Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dino245 (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 20 October 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Girth Summit 202 2 2 99 Successful 07:28, 26 October 2019 0 hours no report
Current time is 12:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Girth Summit 202 2 2 99 Successful 07:28, 26 October 2019 0 hours no report
Current time is 12:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
AirshipJungleman29 RfA Withdrawn by candidate 27 Sep 2024 34 21 4 62
Significa liberdade RfA Successful 21 Sep 2024 163 32 10 84
Asilvering RfA Successful 6 Sep 2024 245 1 0 >99
HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 12:13:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

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

Girth Summit

Final (202/2/2); Closed as successful by WormTT(talk) at 07:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

Girth Summit (talk · contribs) – Members of the community, I am honored to present you Girth Summit for consideration at RfA. Girth began regularly editing in May 2018, and ever since he approached me with questions about counter-vandalism last year, I have found him to be one of the most perceptive and personable Wikipedians I have had the pleasure to interact with. In the content space, he has written dozens of articles and collaborated with others on improving several more. His work includes five GAs, almost all of which he started from scratch. He is active in many of the behind-the-scenes areas of Wikipedia where the administrator toolset would be helpful, such as new page patrolling, recent changes patrolling, and AfD.

What really caught my eye about Girth Summit is the thoughtfulness with which he approaches collaboration. If you look through his user talk page archives, you will find that he never gives dismissive or half-baked responses, even in difficult situations. If he is working with a new editor, he will break down the relevant policy and guidelines in English, instead of linking to all-caps jargon that newcomers would be unfamiliar with. If he is working with experienced editors, he will listen to you carefully and explain his position thoughtfully, always thinking about the project first. If he is unsure about something, he is never shy about seeking help or asking. Indeed, with Girth, you will find that even when you disagree with him, it feels like you're still working with him, not against him. For these reasons, I am always happy to see Girth Summit's signature in a discussion, and I believe he will benefit the project immeasurably with the extra buttons in his toolset. Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination

Girth is an editor who has shown a lot since he became a regular editor. His primary activity is being a great counter-vandalism worker and regular new page patroller. However, he’s not just one-dimensional having gotten interested in content creation after finding a niche. In the last few months he's written five GAs and 10 DYKs, with more coming at a regular pace. This is what happens when an editor is as truly committed to learn as Girth has shown himself to be. I met him when he asked to join my NPP School while Mz7 met him as a student at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. Girth is now the one to pass along knowledge - see his own extensive work as a CVUA trainer. As a teacher in his off-wiki life, he is expected to explain difficult concepts clearly and concisely. So it’s no surprise to find him able to engage a large number of editors, of varying skill levels, on his talk page or elsewhere.

Fundamentally I think Girth is ready to be an administrator one because he’s got a core area where his policy understanding is strong and has a wider area where he understands what policy exists and if he doesn’t know something he’s unafraid to get help. You might have noticed that I didn’t refer to him as a vandalism fighter but instead a worker. This reflects how he sees the work and how he encourages his CVUA students to see it, as more janitors than warriors. When there’s a question asked Girth is as helpful as they come if he can answer it and will seek out the answer or the person who has the answer if he doesn't know and is as reflective as they come when it’s a concern about something he did. This combination of disposition and knowledge means that his having the administrator's toolbox will be a benefit to the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and thank Mz7 and Barkeep49 for their kind words. I confirm that I have never edited for pay. GirthSummit (blether) 05:54, 16 October 2019 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are a few areas where I think I could contribute usefully at first; I expect that this might change and expand as I become more experienced.
  • My main focus would be counter-vandalism, which is an area that I have worked in extensively. I would monitor AIV and RfPP, doing my bit to ensure that reports are investigated promptly and thoroughly, and that necessary action is taken to stop disruption.
  • I am also interested in working to keep spam off our site, so would monitor G11 CSD nominations and UAA. I believe Beeblebrox’s guidelines for dealing with problematic usernames to be a good interpretation of policy, elegantly treading the line between the AGF and SPAM guidelines, and would aim to follow that approach in this arena.
  • I would also like to get into closing AfD discussions. This is something I have not done as a non-admin, because I have concerns about relist bias, but I believe that it is something I would be able to do usefully. I would start out slow of course, starting with discussions where the consensus is clear and in-line with policy, and building up experience before attempting any potentially controversial closures.
  • I’d be interested in keeping an eye on the queue of CSD nominations – I appreciate the need to check nominations carefully before deleting, and would be happy to discuss deleted pages with their authors should they query a deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have written a handful of GAs myself about historic buildings in Scotland, which is the subject I’ve written about most so far. While researching one of them, I stumbled across a source about the life of its founder, which fascinated me. I couldn’t believe that her story was not more widely known, and I decided to do some more research to see whether it would be possible to write an article about her - Margaret Macpherson Grant. Since the only biographies I had written at that point had been pretty short stubs, I contacted a more experienced editor, and we wrote the piece collaboratively. We were short of images to illustrate the article, so I reached out to Walkers Shortbread, the current owners of the house she spent most of her adult life in, and persuaded them to donate some photographs - those are now used in her article, and the one I wrote about the house itself (Aberlour House (building)). I learned a lot during the whole process, and I believe that the resultant article is the best single piece of work I’ve done so far.
In addition to content creation, I do a lot of counter-vandalism work, and I enjoy taking editors through the CVUA training process – that’s mostly their work of course, with just a bit of steering from me, but I believe that welcoming and guiding enthusiastic people who want to help is important, and I like to think that my contribution in that realm has also been significant.
