#'''Support''' for content and anti-vandalism work. They'll make good use of the tools. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 14:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' for content and anti-vandalism work. They'll make good use of the tools. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 14:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' checked content and logs - had a clue look fine. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 14:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' checked content and logs - had a clue look fine. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 14:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk·contribs) – Pickersgill-Cunliffe is a real titan of an editor and one I am confident will be an essential admin. Pickersgill has demonstrated competency in several fields including anti-vandalism, new page patrolling, and copyright cleanup. Pickersgill has nearly 200 accurate UAA reports and several uncontested AIV reports and NPP reviews; his edit summaries are full of crossed out names and red links. Outside of this quicker maintenance work, Pickersgill has valued work at Contributor Copyright Investigations, having used his subject matter knowledge to help close a massive decade long investigation. Of course, there’s another side to Pickersgill; he has an army, better yet a literal navy’s worth of reviewed content, with 74 good articles and four featured articles, plus a few A-class articles from the Military History Wikiproject. I mean, it’s overwhelming to pick stuff out, but I think HMS Beaulieu, an article Pickersgill created, is one of my favorites. Pickersgill doesn’t rubber stamp either; see his contributions to Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022. Outside of all the big numbers, Pickersgill still stands strong; he’s been elected a coordinator for the MILHIST wikiproject, and can be seen helping out editors new and old at his talk page and projectspace. Pickersgill has already demonstrated the desired levels of trust, and I’m confident he will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination statement
I'm honoured to be able to co-nominate Pickersgill-Cunliffe for adminship. Pickersgill has been consistently editing for a bit over 3 years now, and in that time, they've put in a lot of work. They've authored over 100 articles, helped to promote 70+ articles to good article status, 4 articles to featured article status, and have worked as a military history project coordinator since October of 2022, always showing a clear commitment to high quality encyclopedic content. They don't stop there though. They regularly CSD tag pages where appropriate and make reports at UAA and AIV, all of which I've consistently acted on when I've been the processing administrator.
Pickersgill is clearly a knowledgeable individual, but what I appreciate most is their ability to recognize their own limitations and approach new areas with caution. I saw this first hand when they began participating at NPP and asked insightful questions that demonstrated a solid understanding, as opposed to simple memorization, of policy as well as the processes and goals that we have.
It's clear, at least to me, that Pickersgill is the exact type of level-headed, humble, knowledgeable, and reasonable candidate that we should want to recruit to the admin corps. I strongly believe they would be a net positive as an administrator, and I hope you will all join me in supporting them. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination statement
Pickersgill-Cunliffe has been an excellent content created in the military history topic area for several years, and they have been a project coordinator for the WP:MILHIST project as well. Some of their fine content work includes Wolfe-class ship of the line and Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). In addition to this content and content management work, they have worked with UAA, CSD, and anti-vandalism work. They also have the time and willingness to provide guidance to newer editors on their user talk page. Wikipedia will be a better place with Pickersgill as an administrator - they are the rare editor who has shown a marked ability for content work, guidance of new editors, and skill at the behind-the-scenes processes that keep Wikipedia running. Hog FarmTalk 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited with any other accounts or as an IP beforehand. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I have been editing Wikipedia for just over three years now. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here, whether that be in content creation, WikiProject coordination, or anti-vandalism. I would like to give back to the community by serving as an admin, looking to enhance my impact in areas I already assist in such as AIV, UAA, and CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am first and foremost a content editor on Wikipedia, and I think my work reflects this. Of my four FAs I am most proud of Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732). This was an enjoyable and rewarding article to write, exploring a man with a very interesting life but little presence on the modern internet. I am also proud of my work as a coordinator for WikiProject Military History, helping to nurture a community of helpful and collaborative Wikipedians producing some excellent content.
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: I try to be calm and friendly in conflicts on Wikipedia. Disagreement does not have to mean dispute, and keeping a discussion civil in the face of diverging opinions is an important factor in making progress. When it comes to stress, it is good to remember that this is the internet. Responding or involving oneself in situations while stressed will always result in subpar work, and the best course of action is to disengage until one is in a better frame of mind to return. Inflaming the situation in the heat of the moment is never constructive. That said, I believe myself to be a rather even keeled person and do not easily become stressed.
