- QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A: Thanks for your question.  For the first scenario, I would give all of them a quick spam-4im warning to immediately stop adding promotional language and also tell them to ensure they follow the paid editing disclosure policy (including disclosure requirements, both per paid editing and per WP:COWORKER) and conflict of interest guidelines. I also would strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. Block any who continues promotional edits. Request an SPI to weed out any undisclosed meats.
 * For the second scenario, I would ask all four of them to follow the paid editing disclosure policy (as above) and conflict of interest guidelines. I would also strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. If they continue editing the article, and the additions are editorially acceptable, use common sense and keep a watch; if they push the editorial envelope on weight, sourcing, etcetera, but not on spam, take them to coin for review by the larger community.
 * For the third scenario, I would give all of them a quick spam-4im warning to immediately stop adding promotional language and tell them that if they've been paid for their contributions or/and are conflicted in any manner, to ensure they follow the paid editing disclosure policy (as above) and conflict of interest guidelines. I would also strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. I would then block any who continue to make promotional edits. Then I would request an SPI to weed out any undisclosed socks. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from SarekOfVulcan
 * 13. Which do you prefer, Moxie or coffee milk?
 * A: Earl Grey tea. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Uanfala
 * 14. While patrolling the AIV you come across a report, which turns out no to involve vandalism, but a conflict that you nevertheless decide to try and solve. The article concerned is on an obscure scientific topic you know nothing about, it's got sub-par formatting, but looks well sourced. One of the paragraphs doesn't have references though. User A, an experienced wikipedian, who you have had good interactions with on the noticeboards, removes this paragraph with the edit summary Enforcing verifiablity. This is then promptly reverted by user B, who is the creator of the article and a user with less than 15 edits so far. Their edit summary is no need to cite explicitly, that's general knowledge, you silly. Then user A reverts, and then two engage in an edit war going back and forth half a dozen times. You don't see any discussion on the talk page, but you notice that user A has explained the requirement for sourcing on user B's talk page using a series of escalating templates, the last one of which is Uw-unsourced4. What action do you take?
 * A: Thank you for your question. Broadly, if my past interactions with User A have been significant, this could be perceived by the community as being involved; so rather than taking this up administratively, I'll prefer advising User A and B as a fellow editor to stop warring, remind them of the obvious implications, suggest further to start discussions on the talk page. If the issue is related to BLP violations (e.g. User B adding unsourced details of a scientist discovering something), then to advise User A to reach out to either EWN or BLPN or even ANI for prompt support but to give a bright note about why they reverted multiple times. But if it's not anything covered under the exceptions allowed for multiple reverts, then going to either of the boards could result in both of them getting blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Power~enwiki
 * 15. By popular demand, the infamous UAA question returns! What would you do with the following usernames at UAA, assuming that their only edit is to write "332" on their userpage?  Would your reaction be different if their first edit were to change the categorization of Saint Monica to be "332 births" instead of "331 births"?


 * Ritchie332
 * 332dot
 * 332-867-5309
 * 332 bottles of beer on the wall
 * A: First case
 * Ritchie332: No action at UAA; if the editor starts editing regularly, I'll probably request this editor to note on their user page that they're different from the other Ritchies in town
 * 332dot: No action at UAA; same treatment as above; if they become regular, would probably request them to note on their user page that they are different from me (or perhaps they could opt for a name change)
 * 332-867-5309: It's a username created by an account creator/through ACC. Anyway, nothing to do at UAA.
 * 332 bottles of beer on the wall: Again, nothing to do at UAA.


 * Second case (they change the dob category at Saint Monica); nothing to do at UAA for any of the above. I'll advise the posting editor to check the sources of the article and to revert if the categorization is wrong and to leave a note for the concerned editors.