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: So, I’ll start this answer by differentiating between conflict with attention-seeking trolls, and disagreements with editors who are acting in good faith. I have encountered a fair share of abuse from trolls and vandals, but I usually consider that to be fairly trivial – revert, block, ignore without engaging, I don’t find that stressful. I was peripherally involved once in a more serious case of harassment, with an IP-hopping LTA making threats of doxing and real-world violence against another editor; in that case, we involved the WMF Emergencies team, as well as discussing other options with a number of experienced admins, which is what I would do in any case of even vaguely credible threats. That experience was stressful, but far more so for the victim than for me, and I felt it my duty to offer what support I could.
When it comes to conflicts with other editors who are here to improve things (even if they are misguided), I always try to approach these by demonstrating and assuming an abundance of good faith, in the spirit of Dweller’s ‘old fashioned’ pledges, and seek to defuse tension with humour or friendly discussion. The closest I think I’ve come to a stressful conflict was with the ANI case concerning a message on FWTH’s signature – I was genuinely concerned about the message he was giving out to hundreds of new users, but his response to my approach on his talk page indicated that he had no intention of stopping. I did find that somewhat stressful, as I didn't want to cause him distress by raising the case - ultimately though I judged that it was necessary.
A more recent example of a minor conflict with another editor was at Coxton Tower. I had recently taken it through a GA review, and it was on the mainpage with a DYK when another editor objected to my use of the word ‘via’, removing it with an edit summary that I thought was unhelpfully critical. We reverted each other a couple of times, as can be seen in the article's history; I then started a talkpage section with this post, with a view to discussing the issue and resolving it amicably.
At the end of the day, we all work in the same space – it’s in my own interest to maintain friendly relations with people who I am likely to come across again, even if I disagree with them or their approach to editing.

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

Additional questions from Coffeeandcrumbs
4. You appear to have a particular interest in participating in AfDs. As a thought experiment, if I asked you to evaluate Jennifer Mercieca and offer any and all possible arguments to keep or how she may meet WP:NPROF, how would you respond?
A:Thanks for your question. Reviewing the discussion:
  • A number of people felt that Mercieca's media work was sufficient to satisfy NPROF C7; in other words, that she was frequently quoted in conventional media as an expert in her subject area.
  • Another argument was put forward to the effect that she would meet criterion 3 of AUTHOR (rather than NPROF) on the grounds that there were multiple academic reviews of a book that she wrote, and another one that she contributed to.
I can't think of any further arguments myself that she would meet NPROF. The evidence isn't there to suggest that her work to date has had the impact to satisfy C1 or C4; C2,3,5,6, 8 and 9 seem unambiguously not to apply; C7 is the only argument I can see for an NPROF pass.GirthSummit (blether) 10:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. What are the reasons that convinced you that Merciaca is not notable in light the possible arguments you posited to keep in response to my previous question?
A: It's probably worth touching on the background here. The subject had been through a lengthy discussion at AfD a few weeks prior to this, which had concluded with a consensus that the subject wasn't notable. I saw that this new article had been created, and I did not see any new claims towards notability, or any new sources that would strengthen any of the existing arguments.
  • I didn't think that NPROF C7 was a pass because, while she had been quoted a few times and written the odd piece in the national media, it didn't seem to be enough to describe fairly as 'substantial impact outside academia'. As the specific criteria notes for this criterion set out, a small number of quotations is not unexpected for academics - I simply didn't feel that the number of quotes that were presented were sufficient to demonstrate a clear pass here.
  • The AUTHOR argument had some merit, but since one of her reviewed works was as co-editor to an edited collection, we were really looking at a single book. It would be quite unusual for an academic in the humanities not to have authored an academic book that had been reviewed - I didn't think this was a clear pass either. GirthSummit (blether) 10:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from John M Wolfson
6. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
A:Thanks for the question. A7 definitely does not apply, since it contains an explicit exception for educational establishments. G12 (copyvio) would be the obvious one that jumps to mind for a copy/paste from a website; there may potentially be an exception here as well though, if there is a credible assertion that the school's website is in the public domain, so that would be worth checking before adding the tag. There's also the possibility that it might be a G11 (promo) - the school's website is likely to be talking about itself in promotional terms which would not be appropriate for an article. GirthSummit (blether) 10:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from John M Wolfson
7. Is office.bomis.com an acceptable username?
A:Interesting - I hadn't read that before. Something like that wouldn't be acceptable nowadays in my view - WP:PROMONAME explicitly the use of URLs as username (unless the '.com' bit is dropped). It would also probably fall foul of WP:ISU - it doesn't identify an individual, so implies shared use and may indicate a role account. So, yeah - if I saw a username like that, I would expect to see them creating content about their website or the company that owns it, which would justify a UAA report. GirthSummit (blether) 11:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Cryptic
8. You tag a lot of user pages U5 or G11. What's the difference, besides, obviously, that U5 can only be used in the User: namespace? Can a user page be a G11 but not a U5, or vice-versa? If so, bonus points for some plausible mockups. —Cryptic 06:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A:Good question. There is obviously some overlap between the two - if you are writing about something on your userpage, you are in a sense promoting it. G11 is appropriate for userpages that are obviously promoting a particular company, product, website, cryptocurrency, etc - basically, where the page has been set up as an obvious advert, often with language in the imperative mood telling the reader to check out a product or visit the website etc. U5 is for instances where people are writing extensively about stuff which is of no benefit to the project, perhaps using their userpage as a blog, or a soapbox to disseminate political views. Writing a blog about your holiday in France would be a possible U5 without necessarily being a G11; writing your resumé, extolling your SEO skills, linking to successful past projects and giving contact details, would be an example of where they overlap - it's promo, and it falls foul of WP:NOTCV, which is covered by U5. GirthSummit (blether) 11:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Feminist
9. Comment on the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight the New Drug, and explain whether you would have approached the discussion differently.
