Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6


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

Numberguy6
Final (5/23/2) ; ended per WP:SNOW by 28bytes (talk) at 05:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 8 years, and I have over 43,000 edits (120,000+ edits across all projects). I have experience as an AfC reviewer, new pages patroller, template editor (see Template:Expand language), and bot writer (see Bots/Requests for approval/Numberguy6Bot, and please expedite the review process if possible). I have been awarded the following barnstars: Categorization; Energy; Random Acts of Kindness. I have received 250 thanks. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination 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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
 * A: I am very active on Wikipedia, and I already have a very large amount of editing experience.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Toss-up between three things:
 * I am the site expert on Template:Expand language. I have made edits to the template itself, and I have added and removed the template from a very large number of articles, aided by my Python scrapers.
 * I created more than half of the articles titled "Plug-in electric vehicles in [country/state/province]."
 * I have dealt with Template:Page needed by writing a Python script to search through the citations with the template, extract the ISBN, and check to see if the book is available at my local library; I then go to the library and go through the list.
 * 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: In the past year, I have not had any major issues. I have been told to reduce my usage Template:Expand language, but I haven't gotten into any arguments over that.

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 CanonNi
 * 4. Hi Numberguy6, if this RfA succeeds, which areas of adminship do you think you'll be active in?
 * A: I would go through Category:Administrative backlog and do the stuff there. Also, I would deal with users who I caught vandalizing pages on my watchlist.
 * Follow-up: Thank you for your answer. You mentioned that you would like to deal with vandalism, but when looking at your reverts, I found little to no anti-vandalism work. Do you plan on working in those areas in the future?
 * A: Yes. Once I have the authority to block people, I will pay more attention to this area. (And yes, I am familiar with WP:UWS.)

Optional question from HouseBlaster
 * 5. Looking at Special:PageHistory/Template:Expand language, I don't see any edits by Numberguy6. What exactly do you mean by I have made edits to the template [expand language] itself in your answer to question 2?
 * A: I am referring to the sub-templates, e.g. Template:Expand French.

Optional questions from Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI
 * 6. Hi Numberguy6, and thank you for running. You mention the discussion over your template overuse, yes, but the one-year time period you've chosen to examine is rather short. Have you been in any content or conduct disputes before that time? Of course, I'm not asking about stuff from like a decade ago or anything, but say the last 3-4 years.
 * A: In December 2022, I was accused of "topic-spamming" when I added a whole bunch of links to "Plug-in electric vehicles in [location]" articles from the "See also" section on the page for "[location]". See [links to articles on electric vehicles in cities].


 * 7. A lot of your "Plug-in electric vehicles in X" articles are Start-class, and many genuinely can't be developed beyond what you've already put in them. I would argue that they can be merged into more substantial articles. I think the articles for hybrids in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroes can probably be merged into something like Plug-in electric vehicles in Northern Europe or something like that. And even more importantly, the articles arranged by US state and Canadian province should probably go to Plug-in electric vehicles by US state and similar. What say?
 * A: When I created the articles, I (initially) submitted them as AfC's, so another editor could review them and make sure they were long enough; this is despite being an AfC reviewer myself.

Optional question from SchroCat
 * 8. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? (Your answer above is not an answer: many people are "very active on Wikipedia, and ... already have a very large amount of editing experience" but zero interest in becoming an admin, but you don't say why.)
 * A: I think it is merely a logical step up from Extended Confirmed. If I am qualified for the permissions, then I can receive the permissions; there's no cap on the number of admins.

Optional question from DandelionAndBurdock
 * 9. Please could you expand on being asked to reduce your use of Expand language, from your own understanding what happened there?
 * A: My initial criterion was "the foreign-language article is at least twice as long as the English article" (adjusted for script byte density), so that I could use a Python scraper. Then, other users gave me criticism such as: "twice as long" is too short; foreign-language articles are unsourced; foreign-language Wikipedias don't have reliable sourcing standard. I changed my rule and Python scraper to "the foreign-language article is at least three times as long and has twice as many sources as the English article, and the foreign-language Wikipedia has a page at Q59821108". But then a fourth editor told me that the foreign-language articles often have unnecessary amounts of detail that would be inappropriate for ENWP; I have no fix for this.

Optional question from Grabup
 * 10. I saw that you just participated in 15 AfDs, and the majority of them are your nominations. Why don't you participate in AfDs more often?
 * A: Mostly, it's because I have better things to do. My Wiki to-do list is already eight pages long, and I can't remember the last time I checked an item off of it (although I will once someone approves my bot).


 * 11. Will you handle closing AfDs after becoming an admin?
 * A: Yes.

Optional question from Innisfree987
 * 12. Hi and thank you for running. You mention the backlogs, much appreciated. To help me understand your plans for adminship better, could I ask if there are any in particular you see as especially well suited to your skills and interests, or any you would plan not to tackle?
 * A: I would most likely work on WP:CfD, WP:RfD, and WP:RM.

Optional question from RoySmith
 * 13. There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?
 * A: In my interpretation: if you get into an edit war, then you shouldn't use your admin powers to win. I will make sure to bring in a WP:3O if I am ever in an edit war.

Optional question from CanonNi
 * 14. You have answered above that you will participate in various areas of adminship. Do you have any past experience in the areas you've mentioned?
 * A: To start, I have created a lot of categories, which has given me experience with WP:CfD.

Optional question from Just Step Sideways
 * 15. You say above that you intend to deal with users who I caught vandalizing pages on my watchlist. What do you think you would do if you saw multiple IP and very new accounts all vandalizing the same page?
 * A: I would warn all of them and lock the page.

Optional questions from Chaotic Enby
 * 16. Do you see the role of admins as closer to wielding authority over the community, or to being responsible for enacting the community's wishes?
 * A: I think that "enacting the community's wishes" is more important.
 * 17. Are there specific areas you wouldn't be interested in involving yourself in as an admin?
 * A: I probably wouldn't do WP:PERM or CAT:RFU.