 * There's of course a third interpretation, that I find all their names together at UAA, having undertaken the user page edit/article category change: In such a case, they're all probable ducks; will request an SPI. But no action at UAA. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question, by the way. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Lankiveil
 * 16. If the community were to bless you with the power to unilaterally change or revoke any one policy on Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
 * A: Thank you for your question. I apologize for taking some time to consider it, but I am currently not aware of any policies I would change or revoke at this time. I don't mean to say that all policies are perfect as they stand, just that I currently have no ideas on doing so. I would add that I would not necessarily want the ability to unilaterally change a policy, as I believe the community should determine policies through consensus when possible(legal matters or similar could not be). 331dot (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Beyond My Ken:
 * 17. Hi! I don't know you, but my respect for your co-nominators biases me to vote in your favor. Not that you need my vote, since you're obviously going to win, but I'm wondering if you would care to explain why your edits to Mainspace are only 18.5% of your total, while user talk has a hefty 45.5% and Wikipediaspace 23.4%? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, but 18.5% is lower than I usually like to see in a nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A: Thank you for your question.  I believe that most of my Wikipedia-space edits are related to my UAA an AIV reports.  My user talk edits are mostly warnings or discussion with someone about an article.  I prefer to discuss or warn about a matter than run for admin assistance, and would expect as an admin I would communicate as much as possible before being forced to block a user. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your response, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Montanabw:
 * 18: I see that your co-nom stated, " His specialist topic is geography and politics in Maine."  So, how would you handle the eternal whack-a-mole problem of a long-term abuser such as this one?, who sometimes hits articles about highways in Maine? My specific inquiry is actually a two-part question:  1)  In general, how would you go about determining if a group of new accounts fit a LTA pattern and if a rangeblock is needed? and 2) If that account were one that also was harassing users, how would you go about protecting those users from further harassment? Thanks!  Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A: Thanks for your questions. I'm aware of the case you linked to as I've edited a few highway pages also edited by that LT abuser and made a few reports. At this time, if I came across an account or group of accounts that I suspected might be a LTA case, I would seek out assistance from another admin with more experience, by starting a SPI or seeking out a friendly CU. I know a little bit about them but range blocks are not something I am sufficiently familiar to mess with until I have some time under my belt. Regarding the second part, if it was a single account, persistent harassment is grounds to be blocked.  I would check the user's contribution log and see what else they have been up to, and if the user doing the harassment has made no productive contributions at all a NOTHERE indef block could be done. If it was someone using multiple accounts or a dynamic IP I would temporarily protect the harassed user's user or user talk pages(or whichever page the harassment is occurring on) to hopefully stop the harassment on that end, and then seek out assistance from a more experienced admin. 331dot (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh
 * 19. Will you handle some WP:SPI cases, why or why not? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh
 * 20. Why you did not answer question 9&10? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional question from UnitedStatesian
 * 21. What do you think is the biggest issue with English wikipedia content today, and how would you work as an admin to address it?
 * A:


 * Additional question from Bellezzasolo
 * 22. How do you plan to celebrate this passing? Congratulations!
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for 331dot:
 * Edit summary usage for 331dot 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
contribs ) 09:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  21:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support has clue, and not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Ayuh No reason to expect tool abuse. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect answer to question 13, I might add. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support clearly qualified, we need more admins, per nominators, few RfAs this year, good time of the week, month with a H in etc etc - TNT❤ 21:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per my usual "appears unlikely to torch the joint" criteria. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - looks like a good candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as co-nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Excellent candidate. Plenty of experience. Good record at AFD, CSD, and PROD. Above all, experience and willingness to work at NPP and ITN where we are not exactly overflowing with admins. I have occasionally run across him in editing and been favorably impressed. Everything suggests he will be a great addition to the admin team. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, no worries. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Net positive.  Vermont &#124; reply here  21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - No issues found. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support UAA activity is excellent, and that page definitely could use more admins. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Why not? Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Apt for the job. 331dot has the needed experience and will be positive addition. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Non-withstanding my question above, I have always found 331dot to be nothing but calm, reasonable and productive, having observed their works at the Teahouse and ITN/C. No reason to oppose. Alex Shih (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Support A pleasure to work with and will do a fine job.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) Support: No issues overall. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Per Alex Shih. 331dot does excellent work and will be a significant asset.  Basically the worst thing I found is being overly inclusive with Ucmate Downloader three months ago; if that's your greatest sin, allow me to be the first to welcome you!  Feel free to file this under the already thought you were one (although that's probably just collision with Richie). ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to second MelanieN on the value of having more sysops active at NPP and ITN. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I actually know Dot through some AFD discussions on current events. He, unlike many editors, took the time to actually analyze sources for their worth. Reference stacking becomes an issue on these types of AFDs, but Dot demonstrated diligence on a consistent basis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Clearly a qualified candidate. Moriori (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support my strongest impression of 331Dot came from this, which happened in spite of this. This exchange was very impressive as well, especially in view of this diff and the "irrelevant personal comments" here. Banedon (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support – great impressions, solid history, confident will make an excellent admin. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Have been waiting for this. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - My interactions with 331dot have been nothing but positive, and I think Wikipedia would benefit greatly with this user having the tools.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Clear net positive, no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Support A huge amount of cleanup work, a mop probably will help with the scrubbing. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support precious politics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Top class candidate with top class contributions.  Lourdes  00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Support especially given the current shortage. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b>  (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) Support No issues with this candidate. To a certain extent, I thought they were one already. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 17) Support  S warm   ♠  00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 18) Support as a net positive. — <b style="color:blue">MRD2014</b> <b style="color:red">Talk</b> 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per above. Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 21) Support seems to have a good temperament, shows a clue at AfD, and the Maine-related articles show a good understanding of content creation. No reason not to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 22) Support good work at NPP and the Teahouse Mduvekot (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Contributions and history look good to me. And I can't argue with having another geography editor in the admin corps :) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation
 * 24) Support &mdash;  MBL  talk 03:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - what TonyBallioni and PMC said. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - easily. A real asset to the project. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Why not? - F ASTILY   05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Glrx (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Sure, my easiest support of an RfA candidate. You knokw he is a good candidate if I've gotten 2 edit conflicts from people jostling to support him! Zyc1174   chat?   what I did   05:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Sure. Looks clueful and competent. Philg88 ♦talk 06:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 32) Support – competent and experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools. No obvious reasons to oppose. Linguist un Eins uno 06:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 33) Support As clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 34) Support without reservations. Good candidate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 35) Support, conditional on confirming that he has never edited or created articles for compensation of any kind, as is now required (see Advice for RfA candidates) (Ritchie333 mentions this, but I would prefer to see it come from the nominee) . 331dot is a good editor who knows what he's doing and will be a valuable addition to the pool of administrators. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Yes absolutely. talk to ! dave 08:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Seen them around. Have no concerns. The sole oppose is not persuading. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 38) Support has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and would be a net positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - Nice user. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 41) Support: qualified, hard-working user; no issues. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (<span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"><sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">talk
 * 1) Support - seems like a good fit. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No concerns, and seen them around doing the Good Work with great constancy. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - honestly, I already thought they were an admin... so yeah. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - No apparent issues. Daask (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: We need more admins that are active in WP:NPP. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - genuine case of "I thought he was one already", seen him around, etc. Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I am familiar with 331dot from their work at ITN and I am confident they would make a fine admin.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per The Rambling Man above, in light of his recent history with the candidate (see Q4).  Mini  apolis  13:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Support No qualms, we need more admins and they fit the bill. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 14:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per nominations and sound answers to the questions. I've noticed 331dot doing good work in various places. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - between his stalwart work at ITN and the Teahouse, I had assumed that 331dot was already an admin. Time is absolutely right for his ascension now. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) In my experience, I agree with Ad Orientem's nom that 331• is calm, competent, productive, and clueful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) Support An asset to the 'pedia and that will increase with the mop and bucket. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: Seems like a great candidate. Best of luck! HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - great work at Teahouse, echoing many above who think more admins at NPP is a great thing. John from Idegon (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per Cordless Larry.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Clueful, rational, helpful to new users. No red flags that I can find. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>  FIREWATER  16:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Very helpful to new users. Knows how to disagree without being disagreeable. Know how to apologize or de-escalate when appropriate. Net plus for the project. David in DC (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 20) Support -- The answer to question six is very well reasoned. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Excellent candidate. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - I thought 331dot was already... well, you know. Kurtis (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 23) Support as per pretty much everyone else above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 24) Steel1943  (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. No strong reason not to. /Julle (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - I've seen 331dot around and have no concerns re the granting of the tools. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - Certainly. Good candidate and I haven't found any issues. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 28) Support --Joshualouie711talk 19:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 29) Support without a doubt. Go for it.  Y intan  20:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Among other virtues, I appreciate the concern for good-faith editor retention expressed in the answer to Q6. Most other errors can be easily rectified; alienated good-faith editors may be gone forever. Good to see in an admin candidate and a good reminder to us all, really. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 31) Support – Certainly a net positive, does a great work assisting new editors at the Teahouse. It seems I was not the only one who thought "wait, isn't he one already?" –FlyingAce✈hello 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 32) Support – should be a net positive with tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 33) Stephen 21:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 34) Support I see nothing that would constitute a reason to oppose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - no reason not to; well qualified candidate who knows what he's doing, has an impressive record under his belt, and is a definite net positive to the community as a whole. Andrew's oppose du jour is completely unconvincing.  65  HC  A7  21:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Per all above. Aiken D 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 37) Support - no objections. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 38) Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - while I am not completely satisfied with the answers to questions 7 and 8a, I appreciate the thought that went into the replies. I would prefer also to see less of a preponderance of automated edits in the contributions, but the non-automated edits are significant in number, so that's OK. Knowing that a new admin has a learning curve, I believe this editor will be a good administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. I've looked around (user talk page, content work, for example), and I feel like everything checks out. I think that the two nominators explain very well the reasons that I, also, would give as to why this candidacy is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been following the discussion, and I would like to expand on what I said before. The nominators are right about the "behind the scenes" aspect. Some (not all, but some) of the issues that have come up in the oppose and neutral sections strike me as reasonable, but when I take everything in balance, I still support. Some of the problems come down to communication, so I would suggest taking the criticisms seriously and starting slowly at first. Also, about Q12, I want to make sure you know about Template:Uw-coi and Template:Uw-coi-username. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose (jk)Barely makes it onto the top 50 NPPers. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good record. Candid and nuanced answers to questions; thoughtful consideration. Good demeanor and good interactions with others - and willing to admit the one or few occasions when offensive may have been given. Trustworthiness well established. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Knows when to resist the bait, trys to learn from mistakes, work in areas that would benefit from tools Find bruce (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Seems to really know his way around here, whether it's reverting vandalism or ITNC (the latter of which is by far the source of most of my interactions with him). I also like that his CSD log is almost entirely red, indicating good judgment with regard to the speedy criteria. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  03:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I’ve seen this editor around ITN in the past. My feeling is that they are sensible.  Jehochman Talk 03:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Late to the party, but an obvious and enthusiastic yes. Has the temperament to be an asset on the admin team. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -★-  PlyrStar93 . → Message me. ← 05:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --Eurodyne (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Valued contributor to NPP and the Teahouse. No reservations about giving them the tools. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Support  Incredibly hard-working and highly qualified. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Support <span style="color: rgb(100, 60, 0)">minecraft r chat / builds 13:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - I think 331dot will be a fine admin. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: a well qualified candidate who will be a value to the project. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak support. I'll be honest: When I first saw this RFA and the level of support the candidate got within such a short time, I was confused. From past experience, I did not consider 331dot a viable candidate for the mop, especially not in the areas he expressed interest in working in. What I remembered were a lot of mistaggings (like, , , (now hidden per RD1 but an A11 for an article that began with Chakra is a chess variant invented by Christian Freeling in 1980)) that no experienced user should make. However, judging from recent contributions it was also clear that he improved quite a lot from the examples I mentioned above.That said, the the situation mentioned in Q4 was handled extremely poorly (both the passive aggressive sounding comment when withdrawing the nomination as well as the subsequent interactions with TRM). Since this happened less than two weeks before this request was opened, some doubts remain whether the candidate will always be able to handle the pressure of adminship. That, combined with some recent questionable taggings (e.g.  , ), would usually be enough to stop me from supporting. In this case though, with both Ritchie333 and Ad Orientem thinking he will make a good admin and them usually knowing what they are doing, I'm willing to assume that those examples I mentioned were only rare exceptions that won't be repeated. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 15:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: trusted editor and a good candidate for Adminship.  FITINDIA   18:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - I am familiar with 331dot's NPP work and everything else looks good as well.- MrX 🖋 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 19) Support 331dot is one of the good guys, I've seen a good deal of their work and happy to support here <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  19:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 20) Support totally favourable impressions each time I've seen 331dot's contributions. Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 21) Support No issues for me <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I am most familiar with 331dot's work at the Teahouse, where they are unfailingly helpful. I offer my support without hesitation. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Nay problems here. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 24) Support.  Yes, I will support. I think they can be trusted with the toolkit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 25) SupportYrarendar (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Denisarona (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Knows what to do. Keeps cool under provocation. LK (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 28) Support samee  converse  09:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Full Rune Speak, child of Guthix 18:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Another one in the 'thought you already were an admin' category. Number   5  7  18:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Good to add several Admins Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Fully qualified, has clue, excellent contributions. Happy to support.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 34) Support - On the basis of the co-noms, and nominee's response to my question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 35) To counteract the inevitability that Col Warden has found a pretext to oppose Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 36) Support WP:TTWOA! Fully qualified in my eyes.  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 37) Support I am ready to give you a chance. CLCStudent (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 38) Support per Swarm. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  23:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Why not. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Good answers to the above questions, net positive. <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 00:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Seems worth a vote of support. Always a fan of a hard worker at NPP. Equineducklings (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 42) Support Re Q14: You'll find that when you're an admin, it will not be possible to comment "as a fellow editor"; editors will assume that you are speaking as an admin all the time.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 43) Support good work. feminist (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 44) Support No concerns. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  03:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 45) Support another editor whose manner tends to lead you to assume is already an admin when you come across them. The only opposition is due to a single run-in with another editor, and alleged issues with an afd, but both just prove that 331dot is human. Admins don't have to be perfect, or we'd have no admins! Neiltonks (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 46) Support No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 47) Support good content work, Teahouse help frontpage work and other good work, no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 48) Support - late to the party. I've seen 331dot around, and always been favorably impressed.  A hardworking volunteer who deeply cares about this project, shows plenty of CLUE, is approachable, willing to acknowledge mistakes and then attempts to rectify them, admits they don't know everything, these are qualities I think will make for a good administrator, and I firmly believe Wikipedia will be better if 331dot has extra tools.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. Seems like a sensible choice for wielding the mop. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 13:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 50) Support--We have interacted a few times and he's sensible, calm and experienced enough to wield the mop. ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 51) Support I almost didn't see there are two open RfAs. I've seen 331dot around a lot and his/her/their approach has been beyond reproach. Certainly worthy of the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Seems level-headed, no reason to oppose. Natureium (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 53) pile-on support Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 54) Support per candidate's perfect response to Q9. This sort of judgement will suit you well as an administrator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 55) Support No serious problems from what I can see. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 19:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 56) Support No-one's perfect. In fact, that's not actually a prerequisite for adminship. But this candidate seems very reasonable when compared to some long-standing admins I can think of. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 57) Support - No concerns with this nomination. Seems to be a net positive. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 58) Support - per most of the arguments above. I am not thrilled about the handling of the situation behind Q4 (on both sides), but human mistakes do happen. Overall this is a trusted, productive and helpful editor. GermanJoe (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 59) Support Never had a problem with this editor, and it seems like that's a common experience. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 60) Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 61) Support because of the general need for new admins as reported in Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/News and notes. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 62) Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 63) Support -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 64) Support ~ do not know this editor at all; nothing i have seen since the start of this RfA, however, leads me to worry about the safety of the project should we when we grant the tools. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 65) Support Seem them around and I admire their work. Opposes unconvincing. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 66) —Kusma (t·c) 20:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 67) Support, based upon a willingness to learn, to seek others' input, and to err on the side of caution.  