A:Well, on the face of it that closure looks fairly uncontroversial - near universal consensus for delete, based on a lack of sources that would satisfy WP:NCORP. However, it seems clear that there actually were some sources out there, which now support the new version of the article. I can't put myself in the position of the closer of that discussion, since I can't see the version of the article that was under discussion or the sourcing that it used; hypothetically though, if I came across a deletion discussion where there was an apparent consensus to delete, but I was able to find sources which seemed to have been overlooked, and which I thought would support retention, I would vote to keep and link to the sources, rather than attempting to close the discussion. Does that answer your question, or were you looking for more commentary on this specific example? GirthSummit (blether) 12:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Special:Permalink/888570378 was the version that was deleted. Let me know if this affects your answer. feminist (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist, ah, thanks - I hadn't noticed the old history was still there. I think I'd stand by my original answer - the sourcing in that version of the article is poor, and there's a clear consensus that the article should be deleted for a lack of available sourcing, but if I'd been able to find good sources such as those used in the current version, I'd have linked to them and voted keep (while noting that a substantial rewrite would be necessary). GirthSummit (blether) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jovanmilic97
10.. What would you have done if you were to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendy Glackin, which had a Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ (which WP:NFOOTY is a part of)/WP:GNG relation disagreement?
A:Tricky one; I think I want to give a slightly evasive answer here and say that I probably wouldn't have closed that one.
Fundamentally, I agree that while passing an SNG like NFOOTY is a good indication that a subject is likely to pass GNG, if it can be shown that the subject actually doesn't pass GNG then delete is the right call.
This particular discussion was quite finely balanced, looking early on like a clear keep, but with the wind changing after your break-down of the sources, and a majority for delete emerging. There were some very experienced editors on both sides, who I expect have more familiarity with sources in the football arena than I do, disagreeing with each other about whether the sourcing was adequate. I just searched for sourcing myself, and I'm seeing quite a lot of hits, but my knowledge of sources in this area is not great so I would need to investigate each of these carefully to come to a conclusion about whether or not it is reliable, secondary and independent. If I had put the time in to do that research, I might have persuaded myself to vote one way or the other, but as for a closure I don't think I'd have touched that one - it would be better to let someone with more familiarity with the subject area, in terms of our norms and WP:OUTCOMES, to do that.
Sorry if that answer isn't as informative as you'd hoped for, but I think it's better to be honest and say that there are some things that I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable about to express a clear view. GirthSummit (blether) 14:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Oshwah
You've indicated in Q1 that you intend to use the administrator toolset to combat vandalism by monitoring and responding to reports made to AIV, RFPP, as well as UAA.
11. Let's say that you're evaluating a report made to AIV regarding an IP user who made three edits that were blatant vandalism 32 days ago, and was (correctly) warned each time for doing so, but does not have a block record in their log. The IP user has made two more edits that were vandalism, both made 24 hours ago. Between the first three instances of vandalism and the two instances of vandalism made 24 hours ago, this IP user has made 147 non-problematic edits to Wikipedia that are spread out over that timeline evenly. How exactly would you investigate, handle, and respond to this AIV report, and what details, pages, and relevant information would you look at and use to factor into your decision? Why?
A:Good question. So, first off, on the face of it this isn't an obvious block - it would need looking into. The old warnings are probably a bit stale, and the positive contributions from the IP may well outweigh the disruption.
I'd start by looking at the edits - what is the vandalism? Posting highly offensive racist abuse into a highly viewed BLP, or adding sensitive personal information about an individually identifiable child, for example, would be much more disruptive than adding 'poopbubbles' into the lead of Cheese.
If there didn't appear to be an urgent need for a block to stop genuinely harmful content being added, I think I would decline the report, and attempt a discussion with the IP. It seems possible that more than one person is using the IP - could it be a productive editor, whose teenage son occasionally decides to cause a bit of chaos, or something similar? Might they be able to stop that from happening, if it were drawn to their attention? I know WP:DENY is a thing, but if this is two people, we would want to engage with the productive one to see whether the problem can be fixed that way. If it became apparent that the 'bad' person was using the IP at the time, I might put a short block on the account to prevent any immediate disruption - a few hours perhaps, until the time when the 'good' person is likely to be back in front of their screen, and then I'd keep an eye on the IP and its talk page to see whether communication would be possible.
I'd also reach out to the person who raised the report, and explain why I wasn't blocking immediately - just a quick personal message, rather than a template, since they presumably reported the IP in good faith and deserve a response. GirthSummit (blether) 13:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
12. You're evaluating a request for page protection that was filed by a user asking for full protection of an article, Americans for Prosperity. You find in the article's edit history that the reporting user (an account with 24,239 edits, and the autopatrolled, rollbacker, and pending changes reviewer user rights) and an anonymous IP user have been reverting the article back-and-fourth and over a disagreement regarding the addition and removal of information to its infobox. You observe that the two users have reverted each others edits a total of 32 times (16 times each) over the last three months, with the latest revert being made five days ago. How exactly would you investigate, handle, and respond to this RFPP report, and what details, pages, and relevant information would you look at and use to factor into your decision? Why?
A:It doesn't look like page protection is required here - if it's just one account and an IP, this is disruption that could be stopped in other ways without restricting access to the article by others.