Optional questions from Shaws username
 * 18. What would be your approach for moving into areas that you don't have a lot of experience yet?
 * A: Most likely, I will look through other users' edits in that area and try to learn from that. That is what I did when I became an AfC reviewer.
 * 19. You've said that you'd like to deal with vandalism and that you're aware of WP:UWS, looking throughout your reverts I can't see messages or warnings that you've left on talk pages after. Why haven't you used them so far? (If I'm wrong and you have please correct me)
 * A: I thought that only admins had the authority to leave such messages. I did not learn otherwise until I applied for adminship.

Optional question from ToadetteEdit
 * 20. A followup from Q4: As an admin, are you familiar with the administrative pages that may appear at CAT:AB?
 * A: Since applying for adminship, I have read through most of the pages in the category.

Optional question from AviationFreak
 * 21. There's been some concern about the brevity of your answers here, and I see that across your many years editing Wikipedia, you've only edited your own talk page 24 times. As an admin, would you be more responsive and communicative on-wiki?
 * A: This is exactly what I expected; since elementary school, I've been told by nearly everyone I've talked to that I don't give enough detail, especially in writing. Therefore, I don't think I can do better here.

'''Optional question from Valereee
 * 22. Did you consider approaching an experienced nominator?
 * A: No.

Optional question from Just Step Sideways
 * 23. You state in an answer above that I thought that only admins had the authority to leave such messages. I did not learn otherwise until I applied for adminship. As you have stated that you intend to block vandals if this request were to succeed, don't you think it is likely that many users may find this a rather alarming lack of policy knowledge for an admin candidate?
 * A: No, since I was rarely active in this area before applying. For me, learning the policy knowledge was part of adminship training, not something that I was supposed to know beforehand.

Optional question from sawyer777
 * 24. above, Just Step Sideways asks what you would do in the event of multiple IP users and new accounts vandalizing an article. your answer is quite vague: I would warn all of them and lock the page. what protection level would you put on the article? would you block the users, either temporarily or indefinitely? as an admin, these would be decisions you'd have to make regularly should you get involved in anti-vandalism work.
 * A: Protection would probably be WP:SEMI, although if the new accounts were confirmed, then it would be WP:ECP. I would start with a 24-hour block, but if any account continued to vandalize after that, then I would use a permanent block.

Optional question from Maile66
 * 25. I realize that candidates have their ideas of why they want to be an admin, but not a concept of all the admin areas to be taken care of. Template:Admin dashboard is a good sampling.  Can you see anything on that list that you would like to participate in as an admin?
 * A: WP:CfD, WP:RfD, WP:RM
 * Thank you. This gives us a little more idea of where your admin focus might be. — Maile  (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Cremastra
 * 26. Thanks for standing for adminship. Here's a hypothetical situation: it's some time in the future, and you're a fairly experienced administrator. You check WP:AFD, and you see there's an old discussion with minimal participation that's been relisted twice. One person wants to delete the article, saying The other participant wants to keep the article, saying  What do you do? Do you


 * a) relist the discussion for a third time;
 * b) close the discussion as "no consensus" (de facto keep);
 * c) close as "delete"; or
 * d) close as "keep"?
 * A: I would probably close as "no consensus". It is clear that re-listing would not help, and there is not a consensus to delete or keep.
 * Follow-up question: Thanks for the quick, concise response. How would you defend your closure if someone asked for a rationale behind it? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A:

Optional question from Indignant Flamingo
 * 27. Many of the questions so far have focused on areas where you don't have experience. I have a question about an area where you are the "site expert". I'll include some detailed background so people who don't usually encounter this template can see why I'm asking the question, and I'll repeat the question with slightly different wording after that explanation. Please bear with me. The basic question: Can you explain who the intended beneficiary of Expand language and related language-specific templates is supposed to be?Detailed background: Right now anyone can already see whether corresponding articles on other language wikis exist, so there's no need to duplicate that information. If a multilingual editor has the language and editing competence necessary to check the quality of text and sources in a corresponding non-English article, then they already know whether the English one can be expanded from it or not, and the template is unnecessary for them. A monolingual English editor shouldn't be trying to expand our English article from the corresponding non-English article anyway, because they can't verify the non-English text and sources, so the template doesn't help there either. For that matter, if you don't have the language ability necessary to check the quality of text and sources in the linked article beforehand, then you shouldn't be adding a template to tell other editors that the English article can be expanded from that corresponding article, because you don't actually know if that's true.I can imagine a situation where the template could add value, namely when a competent multilingual editor has personally confirmed that the linked non-English article has useful P&G-compliant text and sources to bring over, but they think some other editor should expand the article, for whatever reason. But what I've seen, at least with Expand Japanese, is that well-meaning editors see that a Japanese Wikipedia version exists and slap that template on our article, even though the additional Japanese Wikipedia content (which they cannot read) is useless on English Wikipedia, e.g. a bunch of unsourced lists, comically unreliable sources, BLP-violating personal information, non-encyclopedic detail like the voice actress's nickname for her plant, etc etc. In those cases adding the template is less useful than doing nothing at all.So, based on your knowledge and experience, could you explain, with some real-life examples of positive situations, how editors and/or readers benefit from that template?
 * A: Unsourced and unreliably-sourced foreign-language articles are not a problem for me. WP:TMI is a problem, but I have no idea how to deal with it, since there is no consensus between language editions on what counts as an appropriate level of detail. As for whether the template actually works: I have observed that less than 1% of articles with the template actually get expanded, but I don't think that's an outlier on WP; for example, Category:Articles needing additional references has a gigantic backlog, but no one ever objects to using that template.

Optional question from Carrite
 * 28. So how did you learn Icelandic? Have you done any Icelandic-to-English translation of articles on WP?
 * A: I learned Icelandic by reading Wikipedia and watching RÚV. At this point, I am between B2 and C1 according to COEFL. My most recent translation was Byrgið; I don't do a lot of IS-to-EN, since the articles on ISWP often have low sourcing standards and too much detail. In the past (2017–2021), I did some EN-to-IS translation, but I got in trouble on ISWP for grammatical errors. While I have improved my language skills a lot since then, I haven't done any translations, since readership on ISWP (especially for non-Iceland-related topics) is very low.