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.
5. How would you respond if two or more editors do not appear to be keeping calm and civil during a discussion, someone else has already suggested stepping away and sleeping on it, but that advice has not been heeded?
A: Incivility by itself is not something to go straight in at the high end of sanctions for, we don't want cool-down blocks; initially work should be done to identify why there is incivility and what the dispute is, looking to mediate and solve the issue at hand as a third party. The users in question should also be warned about their conduct and have their uncivil comments highlighted to make them realise their error. If the dispute has increased from disgruntlement to personal attacks or more widespread disruption then this is the stage at which blocks may have to come into play, although I stress that working with the people involved in the discussion should always be the first point of call. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: There are certain areas that I have little or no experience in. These include SPI and AE. Just because someone gains the user right doesn't mean they also become an expert! I wouldn't jump into any area that I am currently unfamiliar with because that's likely to hinder more than assist. When it comes to learning about these areas there are obviously a myriad of instruction pages on Wikipedia. Reading them carefully and understanding them is very important, but I also believe there's never harm in asking questions and requesting help. Shadowing and learning from the many admins who do have the required experience would be key. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. How do you feel about the processes for dealing with editors who are accused of infractions while working on the project?
A: Wikipedia has a wide range of places to go to report and deal with malefactors, and I believe these generally work well, whether it be ANI, SPI, COI, or something else. It is usually clear where one needs to go to deal with various issues, allowing problems to be sorted and actioned accordingly without it being a big free-for-all of issues. The biggest success of Wikipedia's processes, and generally the whole site, is the transparency. Unless we're talking about the most sensitive of topics then all reports and discussions relating to them will be out in the open and available for anyone to contribute to. Whether they be useful contributions or not, in a site that prides itself on being run by the community it is important that reports and allegations are obvious, open to all, and fair. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would you change anything about these processes?
A: I noted above that I believe the various processes to be quite well-sorted. ANI is probably the most general forum for reports, and I might therefore say that it is the most confusing to look through. Splitting it out into more categorised forums for discussion might alleviate this, but it might also exacerbate it. It is a central forum that administrators can check and action urgent reports from, and it would take more than the musings of one editor in an RfA to improve it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Do you have at least a basic regex or technical skill for writing edit filters if you intend to assist in modifying them once you have good technical knowledge later? (you can also view private filters themselves and their code, notes and logs when you have the mop toolset)
A: I have the technical ability of a dead slug. I have no experience with maintaining, or doing anything else with, edit filters and hope I have not unintentionally made the suggestion that I am looking to do so. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. You seem a very promising candidate and fully experienced in Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia and had complete power like Elon Musk has with Twitter/X, what would you change?
11. How will you deal with users creating copyright violations (e.g., by blocking or using CSD G12)?
A: Blocking should never be the first course of action in this circumstance. Many new editors arrive to the site not understanding Wikipedia's stance on copyright or what copyright is at all. The addition of copyrighted material can be a good-faith but misled attempt to improve or create articles. Editors who introduce copyright violations should at first be warned and have their actions explained to them, with content being CSD'd/revdel'd as appropriate. Blocks can be looked at when editors are warned and given a chance to stop their behaviour, but ignore this and continue to violate copyrights. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. If you found a page that looks like it may contain copyright violations but others disagree with you, then how will you discuss with them about the suspected copyright violations?
A: The issue can be proving the existence, or lack, of appropriate licences or expirations. Demonstrating a copyright violation requires proof of the source, e.g. using earwig, and this can be put to the editors, highlighting what the copyright violation is and where the content originally comes from. An evidence-led argument, on the appropriate article or user talk, is best. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13. Do you have the temptation to attack people that assume ownership of content?
A: No, I'd look to explain that we don't own articles and warn them about their conduct if they're unreceptive. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. Under what conditions would you block a new editor indefinitely?
A: Vandalism or promotion only accounts and disruptive/inappropriate usernames. As always though, indefinite does not mean permanent, especially in the case of username blocks where the option to change their name is available. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15. In the context of Q13, what is your personal understanding/interpretation of WP:FAOWN?