I'd start by checking the article's talk page (and probably the IP's and the user's talk pages) - can I find any evidence that discussion is happening? Is there a strong consensus that one or other editor is ignoring? If it is one person disruptively ignoring consensus and refusing to communicate, a warning that they will be blocked if they persist would be appropriate, and perhaps a note to the other user that WP:AN3 would be a better way to deal with this than RfPP; I'd probably also mention that even though they have consensus on their side, edit warring isn't a good idea, and they ought to have drawn others' attention to the problem sooner instead of reverting sixteen times in succession.
If discussion was not taking place, or it's happening but there is no clear consensus about what the article should say, I'd be looking at warnings for slow edit warring. You haven't indicated whether the users have been giving each other edit warring templates - I'd be surprised if they hadn't, but if not, I'd dish some out, along with personal notes suggesting that they start discussing their disagreement or (if they are talking already, but there's no consensus) they investigate some form of dispute resolution. For the experienced user who raised the report, I'd also ask them why they were edit warring without engaging in discussion - I'd try to avoid being patronising, but they really ought to know better than that by now. GirthSummit (blether) 13:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from AmericanAir88
13. Your stance on A7 and G11 seem to be on point. I am impressed by your knowledge of CSD. However, as an admin, you can encounter other criteria for CSD. Could you please give an example of a candidate that would qualify for G2, a candidate that would qualify for G3, and a candidate that would qualify for A11? I am not looking for specific articles, you can make them up. An example answer for say G12 would be like "An article on a BLP completely copied and pasted from their self published autobiography". Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A:Hi, and thanks for the question. These are indeed 'lesser used' CSD criteria, but I think I've had cause to use them all a few times in the past - obviously I can't see the pages any more, but I've noted some examples below with what I can remember about them:
  • G2 is for test pages - pages that appear to have been created as a result of users testing functionality. I recall that one of the ones I tagged was literally something along the lines of 'Does this work? Test test test'. I tagged it, and left a friendly note on the user's talk page, congratulating them on a successful test.
  • G3 is pure vandalism and/or hoaxes. I've nominated quite a few like that - like, for example, list articles of TV shows that don't exist, or an article about an island off the coast of Australia that I spent an excessive amount of time looking into, only to come to the conclusion that the island didn't actually exist and the author was jerking our collective chain.
  • A11 is similar to G3, in the sense that it's about stuff that's made up, but it's not intended as a hoax - rather, it's someone writing about their own invented idea, theory or whatever - they're not setting out to deceive, but they're writing about their own ideas which, not having been discussed by anyone but themselves, are clearly not notable. Articles I've tagged along these lines include one about a political ideology which was obviously the author's own idea, or another about a genre of music that seemed never to have been mentioned by any source, and was purely the author's own classification. GirthSummit (blether) 20:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nosebagbear
14. As it's traditional, what would you say your two worst broad areas are (broad meaning, for example, gadgets/scripts etc would be 1 area)?
A: Thanks for the question - I'd been wondering if this classic would come up! My problem with answering it is deciding which two of the many areas I'm inexperienced in to talk about...
Since you've said broad areas, I'll wrap up 'technical stuff' as a single area, to include bots, scripts, investigating/blocking IP ranges, and the like. My userpage declares that I teach coding, which is true, but I teach it to children using things like Beebots, Kodu and Scratch - my technical knowledge isn't actually that great. IP ranges are something that I intend to do some reading about, since I can see how useful it would be to be able to take action in this area, but I certainly won't use the tools in an area I don't understand, and will ask for support from someone more knowledgeable if I see a need for action in an area I'm not confident in.
I also recognise that I need to learn a lot about permissions for images, and indeed copyright in general. My understanding of our policies (and the law) is a little vague, but I recognise its importance and so, in my eagerness to be cautious, I have been leaning on Diannaa quite heavily when I come across potential problems at NPP. I promise to put this on my reading list so I can become more independent in this area. GirthSummit (blether) 08:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Robert McClenon
15. What experience can you cite in the area of dispute resolution, either content disputes or conduct disutes, that you had a role in trying to resolve? Will you be able to use the administrative tools constructively in dispute resolution? Also, do you frequently get involved in content disputes, and can you explain your interpretation of the guideline on involvement? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks for this question. The formal WP:Dispute resolution channels aren't something that I've involved myself in so far, but I do try to step in when I see a situation I think I might be able to help out in. My aim is generally to try to find a way that allows for the right thing to happen, without anyone feeling that they have 'lost', and to allow people who seem to have become angry or upset to back down without losing face.
Very early in my Wikipedia career, I noticed an editor making some very dubious claims at Crystal healing - the content they wanted to add was totally unacceptable, and they had been reverted by multiple users, and they appeared to be getting quite upset. They soon received a short block for edit warring, but I was concerned that they would continue with their campaign once the block was lifted, wasting their own time and the community's, and also experiencing frustration and distress from their inevitable inability to get us to accept their desired version of the article, so I left this on their talk page. I wish I could say that it had turned their attitude around and made them into a productive editor, but I think that my non-confrontational approach helped them to realise that what they were doing wasn't going to work, and they were able to go and do something else without feeling the need to keep fighting.
More recently, I've stepped in at ANI a couple of times when users have got into bother about inappropriate reverting, improper use of warning templates and the like. As an alternative to sanctions, I've offered to take them through the CVUA course. With good faith contributors, I much prefer showing people the right way to do something than using sanctions against them for doing something the wrong way, and so far two of people have taken me up on my offers, and I've been able to put them on the right path without any need for sanctions to be applied.