Do wish this user had more content creation experience, but that alone is insufficient grounds for me to oppose, much as I think admins should have substantial content creation experience.  But we need the wikignomes too, and this user's gnoming work has been very helpful.   Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 68) Support — In no particular order, experienced, hardworking and helpful. Green Giant (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 69) Weak Support - trusted nominators, no blocks, high AfD match rate, good tenure; slight trepidation that there are only ~8K mainspace edits and none of 331dots created pages or top ten most edited pages are assessed higher than C class, however, candidate's many strengths overcome a (very) minor weakness Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 70) Support Excellent contributions and a very supportive manner with newcomers at the Teahouse. Content creation not the strongest I've seen, but I have complete confidence they would use the tools effectively and competently for the good of the community, nor do I have concerns over any deletionist approach. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 71) Support Qualified, no concerns here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 72) Support, no problems here. <b style="color: White;">Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 08:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 73) Support - I like the sensible answers to the questions and think this editor will make a good admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 74) One of the best. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 75) Support - I nominated 331 back in DEC 2013 as Editor of the Week. Glad to see he has stayed in the game and is a credit to the encyclopedia. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   15:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 76) Support - I have often noticed 331's excellent communication with new users at the Teahouse, which shows a lot of clue and knowledge about Wikipedia policy, as well as the ability to communicate with tact and civility. I approve of the answer to Q13, too. --bonadea contributions talk 17:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 77) Support  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 78) Support Do not see any red flags, has been a benefit to wiki.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 79) Support, no significant concerns, an excellent candidate. Andrew Lenahan - <b style="color: #FF0000;">St</b><b style="color: #FF5500;">ar</b><b style="color: #FF8000;">bli</b><b style="color: #FFC000;">nd</b> 03:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 80) Support, good track record.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 81) Support  st  170  e  09:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 82) Support Appears to be a net positive to the encyclopedia, and adminship is supposed to be no big deal, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 83) Support Tolly  4  bolly  13:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 84) Support. Seems cautious enough to use admin powers carefully. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 85) Qualified candidate. Courcelles (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 86) Support because the candidate has a clue and because I liked their answers to questions 9, 10 and 20. Airbornemihir (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 87) Support Moving from Oppose. However, I still believe Q9 is worth answering, mostly considering some editors ran into an argument regarding this. Separately, I join in their judgment regarding Q3, but nobody's perfect and the big picture in the discussion at 331dot's talk page is less of an issue.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Too deletionist. For example, see Articles for deletion/Grenfell Tower. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * discussion moved to talk page Alex Shih (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you deign to explain your oppose vote? WP:RFA says Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers., and so some explanation is expected. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that their second last edit to their user page attributed quite an encomium for the rest of us, I'm unsure what explanation might be provided. Lourdes  04:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Feels like he lobbed a grenade here and ran away. Zyc1174   chat?   what I did   05:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose A tad "deletionist" for sure, but also not known for any major article creation, nor for any BLP expertise at all.  The three areas I look at, as a rule. Collect (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny thing about "deletionism" for an admin is that we have WP:REFUND should 331dot make such a terrible and tragically misguided judgement at AFD in judging consensus (remember, for admins it's not about being deletionist, it's about objectively assessing consensus). No BLP expertise?  I don't think that's true, 331dot is at least amongst those of us who know that it applies to the recently deceased, so that probably already puts them in the top 5%.  As for major article creation, that's probably fair enough, but 331dot regularly participates in quality control exercises at ITNC where we demand a reasonably high level of article quality before being posted to the main page.  I can't recall a time in the past few years when 331dot was wildly wrong with their assessments.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:REFUND is not the place to correct admin errors – that's WP:DRV. And it's not easy to overturn a bad call there. Andrew D. (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And, that speaks volumes about who made the bad call--the AFD closer or the DRV initiator! ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose: The overwhelming consensus in favour of the candidate makes me feel like I'm missing something. I waited to see if others would echo my thoughts in the oppose section but none have. But I have some concerns about 331dot. The conflict they point to in Q3 includes their message "I've been told I might merit having admin powers so I must know something of policies." This is arrogant, irrelevant and poor conduct. Arguments should stand on their own merits and not be bolstered by bragging. However, in Q4 another user brings up this conflict and I think 331dot does a good job of staying... not exactly polite, but not flat-out aggressive, despite overwhelming provocation. I see  shares some of my thoughts, and also piles on some CSD concerns – unlike SoWhy, I want a candidate to stand on their own merits and do not take nominators into consideration. Overall, I am opposing, but ambivalently. I think the point here is that 331dot could behave better in conflicts, and should take care when working in CSD/deletion areas. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose because of conflict referred to in Q4. Eric   Corbett  09:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Q9 is worth answering, mostly considering some editors ran into an argument regarding this. Separately, I join in their judgment regarding Q3 .