A: Featured Articles are not owned or controlled by any one or group of editors, as with any article. That said, FAs have gone through a rigorous review process to get them to their current quality and as such changes, especially those of a large/dramatic nature, should be discussed thoroughly on the talk page before implementation. This ensures that the quality and FA-ness of the article is upheld, but does not mean that any editor should gatekeep changes to the article, just that obvious consensus should be formed before changes are made. It might be best to suggest that with FAs advice is be bold...but not too bold. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16.WP:RFA2024 is ongoing but proposal 2, a reminder of civility requirements at requests for adminship, is a closed matter. It passed in a landslide and its text box is about to get added to all relevant pages. Even though that proposal isn't an ironclad policy, what, if any, changes do you think its passage should compel bureaucrats and administrators to make when it comes to how they handle RFA?
excellent candidate —Ingenuity (t • c) 00:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Plenty of experience with AIV and content creation; clearly qualified for adminship. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 00:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really impressed by the quality and quantity of the candidate's contributions, as well as his temperament, policy knowledge, and communication skills. I'm happy to see he's interested in helping out with the admin tookit, and based on what I've seen I'm confident he'll do a fine job with it. 28bytes (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beat to first again, by Floq too… he’s getting cut from the Arb all star roster… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Happy to see you join the admin corps. I trust the nominators. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 00:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the noms as coordinators of areas in which the candidate has done significant work. Folly Mox (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent nomination and contributions and I think he would be a good sysop. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A few edit summaries have been missing. Yet keep up the good job!--Jusjih (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jusjih: For context, that shows an edit summary not used on 1,293 edits. Pickersgill doesn't always use one in their own user space, when working on some drafts I believe, which accounts for 1,131 of the edits. That leaves 162 edits outside their user space without an edit summary, which I think is a much better picture that than painted by the general xtools summary :) Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent content creation. No reason to oppose. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support. Pickersgill-Cunliffe is a valuable member of the community and I see no problem with giving him a mop. ~Δ(delta • t • c) 01:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pickersgill-Cunliffe and I have never interacted but they have appeared in my watchlist multiple times over the past few months. They've struck me as someone who is capable and knowledgeable, and someone who would be a good fit for adminship. I am pleased to see this candidacy. Acalamari 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trust Pickersgill-Cunliffe with my life. — GhostRiver 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: not jerk has clue jp×g🗯️ 03:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Familiar with them, not really familiar with their work, but ... as with so many other RfAs like this, good solid support from serious people. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not believe our process work well, (question 7) but I cannot fault the candidate for the answer. I Checked out the candidate's significant contributions to this project and I think they will be an asset as an administrator. No drama and great nominators. Lightburst (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy candidate GTrang (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! As I mentioned in the comments section, I would have happily nominated. Candidate is a pleasure to work with and does great work on his own. —Kusma (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recognise the name, but not familiar with it prior to this event. Happy with the answers to Q10 and, in particular, Q8 ~ being willing to say this isn't the time or place, i.e. taking the time to contemplate and give an honest answer instead of trying to please !voters in what must be a stressful time. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 06:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns, so I'll just add my name here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a fellow technically-challenged editor, I must support my peers in the dead slug cabal. For real though, Pickersgill has always come across as well-spoken, hard-working, and intelligent. I can't see a reason to oppose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being an admin should be easy, painless, and comfortable. Best of luck to the challenges ahead.✠ SunDawn ✠(contact) 08:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems a very good candidate. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’m on the fence because of the answer to Q7 – we report people for COI at COIN. Have our RfA standards fallen so low that we’re letting such a critical typo slide? /s Toadspike[Talk] 08:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support answer to Q10 clinched it for me :) – Teratix₵ 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a clue, no red flags. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support know their work through MILHIST. Good operator, can be trusted with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both their abundance of FAs/GAs and their work on administrative tasks like CCIs paint a clear picture: this is a candidate who's willing to get their hands dirty and put in intensive, sophisticated work to improve the encyclopedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work on content, plus looking through the talk page reveals a lot of good work with new editors. Happy to have you as an admin. Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've always been reasonable and shown a good understanding of policy when I've come across you in an admin capacity, and you've always been reasonable and helpful at FAC. That prepares you for adminship more than you realise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have seldom seen this editor climbing the Reichstag, and never while dressed as Spiderman. Also, more seriously, strong contributor who works with CCIs. Couldn't support more. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for content and anti-vandalism work. They'll make good use of the tools. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support checked content and logs - had a clue look fine. KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The faster we can pass the baton the better! I hope for very short baton holding times for every future administrator! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he passes (and this looks like an uneventful nomination), Wikipedia will be down only 2 administrators for the month. So get passing that baton with tempo! Carrite (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
evidently unoriginal, but i'm also happy to see him here! :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination from Hog Farm (talk·contribs) carries a lot of weight for me. Combined with the candidate's vast experience, someone would have to dig up something very serious for me to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Peter Warren (Royal Navy officer)/GA1 is a good example of an appropriately hardass GA review -- those are the main thing that keep our quality processes afloat, we need more of them, and we need more people who appreciate and can foment it. jp×g🗯️ 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! It's Pickersgill-Cunliffe! Alright folks, this time can we please hold back with the unnecessary questions? This is an excellent candidate and I cannot imagine that we need another 30 questions to determine that. Toadspike[Talk] 07:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the nominators last nightYeah, but then this part gets kinda boring. Let's make up a fake issue and ask questions about it. Three nominators? Why do they need that? It's a cabal! Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 17:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add up the characters in the nominators' usernames and we get 33, multiply it by 2 and we get 66, which is basically 666. It's clear this RfA is the work of the devil... ULPS(talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not enough nominators, you're not timid enough to last as an admin in today's Wikipedia without at least six. —Cryptic 19:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answers thus far have been great. The questions have been...par for the course. I hope it's not rude to say that Q13 needs at most a one-word answer. Toadspike[Talk] 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent user, would have happily nominated him myself. We had some really good productive interactions (a throwaway comment of mine somehow became the GA HMS Swallow (1745) thanks to P-C; excellent responses to my GA review Talk:Philip Wodehouse (Royal Navy officer)/GA1; generally P-C is my expert of choice for questions about the British navy in the 18th century). Lots of good more admin-ish work recently as well. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I'm going to need you to elaborate. I am very interested in how P-C turned a throwaway comment you made into a GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As part of joking around on Discord over two years ago, I mentioned needing an article about the Swallow, and managed to get P-C interested. Why he wrote the article to GA level quality is something you'll have to ask him. —Kusma (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heck yeah. Best content admin candidate I could have thought of. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was discussion at WT:FAClast year about trying to trick persuade a content-creating admin into running for arbcom. After noting the small number of potential options, a couple editors wrote that Wikipedia needed to appoint more admins like this (like P-C). Rjjiii (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's articles made/promoted would beat the articles made/promoted by most other users in a fight. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the articles are of exceptionally high quality, or that 18th-century warships would literally demolish most other article subjects? Toadspike[Talk] 08:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of them before. Which means they haven't been at the drama boards. Probably not a bad thing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Areas they already assist in such as AIV, UAA, and CSD. Reports to which: 209 to UAA since Dec 2023, 94 to AIV since January this year, and a CSD log also commencing in January with half the reports as U5. Well, at least we know when in the last three years you decided to take your shot at the title :) Counter-COPYVIO work could have been emphasised more, that needs permanent help. Ultimately, no need for tools = no dick swinging = will make a great admin. I suspect this is going to be a pretty clear run. Thanks for participating in the new process! ——Serial Number 54129 14:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues there! Glad to see a RfA candidate who is also a mentor . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardworking, painstaking, courteous, knowledgeable about policy and an excellent content creator. Nothing else needs saying. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on P-C as a potential admin candidate for a long time and I'm glad to see this happen ngl. I think he will be a wonderful addition to the mop corps. ~Δ(delta • t • c) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After being open for a week of discussion, seems like zero issues or concerns have arisen. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