I don't often get involved in disputes myself - I alluded to one in my answer to Q3, and there have been others of course, but it's not a big part of my editing experience - due in part, probably, to the fact that most of my content work is in a bit of a niche area. My understanding of WP:INVOLVED is basically that if I am involved in a dispute, for example by expressing an opinion, or having edited the content that a dispute is about, then I would need to put the admin toolkit away when participating in the discussion. Is that brief summary sufficient? If you'd like to ask a more specific question I'd be happy to address it. GirthSummit (blether) 09:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Harshil169
16. Have a look at User:The EditorCNN and User:Nobel Organization. Both are confirmed to each other by SPI and used promotional username. Apart from this, both were involved in only single purpose and that is too add name of Abhishek Mukherjee in the Nobel Laureates by any means. What action would have been taken by you if you were admin here? Would you had blocked them indefinitely for vandalism, promotional username and Sockpuppeting (as users are just soft blocked now)?
A: So, the blocks placed by EL_C and 331dot are standard blocks for a username that represents a company - the user would need to select a new username in order to get the account unblocked, but you're right, they could create a new account.
In order to be confident that this is vandalism, rather than a good-faith user trying to add information that they believe to be true, I had a look for any evidence that anyone called Abhishek Mukherjee has ever actually won a Nobel Prize (or perhaps some other prize that the person might have been genuinely confusing with a Nobel). While doing that, I came across this, where someone of that name is opining about the accuracy of Wikipedia, based on a page which had an erroneous (presumably a hoax or joke) assertion about an Indian cricketer being a Nobel winner. So, that leads me to think that someone is doing this as an extension of that joke - not necessarily the author of that page, it could be someone who knows him, or just a fan, but it seems too much to be a coincidence. So, yes this is probably vandalism, and given that they persisted with it after multiple warnings, a vandalism hard block would probably not have been inappropriate. However, it's not clear that it would have had much effect on the amount of disruption: the history of the page shows that it was attracting attention from a lot of different IPs. A hard block on those accounts would have prevented a single IP from editing or creating new accounts, whereas the page protection that has been applied to the pages appears to have stopped the disruption entirely. The problem has been solved, for now at least, so I don't think any further action is necessary now. GirthSummit (blether) 13:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Levivich
17. If this RfA is successful, will you be open to non-binding WP:RECALL by adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If so, under what criteria? If not, why not?
A: I'll answer this in a slightly roundabout way, if you don't mind. Editing Wikipedia is a hobby, which I enjoy. A big part of that enjoyment comes from interacting with other like-minded people, here to build an encyclopedia, and to make it as good as we possibly can. I'm asking for admin rights because I hope that I'll be able to use the tools usefully towards that end; if, however, my having the tools made my hobby less enjoyable, I would want to get rid of them.
Imagine this situation - one of my nominators, editors I've come to respect hugely during my time here, tells me publicly (or in private) that I've screwed up in such a big way that I'd lost their trust, and they think I should resign the mop. I would be mortified, and I'd want to find a way to regain that trust. I think that I would request the tools be removed on the spot.
Another situation - an AN thread or an RfC is started, to the effect that I am not fit to wield the tools. It runs for a while and a consensus emerges to show that the community no longer trusts me. I simply can't imagine wanting to hold onto the tools in that situation - I expect I'd request that they be removed before the RfC was closed, just to save the embarrassment. Hanging onto them in the face of an obvious consensus against me would not be enjoyable - and I'm only here because I enjoy it.
As for whether I'd add myself to that category, I'd have no concerns about doing so, but I'll need to do a bit more reading and thinking to outline my favoured procedure properly - although the situations above would give you some ideas about the way I'm leaning. The RfC mentioned in your next question may end up make this question moot, of course, if a binding method of sysop recall is established. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18. What are your thoughts (if any) about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure? Thanks in advance for your answers.
A: I have read some of that discussion, and have come away feeling slightly differently to how I went into it. I have always been instinctively in favour of the idea of community recall for admins, but I've just read some strong arguments against the idea, which I need time to digest. I don't like giving half-baked opinions, and I think that I will need to discuss further this with people from each side of the argument before I come to an opinion that I'd be willing to hang my hat on. Sorry to be evasive again - for myself, I am happy with the idea that I might be recalled, but before I vote to impose that on other people, I need to do a lot more reading and thinking. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Foxnpichu
19. The nominee mentioned you began regularly editing in May 2018. When did you actually begin editing? And why did you only begin editing regularly in May 2018?
A: I used Wikipedia as a useful source of information pretty much since it was created. In 2008 I noticed a 'reads like an advert' tag on Accropode - I was working on a project involving the installation of a few thousand of these things, and had found the article useful. Not knowing much about Wikipedia's behind the scenes stuff, I thought that the article might get deleted because of the tag, so I left a comment without registering. I immediately disliked having my comment attached to an IP address (and have never edited since without logging in), so I created an account, using a real life nickname my friends had bestowed upon me at the time (it's very similar to my real name, but changed slightly to include a dig at my not-entirely-svelte physique) as a username, and revised my comment.
For several years, I would hardly ever edit. Occasionally I noticed typos, or little things I thought I could improve, so I'd log in and make a wee change, but I wouldn't have considered myself an active editor in any way.
In 2016, while I was between teaching jobs and doing some freelance work on an offshore windfarm installation project, I found myself with a lot of time on my hands. I was working as a sonar operator, and was required to sit at a computer for 12 hours per day and be ready to monitor the construction activity - but as it transpired, there were some technical problems that meant that the operations I was needed for only happened once or twice each day, for about half an hour each time. I had to sit at the screen the rest of the time in case operations started up again, but I had nothing to do. I hadn't brought enough books to read, and I found myself reading Wikipedia articles for a lot of the time (it's a pretty interesting site!). I got into reading talk pages and following discussions, and was fascinated by the fact that somehow, despite all the disagreements, it seemed to work. I tentatively started editing and, over the next eighteen months, I became more and more interested in the site, and wanted to get properly involved. In May 2018 I made a conscious decision to find a way to contribute usefully - the rest is all in my contributions history. GirthSummit (blether) 17:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Interstellarity
20. You mention that you would like to continue to fight vandalism while you are an administrator. I noticed you also have new page reviewer rights as well. How would you use the administrative tools to help you work in those areas?