Optional questions from BusterD
 * 29. Based solely on your reading of this discussion so far, just a few hours before !voting commences, how do you assess the likelihood of your passing this RfA?
 * A: I estimate my chance of passing to be around 40%.
 * 30. Is there anything else you'd like to say about the questioning or this RfA process before any !voting occurs?
 * A:

Optional question from Pahunkat
 * 31. Firstly, thank you for volunteering to serve as administrator. You've stated that you'll be paying more attention to vandals if this RfA is successful [Q4]. In what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to block a user when they have not been warned, if any?
 * A:
 * 32. Some editors have expressed concerns you are planning to work in areas that you currently have limited experience in. Do you have anything to say with regards to that (e.g. are there any steps you would take to ensure your administrative actions are correct)?
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Numberguy6:
 * Edit summary usage for Numberguy6 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) I wish you luck! You seem to have good intentions and a sufficient knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Though you might have room to improve, we all do. I support you on your editing journey (as I am just starting mine). The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 02:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Not seeing any good reasons not to support. Dedicated contributor, doesn't cause trouble, wants the tools to help out more. I appreciate the succinct, straightforward answers and do not subscribe to "they must already be good at adminning to be an admin" school of RfA. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Rhododendrites. None of the reasons for opposing (as of time of writing) cite things that can't be learned relatively straightforwardly. Banedon (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Support My review of Numberguy6's work on articles and mop work on AfC shows good judgement, except in the area of not editing enough plant articles. There should have been some translation of Icelandic forestry documents for Plantipedia. (joke) 🌿 Mt B o t a n y  (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Is already a net positive and will continue to be one. All admins learn a lot "on the job" and pretty much no candidate has fully absorbed every aspect of policy yet. I would rather have an active and eagerly learning editor become an admin than not have another admin, or promote someone into the position who thinks they already know it all (or worse, someone with demonstrable bad habits like ignoring policy when it suits them, being frequently uncivil, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, but per my general comment. For what it's worth, you seem like a good editor to me, and I hope this RfA does not discourage you. Cheers, Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 01:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Not enough experience in the areas they want to work in, knowledge of policy and guidelines is limited, communication skills aren't great (short answers are fine, vague answers are not), and seems to want to be an admin for hat collecting instead of actually understanding what being an admin means. Not yet, but I could see myself supporting Numberguy in the future once these issues are addressed. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) My apologies, but see my comments below. I recommend returning after a year being more experienced in the relevant areas.  Toadette Edit! 02:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) The candidate's honesty is refreshing, but they appear to be under several misapprehensions, including that there is admin training available, and not to have adequately familiarised themself with policies and read up on the nature of the job even after launching this RfA. Adminship is not the next step after extended confirmed, and at RfA the community determines whether a candidate can be trusted with the toolkit, not whether they're ready to read the manual. There's some learning on the job (there was a lot in my case), so I've kept an eye on the candidate's responses to questions, and was waiting for them to explain the advantage of the "Expand [language]" template (which as I see it is to alert both readers and editors that the topic merits longer coverage, and inform the latter of which version of Wikipedia can be used for ideas and sources). But they just haven't given me any reason to believe they're ready, or even have a good grasp of what the job entails. (I do however want to note that the current WP:V- and WP:BLP-violating version of Byrgið, which they mention in an answer, is not their translation from March last year but someone else's poor and footnote-omitting expansion.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Insufficient need for the tools. No prior experience in the areas they said they'd work on in Q25. And I'm sorry to do this, because CfD desperately needs more admins (it currently has a bus factor per the rare alternate definition of between 2 and 3 as I learned the hard way when I took a break from admining there for a while), but I have no reason to trust Numberguy6 to admin in any of those areas. * Pppery * it has begun...  02:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) I see an editor with good intentions. Suntooooth sums up what my thinking is as well. I can see myself supporting in future, too, but more background work in those areas that you want to work in as an admin is needed.  Schwede 66  02:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Per all above. I'm not seeing a need for the tools. The answers to questions above are vague, and I feel like the candidate has no idea what areas of adminship they'll be active in. I, like others above, am willing to support the candidate in the future when they have more experience in administrative areas, but not now, sorry.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) No experience in any of the areas they plan to operate in, and answers demonstrate numerous misunderstanding or lack of understanding of policies governing the use of admin tools. We all learn on the job, but nothing prevents someone from reading guidelines ahead of time and becoming familiar with the processes. The complete lack of involvement in any of the proto-admin areas a user can involve themselves in is a large red flag for me. No AIV, no RFPP, no UAA, little AFD, no CFD/MFD... and yet they state they will work in these spaces. The user appears to want admin for no other reason than "well, that's what I get next, right?" -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 9) Per above. FunIsOptional (talk) (use ping please) 02:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 10) Per above, as the above comments state, the answers to the questions seems a bit vague. Q25 was concerning. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 11) I found the answer to Q21 to be off putting. The answer seemed to suggest that the candidate is not interested in improving how they communicate with other editors and will not be responsive to questions left on their talk page.  An admin must be willining to respond to questions and have the communication skills to do so tactfully. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 12) The candidate seems a valuable member of the Wikipedia community and to have good intentions, but a lack of detail and vagueness in answers concerns me and there's little to no activity in areas of interest to judge how well they understand them. I'd like to hear another RfA in future though, once there's a track record in those areas and ideally with more detail in communication too.  Shaws username  .  talk  . 02:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 13) You are a good editor, and I can support you after you gain more experience in AIV, counter-vandalism, AfDs, and other areas recommended to you by others. Currently, you lack the experience generally required for admins to be trusted. What concerns me is Q21, where you said you will not improve your communication. I would not support an admin who will not give detailed answers to my queries. I hope you don’t feel discouraged because of this RFA; take this as advice to address the issues and come back. I look forward to supporting you in the future.  Grab Up  -  Talk  02:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 14) A candidate who doesn't appear to understand fully what adminship entails and cannot adequately articulate why they need the tools, is a non-starter for me. The fact that they're ineffective at communicating with a sufficient amount of detail is likewise a dealbreaker.  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 15) Per my comment in the comments section.  Steel1943  (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 16) Sorry; candidate seems a very good editor but some of their answers leave me with serious concerns about adminship. #8 seems to show they don't understand what adminship entails; #10-11 indicates they intend to handle closing AfDs without any experience in AfD participation; #13 is perhaps just expressed poorly but it seems to say that edit warring is ok as long as you don't use admin tools; #19 and #23 show they don't know some very basics about antivandalism processes and makes me wonder what else they don't know; and #21 raises concerns about whether they can or will communicate well enough. They may be an acceptable candidate after gaining much more experience in the relevant areas. CodeTalker (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 17) Due to vague answers to questions, I'm not completely satisfied with Numberguy6's knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and their reasons to becoming an admin. I am more than happy to support their RfA in the future, once this is addressed. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 18) In addition to the issues mentioned by others, I find that the answers to questions 7, 9, and 27 suggest an indifference to source quality not in line with policy/guidelines. signed,Rosguill talk 03:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Except 7 has nothing do with source quality at all; and 9 shows the candidate directly responding to sourcing concerns by changing their script to account for sourcing level not just article size. Even 27 can be interpreted multiple ways; I think what the candidate meant is that there's no problem ignoring an off-ENWP article that is longer but poorly sourced, while dealing with one that is properly sourced but much longer for "TMI" reasons, by ENWP standards, is a harder nut to crack (e.g. because whether some material should be imported with its sources from there to here is more of a judgement call about things like ENWP's WP:NOT).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Suntooooth and Shaws Username.  Sdkb  talk 04:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – the candidate's answers do not suggest he has either the experience or the communication skills needed to be an effective administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Every request for admin requires a judgement call based on experience. Like many others above, I'm not satisfied by the short answers. A more thoughtful discourse will help me (and others) discover what you think, what you will do, how you will handle troublesome situations and their troublesome editors. I think you need a few more excursions within the wonderful world of Wikipedia before you enter the inner sanctum of Adminship. Buster Seven   Talk  (UTC) 04:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Not seeing anything resembling competence in even the administrative areas they plan to work in, let alone P&Gs in general. Way TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) I largely have to agree with Suntooooth above, and the answers to many of the questions, particularly Q4 and Q13 are of concern. - Aoidh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) While I'm always happy to see new candidates for adminship, and I don't believe the "need for the tools" framework is necessarily the best way to put it (after all, Wikipedia needs admins, not the other way around), I don't think Numberguy6 is fully prepared yet. I'm not talking about knowing the details of how each admin task works – you don't have to be ready to jump into everything at once! – but more about the mindset. Communication, carefulness, and readiness to improve are three important qualities for adminship, and I don't believe Numberguy6 is in that mindset yet. Remember, you don't need to have the biggest tool to be able to help in, say, AfD or anti-vandalism, and you can definitely (whether as admin or not) gain experience by contributing before jumping directly to blocks or closes. I believe this mindset is the main obstacle, and a willingness to be careful and humble when entering areas you're not familiar with would bring your candidacy a long way.  Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) agreed with Chaotic Enby. i don't think Numberguy6 would be a bad admin per se, but i worry about a lack of communication and seemingly not knowing why they want the mop in the first place. i also disagree with the premise that adminship is merely a logical step up from Extended Confirmed. i'm just not convinced that this nomination was well-thought-out. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  03:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