--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I'm not comfortable with the candidate's observations in this thread. If 331dot is going to use that argument in a thread that was clearly deadlocked, I am uneasy with giving him the authority to judge consensus. Yes, admins should weigh the strength of arguments, but that wasn't the appropriate time to make the point. Lepricavark (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Pretty wishy-washy answer to my question. Fence sitting won't make you a very useful admin.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Saying that he agrees with and supports community consensus is bad? <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here  11:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * More like not saying anything to rock the boat. Community consensus is plainly not the point of the question, the question is to see if the candidate can critically analyse and identify deficiencies in our policies and procedures.  The answer was good enough to keep me out of the Oppose column, and given that this is plainly going to pass it doesn't really matter, but I would have preferred a firmer response.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I think that's a pretty fair assessment Lankiveil. Lourdes  13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed — you could even go further and argue that having no suggestions implies lack of familiarity. I'm (obviously) not worried about that, but having few bugaboos in the back of your mind, even if you'll never do anything about 'em, demonstrates some experience and critical thinking.  Still, the 'pedia could always use more uninvolved sysops to close things. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 16:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Q8 doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in that regard.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Pending answers. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer to your second question (q. 20 which I would also recommend ignore) is I don't believe in jumping through hoops set up by a person who has already opposed me and in all likelihood has no chance of changing his mind, especially when one of them has no relevance to my being an admin, and the other is just him trying to hit home on the point he has already made in his oppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK! I know, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning to support. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Seemed confused and argumentative in this Afd: Articles for deletion/Hadar Goldin. Edison (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was in August 2014, more than $3 1/2$ years ago Mduvekot (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at AFDs where we both participated, and this was one of two. Edison (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

General comments

 * Not a formal question, but 20000 deleted edits? Could 331dot or an admin roughly summarize the nature of these edits?  (ie. are they CSD, user-space pages, etc.?) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking through the last 500 (which takes us to November 2017). The vast majority are NPP style edits (CSD, tweaks to articles that have been nominated for deletion, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also notice they’ve reviewed more than 1000 new pages in the last 365 days. Multiple that by five years tenure, you could start to approach a large chunk of 20k ultimately deleted edits (and whew, do I thank them for that service!) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The only thing I'll add is that frequently a page is tagged for improvement (unreferenced, 3rd party, etc.) and then tagged it for CSD, thus multiplying the (eventual) deleted edits.  There are also numerous cases (particularly in October, oddly?) of what seems to be a user removing CSD tags, and 331dot reinstating them; I saw at least three where this happened a half dozen times each.  Anyway, NPP is hard. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NPP is hard. It is often difficult to tell what you're looking at.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Anybody going to ask the well-known UAA question? :P Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex"> Very Busy  02:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. It's been out of fashion recently. If someone does, I'd hope it would be more focused on approach to UAA in general rather than a long list of names. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't tempt me!! Linguist un Eins uno 06:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I half-heartedly drafted a joke version for my support, mainly focused on comparing 331dot and Ritchie333, but couldn't make it work without being disruptive. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 11:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would someone mind filling me in on exactly what this "well-known" question is? Every morning   (there's a halo...)  13:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically a list of between 4,000 and 7,000 made-up usernames for hypothetical vetting at UAA.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I got a version of this question at my 2nd RFA 3 years ago. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, I took the bait. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW 331., the correct answer is block half of them according to an obscure algorithm which runs off SHA253, befriend 38.098% of the remaining accounts, solicit 2 of them for bribes to be Cbanned, determine is half of them Know Da Wae, if so, give the remainders to 7 brothers with 7 wives and an inheiritance fo 23 horses. When that is completed, return the borrowed horse. If any file an UTRS, for their last ten transactions, please press two. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I confirm that I have never edited or created articles for pay or compensation of any kind. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not that I had any suspicions that you had ever been paid, but I think if we're going to ask for this declaration, it's best for it to come from the candidate's mouth (fingers). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot vote support for you twice, but I would really endorse your adminship if you were wise enough to not even entertain answering question 10.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That goes for question 9 also, which (based on the talk page discussion) appears to have been added in bad faith. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He did answer, if I recall correctly. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur Q9 and Q10 are best left unanswered. That user opposes WP:ACREQ to which brings into question even if they support anything good for the project. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Myself, I strongly support ACREQ, but holding other opinions is not disgraceful.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.