A: Well, to be honest, the tools will only be of pretty marginal usefulness for NPP activities. It would be handy to be able to see deleted pages, so that I can evaluate new recreations against them, but given that the majority of new page reviews are done by just two editors (!), neither of whom is an admin, I can't really argue that the tools are essential for the task! As I've indicated above though, they will be useful with deletions, via CSD or AfD, which is obviously related to NPP. GirthSummit (blether) 05:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity When I first read your question, I thought you were just asking me about NPP - I just looked at it again however, and I think you're also asking about using the tools in counter vandalism work as well, so I thought I should expand a bit.
Barkeep is right in his nomination statement that I view counter vandalism work as largely janitorial. As an ordinary user, I can use Twinkle, Huggle, Stiki, or just regular 'undo' to help clean up the mess that some people come along and make - I think of them as various types of sponge. Over time though, when the same people are making the same mess, you start to want to do a bit more than just clean up - you want to be able to stop the mess from happening.
Useful administrative tools in this area include the ability to block a vandal's account or IP address, to stop repeat offenders from making a mess in the first place. The ability to place a page under various forms of protection can help when disruption of a particular article is coming from lots of different accounts or IPs. When I see a problem that needs this kind of solution at the moment, I apply for a block at AIV, or for protection at RfPP. I have been doing that for a while now, and I'd like to do my bit to ensure that reports like these are handled quickly and efficiently. I hope that gives you a bit more of an idea of the sort of thing I can see myself doing with the toolset. GirthSummit (blether) 16:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further additional question from Nosebagbear
21. You are a very active CVUA trainer, which is great. What (if any) changes have you made to your training method/syllabus between your first and most recent trainees, and why?
A: Thanks for the question Nosebagbear. I haven't changed the content enormously since I started doing training - most of it has come from the material from the training page that Mz7 took me through, which itself was based around Callanecc's curriculum. I felt that a section on requesting revision deletion and oversight would be useful, so I had a number of conversations with various admins about their views on when it should be requested, and added that in. I've also tweaked one or two of the standard questions, but in terms of the standard template for the course it hasn't change much. However, I do vary the content based on the user's experience and their performance in each task - sometimes I might ask trainees to find larger numbers of diffs to discuss when we're looking for examples of vandalism, but if it's clear that someone has got that sorted we move on more quickly. GirthSummit (blether) 09:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as first non-co-nom. bd2412 T 05:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – every time I have seen Girth Summit around I have been impressed with their ability to communicate clearly and competently. Their work at NPP has been excellent, and their content creation efforts demonstrate a strong commitment to the project. No concerns. – bradv🍁 05:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support – I see this user's reports frequently when I report things at AIV. They obviously know what they're doing and it would be great to have another set of experienced eyes at AIV and RPP to help out when backlogs occur. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I see no reason to oppose, has decent enough experience for the tools. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support – strong anti-vandalism work through AIV, UAA, as well as their work with CVUA. Excellent candidate for the mop. Girth Summit all the best and good luck! —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I have great confidence in both the nominators and the nominee. In my review of the candidate, I believe that Girth Summit will make a decent admin and certainly be an asset to the project in this role. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Based on my previous interactions with the candidate, their contribution history and per nom, I have complete confidence that they would not abuse the tools. That means, given their commitment to the project, they would be a huge plus with more tools at their disposal than not, which I have every confidence they'll use with utmost care and consideration, especially considering their approach of teaching-when-they-know/learning-by-asking-humbly-when-they-don't. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, I have seen the candidate around, though I am curious how they are going to answer questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Easily one of the strongest RfA candidates in recent times. Great content creation plus great AfD stats (which is where the Girth wants to contribute to). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Have only ever had positive interactions with this user who is a great editor and done great work for the project. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - a bunch of positives (helping fairly new editors with CVUA in particular), and I've had a few good chats with them. Amongst their generally excellent AfD stats, I would say there's a few nominations where a better BEFORE check could have helped. That said, they aren't too common, and they also show a reassuring willingness to withdraw upon improvements. A little too deletionist for my bent, but much more than a net positive to the mop corps. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support precious teaching about historic buildings --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. This user is one of the more helpful and friendly Wikipedians. "GirthSummit" would be an absolute net gain. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I am glad to see this nomination and happy to support it. – Athaenara ✉ 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I came across this editor recently when I assessed one of their GANs. I have since assessed another and am currently acting as their - very light touch - FAC mentor. I have found their behaviour to be collegiate, well mannered, good humoured and friendly. They have been happy to be corrected, and/or to discuss any aspect of their articles. Their last GAN, which is also their wannabe FAC, was/is a collaboration, and it has been a pleasure to observe their interaction. I cannot speak to their ability in areas which are more obviously "adminy", but if they behave in them in a similar manner to how they behave in the content creation areas they will make a very good mop wielder indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - clear asset. Although I almost voted oppose for purely selfish reasons, since I fear admin duties will reduce the time he spends over at NPP . Onel5969 TT me 10:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - works well with others. Interstellarity (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I will be interested in the answers to Qs 11 & 12, but barring them being horrendous disasters it is easy to land here. Happy days, LindsayHello 12:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    LindsayH, Girth has now posted those answers. Friendly ping. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, BK. They are posted, and are neither horrendous nor disasters; guess i can happily stay here Happy days, LindsayHello 18:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not a jerk, has a clue. Happy to see this. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Answer to Q8 is on point, knows what they are doing. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Not seeing any reasons why not. EPIC (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I've explored a couple of avenues of investigations and see no reason to oppose or even go neutral, I also note support from existing respected admins. Unless something emerges under later scrutiny see no reason not to support.