General comments

 * Numberguy6: could you expand on your answers to the three questions? As far as I can see, you haven't stated what you would do if you become an administrator. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Experienced, no skeletons in the closet as far as I can see. Sure, there's no "need" for the tools, but do I care? Not really. Maybe you could argue that they haven't shown the appropriate familiarity with the most up-to-date guidelines, but do they need to? If they don't, that's what the new desysop process is for. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this after a day and a half; this reminds me somewhat of a previous RfA. Then again, as I repeat, we didn't have a recall process in development. We have an established culture here that many rail against: if you want lower standards, lower your standards. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a listing somewhere of the articles you've written, Numberguy6? I went through some of your contributions in search of articles you'd written that were beyond start-class and came up empty-handed. It would be helpful for us to assess your contributions if we could see the articles you consider your best work (like, 5 or fewer specific articles, with links). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, articles that Numberguy6 has created. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While article creation isn't something I care about much personally, it's worth noting for those who do care that only three articles they've created are above Start-class (two C-class, one B-class). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 05:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would not take the "start" and "stub" assessments seriously, myself. As a random example 2022 Nevada Assembly election was one of those "stub class" articles until a little before I wrote this comment. I have found that unless I specifically seek it out or change it myself my article assessments never get updated after the move to the mainspace. As a serious content creator I don't regard assessments as important. Usually, I'd rather move on to working on the next thing that needs fixing instead of assigning arbitrary ratings that are not useful. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I reviewed about 20 of the "Plug-in electrical vehicles in %place" articles and found only one that could be considered more than a start. I actually agree that assessments below GA don't really matter, the point I'm trying to get at is I'm struggling to find any evidence the nominee has written any articles of serious length (let alone GA/FA). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Numberguy6 is not a content writer. The page edited most often according to their top edits page on wmcloud is COVID-19 pandemic in California with 774 edits most of which were to the "Statistics and data" section on the page. Lots of little adding in daily statistical numbers. Adding more sources. Fixing citations, etc. And that's fairly representative of much of Numberguy6's work on other pages. Though the clean up and checking of sources on 2024 United States presidential election is solid work on verifiability (and 5.29% of the total edits). If this were a nomination for best content writer, mainly doing this kind of work would be a serious problem. This is about admin work. Looking at their page creations one of the biggest categories is user talk pages. Lots and lots of them. 1345 to be exact. Mostly declines of page creations for various problems. Looks like they're been steadily working on one of the behind the scenes mop tasks and while I would like to see more handling of vandalism, they seem like a steady user who knows Wikipedia very well. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in becoming an administrator. Be aware that your lack of nominator and your short answers to questions is an unorthodox way to do RFA, and may create apprehension among some community members. Especially the short answers thing. That may raise some concerns about communication style, effort, and evasiveness. But hey, with the recent RFA reforms, we're also in a time of RFA experimentation, so maybe short answers aren't a big deal anymore. Guess we'll see soon. Good luck. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As Novem Linguae said above, the very short answers to questions worry me a bit. Good communication skills are something I look for in prospective admins, and very short, undescriptive answers don't give me much faith in their ability to communicate. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 05:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not only the terseness but also the answers' lack of depth. "To clear admin backlogs" and opacity over what template was imtended is really rather vague.  ——Serial Number 54129  09:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep - ironically, that was what I was trying to communicate in my comment, and didn't quite get there :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this. I may not really be active on Wikipedia as an editor (mostly because it is extremely daunting), but individuals in power, no matter how far they may reach, should first and foremost be or learn to be good communicators, and I have a vested interest in people helping me learn things not feeling stressed out by their higher-ups. I appreciate that this is all voluntary and we have other stuff to do in our lives, and answering never-ending questions from an infinite number of people may not be very thrilling, but the level of non-chalance and casual off-handedness about questions which seem fair and interesting worries me, as well. --Konanen (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very neat to see your use of Python in creating these bots for use in the Templates. I'm wondering if there are other scripts that you use for Wiki editing. Personally, I don't mind the short quick answers. However, it matters more when communicating with another user when it comes to conflict. Conyo14 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend asking a question up in the appropriate section if you want an answer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, my wondering is just rhetorical :) Conyo14 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly concerned by Q1, but I largely concur with Airship here. Depends on how they respond to Q8, I guess. Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 06:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * More in line with GrabUp and Toadspike now Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 16:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The lack of experience in Wikipedia's administrative areas and projectspace is an issue. Numberguy6 has over 40,000 edits, but the majority of them just change a few bytes; these are valuable, but they don't give us much to demonstrate an understanding of content policies or editing practices. His combined edits to projectspace and project talkspace only come out to about 800, and he hardly ever uses edit summaries, which is a key indicator of understanding Wikipedia's culture and processes. He cites NPP experience, but he only had access to NPP for 30 days back in 2022. Numberguy6 is a good editor and clearly valuable to Wikipedia, and I think he could be a good admin candidate if he gets involved in some of these areas for a while. But at this moment I'm not convinced that he's spent enough time learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia's behind the scenes areas, especially those where administrators are most commonly active. As indicated by the answer to question one, this RfA seems to exist simply because it's something that editors with high edit counts are supposed to do. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 06:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My most major concern is that there is nothing the user even needs admin tools for. I look to see if there's something the user has already been doing that can be made easier if they are an admin, but in this case there doesn't appear to be something that can't be done in a normal editing capacity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i'm not at all concerned with a "need for tools" as, well, no one really needs them, but we do really need more admins. however, i concur with above comments that a little more is to be desired from the candidate's answers to the questions. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  08:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the follow-up response to Q4 doesn't give me confidence: Once I have the authority to block people, I will pay more attention to this area. this isn't really the attitude i'd like to see in an admin, and the link to UWS is irrelevant. ferret says it best right below. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  15:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding this. Most anti-vandalism work can be done without blocking, with a revert and warn being enough. Even in more egregious cases, it would be more careful for you to start with making AIV reports (even if you have the technical ability to block as an admin) and see how they are processed, in order to familiarize yourself with the nuances of when to block or not to block. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The answer to Q10, that you're too busy and have better things to do than participate at AFD, and the answer to Q12 as well as Q1, Q4, seem contradictory. You don't seem to really know what you want to do as an admin, and at least one area admins work, you've described yourself as too busy to deal with. When someone wants to work CFD, CSD, AFD, AIV, RFPP, the first thing I go and look for is that they have been active in those areas already and can demonstrate that they know the guidelines and policies. However, there doesn't appear to be much if any work done in these spaces for me to judge. The link to UWS in regards to "Once I can block people, I'll work vandalism" is weird: This is a Wikiproject for improving the text of warnings. It isn't a policy or guideline on how to handle patrolling, warnings, or blocking. I also have concerns with your editing in general: There's a lot of edits, but the vast majority are very fast and clearly semi-automated adjustment to Expand language templates, which your talk page currently has 3-4 recent complaints about. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The awnser to Q10 sounds like a good reason why someone might not want to be an admin, but on the other hand it also pretty reasonable that not all admins do admining in all areas. The awnser to Q11 I'm disapointed by because there doesn't really seem to be any attempt to reconcile the two awnsers, I'm wondering if Numberguy6 sees the apparent contradiction there. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that he does not have good experience with AfD and still wants to close them, has not done any counter-vandalism work and still wants to block users. He should gain more experience in these areas before becoming an admin. There are many editors with twice as many edits who are still not admins. Grab Up  -  Talk  16:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Competent, experienced, doesn't seem like a jerk, is able to string a sentence together. My one concern is that there is very little AfD participation, and not much antivandal work, and they say they will close AfDs and block vandals. I hope they will gain experience in those areas before diving in. Short answers to questions are a tad concerning, but hey, it's their first RfA. But the need for tools is not clear. I like self-noms, but I'm not crazy about the slightly self-congralutary tone set by counting up thanks and barnstars. Cremastra (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your answers to the questions are the vaguest I have ever seen on an RFA. "I am very active on Wikipedia, and I already have a very large amount of editing experience." Really, that's it? Why don't you clarify further? What are your motives? Why does it seems like you don't really know what you're going to do when you become an admin? Your communication feels very evasive for me. Mox Eden  (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your answer to Q8 is the most concerning for me.
 * "I think it is merely a logical step up from Extended Confirmed. If I am qualified for the permissions, then I can receive the permissions; there's no cap on the number of admins."
 * Just "a logical step up from Extended Confirmed"?! Alright, that just sounds like hat collecting for me... Mox Eden  (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I hadn't previously seen WP:HATCOLLECT before, but I think it perfectly describes this candidate at the moment. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 04:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed as to the conclusion, the answer really had me do a double-take. --Konanen (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I probably will not leave a formal !vote in this RFA. I do recommend that the candidate revise their answer to Q1. I am very active on Wikipedia, and I already have a very large amount of editing experience. is a statement that applies to a lot of people in WP:WBE. Perhaps it would be better to ask: Why should someone !vote for you in particular? As admin, what could you provide that other admins cannot, and/or how could you help alleviate existing admins' workload? I'm not really concerned about the need for tools, but other !voters do take "need for the tools" into consideration at an RFA. Epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I kind of echo what others have said so far: Answers to the questions are vague, the candidate doesn't seem to have enough experience in actual administrative areas to explain why they need the toolset, and ... I'm not confident they have the mindset to perform administrative tasks due to lack of a track record in such places. I'm not trying to discourage the candidate here, but I'm about to be blunt: Such a nomination, in the past prior to the waiting period, would usually be a WP:SNOW close due to WP:NOTYET. If this is what the candidate wants to do, I'd recommend getting some more exposure in various WP:XFD boards or WP:RM, or just really any other place where an editor can help out by reporting problems that are addressed (such as WP:AIV, WP:SPI, WP:RFPP, etc.), and then try again afterwards. (Not setting a timeframe since I'm not sure how long that could take.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Steel1943 Most such RFAs would be withdrawn by the candidate. I don’t think a NOTYET close would ever be appropriate by a third party for someone with 40k+ edits Mach61 20:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTYET has nothing to do with edit counts; it's about the candidate's understanding of policies as outlined in literally the second paragraph of the page which WP:NOTYET redirects to. As an analogy, an editor could have 2,000,000 edits with 99.99% of their edits being automated edits to change and/or update a category on a page; in a case like this, since this hypothetical editor has no experience anywhere else, WP:NOTYET could apply to them as well. Steel1943  (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the answer to my question (12). I suppose I am concerned about lack of relevant experience; I checked the CFD archive and found only three comments from Numberguy6 and none in RFD. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Just a procedural question about the new RfAs, will we receive a reminder to vote when voting opens? Numberguy6 is excused from answering this one :) SportingFlyer  T · C  07:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We probably should update the watchlist notice to say something like "A request for adminship is now open for voting". MassMessage is another option but it won't reach those who have opted out. Liu1126 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Problem is you can just click dismiss so easily, then you forget. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could users who dismiss the initial RfA notice receive a new notice once voting opens? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Replying to whole thread, not picking on Lepricavark: come on, people, you don’t need your hands held. It’s on your watchlist for gods sake. Take responsibility for remembering to vote. If you don’t remember, you don’t vote. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would appreciate the additional advertising. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don′t know that I share that sentiment: life is pretty busy, and some of us have “spicy” brains. Reminders and notifications are useful tools, even for adults who take and have responsibilities. :) Konanen (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Floq, I don't see any reason to be grumpy about these requests, and I say that as a perpetually grumpy person myself. A second watchlist notice when voting begins is not going to hurt anyone or anything. Granted, it likely won't matter for this RfA, but down the road it would be helpful to get broader participation for the sake of evaluating this trial run more fully. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Watchlist messages are controlled via MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages. I agree that updating the message when voting opens is useful. When a message is updated, the cookie ID is incremented and that will make the message display for those who have dismissed the previous message.  Schwede 66  17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm finding myself tempted to write a screed here, explaining my position in great detail. While that would make me a True Wikipedian, that won't do anyone any good. Suffice it to say that clogging up watchlist notices is so self-evidently ridiculous to me, that I will drop out of this lest I get sucked down a rabbit hole.  I'll go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages and try to argue for reasonableness there. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Are we allowed to demand pictures when people say they have pets? Polygnotus (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this related to the RFA? Mox Eden  (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not. I just want to know. Polygnotus (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * asking nicely is one thing, demanding is quite another. Turini2 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cat tax evasion is both immoral and illegal. Polygnotus (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The toxic culture of RfA has gone too far; now we're asking our poor editors for collateral? And to use his innocent pets too. :CryingEmoji::CryingEmoji: Template:LunaEatsTunaSig  (talk), posted at 16:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose candidate didn't share pet pictures Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 17:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's because we can't ask whether whether he has stopped kicking his cat yet :)    ——Serial Number 54129  17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why has no one created WP:CATTAX yet? Polygnotus (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke or are you dead serious on cat pics? 'Cause this really isn't relevant to the candidate's qualification as an admin. Mox Eden  (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cat tax is furry serious business. Polygnotus (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So the joke is that you're being dead serious? Gotcha, I totally understand./s Mox Eden  (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably an excellent candidate but the brief (bordering on flippant) answers prevent people from seeing the real you and also make it look like there might be a communication weakness. Suggest keeping that in mind in the answers to the RFA questions. I also applaud the self-nom. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm a minority, but I appreciate not having to read a dissertation to every answer. "Omit needless words" is a good dictum, the answers are short but eminently responsive to the questions. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Kind of agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights here. Some of the answers are certainly too short, but overall communication isn't a problem for me. Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No big concerns except one: the user has not said anything specific on what they will work if they were to be an admin; this may attract oppose !votes. I have nothing to say about the candidate, just saying... Toadette Edit! 18:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hold on. In Q20, they confirmed that they read most instruction. But what I am really concerned is lack of experience in the areas in question. XfDs and RMs (and some debates) are pretty contentious, where some closures (except obvious cases) can sometimes spark controversy, and bad closures could results in unforseen consequences. Other, often backlogged venues like copyrights require high knowledge of policies. It is odd for an editor to request adminship a month after they were given an advanced right, and it is uncommon for a new admin to participate in new areas which they did not participate even once (WP:CFD and WP:RFD from Q25). This, with lack of experience in other venues whose instructions have been read by the candidate, will be the reason for (strong) oppose !votes. Toadette Edit! 06:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I could not add more, but their reply to Q24 is a concern. Why would the candidate block VOAs for a whold day and indefinitely block ips in the second offence. Generally blocks and protection should not be applied all at once if it is dealt on a single page. I believe that the candidate is not ready enough for the mop provided the concerns provided above. Toadette Edit! 07:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Shaws username Hi, while the change was only a small copyediting, it's usually better to not edit your questions after the candidate replied to them. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going with putting it to how it was intended but in hindshight I can see how that might not be best since their answer presumably included the change they made. I'll switch it back for posterity. Shaws username  .  talk  . 20:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't realize they edited your question before. My apologies, it didn't even occur to me that they could've been doing that. Honestly, at this point, feel free to keep it however you want. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's all good, probably exactly what I'd have thought too. Shaws username  .  talk  . 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, the edits in question: Shaws username added questions Q18 and Q19, Numberguy6 answered Q19 while copy-editing the question, Shaws username restored original wording of Q19 and self-reverted to Numberguy6's version. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We've now had 24 questions in less than 24 hours, which is almost twice as many questions as I got in a full week. I realize there's not much else to do during this period, but hopefully this many questions doesn't become the new norm—it can be quite a burden (at least on less succinct candidates). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * if the answers were more detailed, perhaps they wouldn't beg further questions. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That and the answers that are being posted are.... a little alarming. If I'm being completely honest, my questions are aimed at getting the candidate to realize they are in way over their head. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression from a number of these questions is that editors are seeking elaboration on what has been generally vague responses to the statutory questions and the additional optional ones. Even then, responses to follow-ups seem to be lacking in any tangible detail. The sense of evasiveness in offering meaningful answers is probably the main reason for the higher-than-typical optional questions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, my questions 17 and 16 were, respectively, stemming from the replies to question 4 and its follow-up. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Extraordinary is right, though. We probably will see an increase in average questions, owing to people wanting to participate and this now being the most meaningful way to do so, even if it won't usually be so dramatic. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The lack of detail may be interpreted by some as being concise, but I don't think such brevity or self contradiction is desirable if the editor finds themself in an administrative dispute, or needing to explain a perceived contentious action. The community needs to feel confident a candidate at least understands the responsibility afforded to those successful at rfa, but the responses aren't reassuring me. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the volume of questions might be so high because voting hasn't begun—yet another reason to abandon the 2 day waiting period. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The optional questions are optional – I really appreciate that Numberguy6 has answered all the questions, but future candidates need not do so. Toadspike   [Talk]  13:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the high number of questions has far more to do with the answers to the questions than with the discussion period. This candidate would have received the same number of questions under the old system. Levivich (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You may be right that it’s a function of this format, but I think it’s hard to gauge from this example; not just brief answers but also no nominations and very little discussion on their personal talk page. Will maybe be more noteworthy if the same thing happens to candidates for whom there’s more context available. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I, as a matter of fact, do not have a problem with the short answers. A question is asked, an answer is provided, and the answer provided concisely answers the question asked—what more could we ask for? Lengthy responses would have made following this RfA's Q&A segment akin to sifting through a "dissertation", as User:The Blade of the Northern Lights aptly put it above. Most of the questions are even straight-to-the-point questions, they are questions that require simple answers and for an answer to be simple it has to be concise. However, I must admit that a few responses could have been more elaborated. My main concern is with Numberguy6's intentions to close AfD discussions and block vandals without adequate experience in these areas. Nothing much so far. Also, as of my writing, there were already 24 optional questions in this RfA which is a bit overwhelming as far as I have seen.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying to my Q10 and Q11. As you said, you have better things to do, but is this really a good excuse not to participate in AfDs? Your reply to Q11 is a bit more concerning, as it suggests you plan to close AfDs where you have no experience. Also, I want to remind you that to counter vandalism, you don't need to be an admin. Everyone, including rollbackers, can use tools like AntiVandal or Huggle to counter vandalism. I really don't see a meaningful answer to why you want to be an admin. Grab Up  -  Talk  05:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask a question but don't want to add to the answering workload, so just commenting here. In Q8, SchroCat tries to dig more into why the mop is wanted, and the answer is "If I am qualified for the permissions, then I can receive the permissions", which still doesn't answer the question. They also gave a similar (non-)reason ("I believe that I fulfill all of the guidelines") when applying for NPP here (and for autopatrol here, although I'm not too concerned about that). This, combined with the vague and impassive answers here, comes across to me as 'levelling-up' or hat-collecting for the sake of it. I hope that feel changes before !voting begins, because as it stands, I would probably struggle to support this. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This essentially summarises my own thoughts at this moment, with a feeling of "if I can get it, I may as well", without confidence that they truly understand what they are asking for. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't even grant a request for rollback at this point. They clearly haven't taken the time to be even vaguely familiar with what the community expects to see in an admin candidate. No new admin knows everything, I certainly did not, and we shouldn't expect that, but "I'll figure out how to deal with vandals once I have the authority to do so" is just such a bad take I can't imagine the community will look past it just because they have a decent number of edits. That's not how this is supposed to work. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He has not done any counter-vandalism work and is promising to start only after becoming an admin, which clearly shows he has no experience in this area. There are many pending requests for Rollbacker rights at the Rollbackers PERM. At the start of the PERM, it is clearly stated that you must spend one month working on RECENT Changes to demonstrate your counter-vandalism efforts. After a month of hard work, some applicants get permanent rights while others are rejected. Additionally, many Rollbackers are given a three-month trial period (I am one of them), after which an admin reviews their counter-vandalism work and decides their future based on their past performance. Yet, he claims he will start doing counter-vandalism only after becoming an admin. Interesting. Grab Up  -  Talk  16:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's pretty much my point. We don't accept this sort of request for the lowest-level permissions we have, we generally expect applicants to show they have experience in the area relevant to the user rights they are applying before they apply for them, not after. The answer to Q8 is also a complete dealbreaker for me on its own. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I really, really want to agree with AirshipJungleman. We need more admins. Numberguy6 seems fairly qualified. But the answers to questions are sadly lacking. Concise, even terse, responses are OK, but these often fail to answer the question, and at times the brevity verges on comical. My biggest general concern is that Numberguy6 seems to believe they can learn everything after becoming an admin, and have no obligation to do anything to prepare for that before becoming an admin (except read some policy and backlog pages). Learning on the job is great, but that's not an excuse to avoid entire admin areas before becoming one. Toadspike   [Talk]  13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I for one, plan to support this RfA when voting opens. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is that? BoldGnome (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned by the answer to question 21. Good communication is vital from an admin. Neiltonks (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the time I would always agree that we need more admins and the bar to be admin should be easy - but it seems like it is not so for the candidate. My greatest concern is that the candidate seems to think that "being admin" is just the next step for Extended Confirmed, and that is very wrong. The second concern is that the candidate didn't understand vandalism fighting. Anti-vandalism work by the bot and the volunteers using Twinkle or other tools is one of the most important things in Wikipedia, and it's quite clear that you didn't need "authority to block" to do that. I have concerns that the candidate will immediately jump to blocks using their authority while reverting/warning would be enough. The third concern is that the candidate claimed experience in the new page review, while they only held the permission for only one month. The answers to the questions aren't complete enough. For instance, for Q24 the candidate should clarify that blocks will only happen if IP editors violate the final warning. Q15 is the same as well, admins shouldn't just do vandalism hunting but try to see if any pattern emerged from the vandalism. Are there any meat puppets? Should CU be involved? And so on. My final concern is Q21, the candidate seems to show refusal to learn and be more detailed. The editor seems to be very experienced at bot creation, and I appreciate him for that though. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   16:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything you said. While I also believe we need more admins and I think adminship is not a big deal, it's not a "logical step up from extended confirmed" (and extended confirmed itself is supposed to be a protection against vandalism). Despite all that, I can't say that I'd outright oppose this candidate. Who knows, they could be a good admin. But we have no way to check this, as they don't have enough experience and they're not particularly communicative. IMO, you don't necessarily need to be verbose while answering questions. It's great that the candidate's answers are concise, but it's not good that some of them are vague, forcing people to ask follow-up questions. Admitting they have this problem in Q21 is good, admitting defeat is not. You can do better. We are learning throughout our life, so it's never too late to improve. Whenever you reply to something, re-read your response, try to put yourself in the shoes of whoever is asking you questions and see if you actually answer them.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 19:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your answer to Q26 shows that you have no experience with AfD at all and is very concerning. How can you mark the AfD as no consensus or de facto keep the article if the subject fails to meet significant coverage? Person B is blindly stating that the article should be kept without any policy justification. You should delete the article as there is no in-depth coverage, as Person B also acknowledges, or at least relist the AfD so that someone else can come and cast their vote. Grab Up  -  Talk  17:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've seen on AfD, WP:NOTDATABASE is a strong policy-based argument and it's a reason why IMdB is not considered significant coverage, so a no-consensus close here would be rather peculiar. Conyo14 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDATABASE is not a policy-based argument for deletion unless the article itself is equivalent to a database entry (otherwise we would have to exclude every article sourced to something that Wikipedia is not -- which, oops, would be every article sourced to a reliable source, since Wikipedia is not that either). There are ample reasons for excluding IMDB (most importantly as UGC). The statement in footnote 1 of WP:N that databases "may" not support notability (even if reliable) is a separate issue. IMO the candidate's answer to the question was absolutely correct -- in the situation as described, there is plainly no consensus, both parties have raised reasonable policy-based arguments, and the closer should avoid supervoting. -- Visviva (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a policy. Frankly, I agree with person B: person A is just blindly quoting policy even when in this case it is clear it would be better to keep the article, since it is informative; person B is being pragmatic, and instead of quoting policy asking: what is better for readers? But Numberguy6 was supposed to answer the question, not me, and they did. And their answer was, in my opinion, a reasonable, satisfactory compromise. Cremastra (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cremastra: So everyone should use that policy and save articles even they don’t meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV? Grab Up  -  Talk  18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, obviously some articles are unnotable; one-sentence stubs serve no-one, but I think it's important to apply a bit of pragmatism in deletion: if there's enough reliably-sourced information out there to write a well-sourced, cohesive article that's more than a list or a few sentences, then deleting it would be a disservice to the project. That's what WP:IAR means. Cremastra (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you will support an article that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV because it is well written, there are some sources available, and it will provide information to readers. However, I want to clarify that many articles are deleted every day even though they have information to share with readers because they don’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Keeping an article like this can set a precedent, and everyone will start to use this argument even if their article lacks substance. They will claim it is good for readers and improves Wikipedia. If these types of articles are kept, then why do we have rules like GNG, NPOL, and SIGCOV? Should we remove these rules? Grab Up  -  Talk  18:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You said, “then deleting it would be a disservice to the project.” In that case, draftifying is a favorable option. At the very least, he should relist the AfD for more votes and opinions. He should not close the AfD during such a contentious time. For example, in a running AfD, there are sources available, but they are promotional and don’t meet SIGCOV, GNG. On its talk page, a user is saying it should not be deleted because she is a good actress. Should you also support them?  Grab Up  -  Talk  19:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blindly quoting IAR is not any better than blindly quoting other policies, and can often end up as some variation of WP:ILIKEIT. Also, guessing "the spirit" of a policy (when it goes against its actual wording) can be highly subjective, especially since editors who worked on establishing this policy might not even all have had the same spirit in mind. In the case of this specific example, even if there are several databases each giving different facts about the subject, the lack of in-depth sources placing these individual facts in context means that the article likely fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 19:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well yes, ultimately any determination of what does and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia is going to involve difficult, subjective value judgments that can always be satirized as ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT, which is why that's never a very substantive rejoinder (and certainly should not be used to justify a supervote by the closer). -- Visviva (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point indeed, and it's true that this level of analysis of arguments might be too close to a supervote. Honestly, if it was me, I'd have relisted and left someone more experienced to deal with the close if there still was no participation, but I'm not really interested in closing XfDs to begin with. Either way, that thought experiment was a good learning experience! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 02:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Numberguy6 has said they'd work at CfD. As someone who (semi) regularly closes discussions at CfD, more help is always appreciated, and the lack of experience there doesn't particularly concern me. We all have to start somewhere, after all. — Qwerfjkl  talk  00:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If Qwerfjkl sees no problems regarding CfD, there are no problems regarding CfD. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 00:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No offense to Orson Krennic, but "you have to start somewhere" doesn't mean you should start by getting the biggest weapon first. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I occasionally close CfD (although far less than Qwerfjkl & HB), and I agree with Chaotic here. Yes, CfD always needs more people, but we don't need people diving in head-first with a mop, they should gain experience with the system by !voting in/closing and listing CfDs beforehand. Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even Tarkin started small. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Chaotic Enby, Queen of Hearts, if it seemed like the candidate wouldn't listen when they made a mistake then sure, it'd be worrying. But really, all that's needed is a willingness to help - and a willingness to learn. I just think assuming someone's going to mess up is not a great way to encourage people to help out. —  Qwerfjkl  talk  04:52, 27 May 2024 (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. __ARCHIVEDTALK__