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support About time! creffett (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. — MRD2014 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Simply one of the best Wikipedians, all around. – Levivich 14:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Trustworthy, responsible, net positive. Vermont (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I trust them with the tools given our prior interactions. SusunW (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support Great user, and is a great helper, I know as he took me through the CVUA. Will use the tools well. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Great user, and will make a great admin! CodeLyokobuzz 14:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Impressed me interacting with this editor. SlightSmile 15:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Trustworthy; will be an excellent admin. aboideautalk 15:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've seen Girth Summit around. Great contributor. Here for all the right reasons, with the right temperament and understanding of policy. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support for meeting my minimum criteria and seeing nothing but positive interactions between this editor and others. Ifnord (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support He/she developed good skills in a very short time. Interested, focused, and polite. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support no brainer, no risk, net positive. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No concerns at all. Thoughtful, patient, knows what they’re doing. Will be an asset to the project. Neiltonks (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Vexations summed it up well. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Since he is a good contributor and I could not find any reason to oppose. Plus TonyBallioni is also supporting this. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Barring some major discovery, this is going to be a shoe-in. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - After a short bit of digging, I found this discussion helping out a new user, giving them lots of friendly advice and pointers, and showing them the way forward. Elsewhere, I see them fielding questions (including here) politely and diligently, with a view to getting people on track to improving the project. Which is exactly what admins are for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an excellent example. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Good, thoughtful editor who has shown a well-keeled temperament in the past 18 months. Great answers to questions back up what the very lovely nomination statements say. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to re-emphasize how stellar GS' answers have been. A lot of us here have mentioned a few in particular but they've really all been quite thoughtful and underscore a careful appreciation for both the toolset and the project in general. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support The candidate's stats looks excellent. He also has a very polite demeanour when dealing with other editors, which will serve him well as an admin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support They seem like a knowledgeable, friendly and helpful editor. I'm sure they'll make a great admin. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I'm one of their WP:CVUA trainees. Based on that and insightful comments already made by others, I think that Girth Summit would make a great admin. Clovermoss (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clovermoss: - that's helpful to hear, thinking about it, I should have asked a couple of his trainees for their thoughts since I considered it such a major plus, so I'm reassured by this Nosebagbear (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: Vote #32 by James-the-Charizard also mentions being a CVUA trainee. While I'm at it, if anyone is curious, this is my training page: User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Clovermoss Clovermoss (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear, Clovermoss I am indeed one of his former students there. He is the reason I am a rollbacker and basically helped me learn things related to anti-vandalism, which I used to get where I am today. Here is my CVUA page. [1] James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 03:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Excellent answer to Q12, and most importantly, has a great demeanor. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 17:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support – The judicial humility in the answer to question 10 was what convinced me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Strong knowledge of policies and guidelines. Great communication skills. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I was wondering how long this would take, and about time too! Has been hugely helpful with Counter Vandalism training, new page patrolling. Has plenty of requirement for the tools and has a clue. Agent00x (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Per nominators' statements – Ammarpad (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per everyone else above, pretty much. Top candidate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Good work at NPP and excellent answers here. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Keep per noms. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Being Teahouse hosts, I have seen Girth Summit helping out a lot. His helpful replies indicate he is experienced enough for the adminship since he knows how Wikipedia works. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I've seen this editor around several times. Their edits are constructive and the answers to questions look promising. Thanks for applying, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Looks like a fine candidate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support it is a yes from me Mujinga (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support it would be bad form not to since he's cited one of my userspace pages as being brilliant. No seriously, solid candidate, demonstrated clue, good, thoughtful answers to questions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support The editor has experience in the areas they want to be active in. Several hundred reports to AIV and RPP. I have not looked into those in any depth but there are enough that if they were making extraordinary errors it would have been picked up on. Their CSD log looks good and AfD record shows their views are generally in like with community norms when they vote. Answers to questions show both knowledge of policies and ability to express their reasoning. Jbh Talk 00:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Fine candidate. Would be wonderful to help handle the backlogs, particularly RPP, AIV, and CSD. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support all the best with the admin tools. Tolly4bolly 01:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, was thinking about opposing, just to be contrary, and no one can be this good admin material but wow!!! after reading their answers, supports above, looking at their wikicontributions, and linked material ... give them the mop! Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Happy to support. El_C 03:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support A look at some of the areas I tend to focus on in RfA candidates yielded nothing of concern. No red or yellow flags. Most of what I saw suggests the candidate is a well rounded editor with a solid record and above average demeanor. Happy to endorse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Seems reasonable -- BoothSift 05:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, with small reservation Overall, Girth Summit's answers to my questions weren't terrible, but were definitely on the right track. Both hypothetical reports and situations that were provided in Q11 and Q12 were carefully and deliberately written, and in order to have no clear path to a resulting action that was right or wrong. The best answers that could've been given to those questions were "it depends". Is the IP user in Q11 a shared or school IP? What kind of vandalism are we talking about here? How severe is it, and to what level and aspect? Is this IP part of a range that's been blocked for disruption before? Girth Summit asks many of these questions in his answer to Q11.
    On Q12, he missed a few things, but were the same things that I not only missed somewhat in a response to a question on my RFA, but also would've totally missed had I been asked this same question. The Americans for Prosperity article is within a topic where discretionary sanctions are authorized by the Arbitration Committee as involving post-1932 American politics (see WP:ARBAPDS), as are edits that add or remove information from infoboxes - exactly what the account and the IP user in Q12 were edit warring and in a dispute over (see this page). Again, I don't hold that heavily against Girth Summit, as I was no expert in ArbCom process, sanctions, enforcement, etc when I became an Administrator. With that information in mind, there's many options at your disposal depending on the circumstances and factors that are discovered when looking into the situation: Take them both to ANI, protect the article in order to maintain a positive and collaborative editing environment, apply edit warring notices on their user talk pages or apply edit warring blocks if they've already been appropriately warned and given a chance to stop, leave discretionary sanction alerts on their user talk pages if they haven't received one, apply and enforce appropriate sanctions if they have been alerted.... many pathways to take, again, depending on different circumstances, discussions, attempts at communication, and interaction or past interaction made. Overall, the answer wasn't bad, and shows that Girth Summit understands that there are different areas and details that would need to be considered before making a decision.
    I initially took pause when I looked through Girth Summit's contributions from 6 July 2018 to today, and only counted 196 reports to AIV and 51 requests being made to RFPP - pointing to a possible issue with participation and experience in those areas. However, Girth Summit's answers have left me feeling somewhat assured, as with his support from users and administrators in the community that I respect and that I trust. What pushes my vote the furthest into the "support" direction is the high level and degree that Girth Summit's interactions, communication, conduct, teamwork, civility, care, and respect that he's demonstrated and consistently gives toward others (as detailed and mentioned by many supporters here). Experienced editors and long-term users on this project and who have a high level of respect from the community will agree that, much more than anything, the most important factor that this project and we as a community need with the administrators we support are those who are very strong in this area - users who are civil and respectful toward others at all times, have strong communication and teamwork skills, have no problem with admitting mistakes and apologizing for them, and who (underneath it all) have a strong mind and a kind heart. Without a strong level of skill and achievement in this area, everything else can fall apart and crumble when things get heated and tough, bad situations happen, and when accountability is expected. Girth Summit very well hits the right marks in this area, and I believe he will use the tools with care and that he is very unlikely to cause issues or problems, or be reckless with the tools. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, according to User:SQL/AIVAStats, I had only 93 reports to AIV as of September 2018 (a year after I became an admin). In this area of Wikipedia, I would argue that quality matters far more than quantity, and I'm happy that so many have vouched for Girth Summit's superior judgment and communication skills in this area. Mz7 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mz7 - I agree, and I almost think that I may be comparing his participation in these areas compared to the amount that I do, which isn't exactly fair... This is why my reservations were small, and clearly outweighed by other factors that I believe are more important - hence my support. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. He doesn't need my support at this point. He's got it anyway. —Cryptic 06:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Girth Summit has always been a voice of reason, I'm very excited to support them for the mop! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Absolutely delighted to support this excellent candidate. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Oshwah sums it up well. Girth Summit should make a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Girth Summit has been very efficient with anti-vandalism work, helpful and diplomatic as far as I can see, not to mention very well respected as noted in all the above. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose per [2]. MOS:INOROUT is fundamental, non-negotiable policy. I recommend the candidate fix these issues in past editing before nominating again, and I would be happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 10:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Bureaucrat note: per the discussion at the above-linked talk page section, this appears to be a "humorous" support vote. If that turns out to not be the case, then obviously it can be moved to the proper location. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Knowledgeable, competent and trusted editor - I see no red flags here, I'm also impressed with their answers to the questions, They'd make a fantastic admin imho. –Davey2010Talk 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Good answers to questions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Has my support. Solid editor. scope_creepTalk 12:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Atsme Talk 📧 12:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I've had great dealings with his user and am happy to support his RfA. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I've seen this user around and I was really impressed by his patience and thoughtfulness. They are the kind of person who really give Wikipedia a good name as a new or intermittent user, and giving them the tools would only enhance their ability to serve the community and make this project better and better. The responses to the questions above only add to my confidence in their ability to handle the tools responsibly and continue to be constructive. Michepman (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support- After reading the answers to community questions have decided the candidate has a clue. No concerns from me.   Aloha27  talk  14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Strong answers to questions; no red flags; convincing support rationales. This candidate will no doubt be a valuable vandal fighter. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  91. I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would abuse the tools if given. SQLQuery me! 16:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support for temperament, civility, and patience with new editors. Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Though I too would like to hear the origin story of the handle, not because it would be a reason for me to oppose, but just because I'm highly curious. When I think of a "Girth Summit," I imagine my yearly checkup, in which my doctor criticizes my weight despite him probably weighing 20 pounds more than I am! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support This is a strong, well-prepared candidate. I am surprised that Girth Summit has only been active for about 18 months. I assumed GS was an old timer as a result of seeing so much positive work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support: good temperament and no bite. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support as I can’t see any reason to oppose. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support One of those 'I thought they'd been around for ages' types. Impressed by the odd rather rash AFD nomination where, after withdrawing it, they sought feedback to help them understand others' perspectives. Clearly an asset as an editor and will be as an admin, too, no doubt. Some great answers above, and I especially liked the detective work involved in replying to Q16. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Will be fine. Fish+Karate 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support clue yes, jerk no. --Find bruce (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  100. —Kusma (t·c) 21:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I searched for negatives, all I found was positives, and a little Girth doesn't intimidate me. — Ched (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Looking through the answers that he gave and there is nothing that really stick out as being negative. So I will be happy to accept my support for this nomination. HawkAussie (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Because I like the name. Nothing in the record indicates his 11 years of editing have in any way been polarizing, which will be a plus. I think it's good for the project as a whole to give the tools to non-polarizing editors. The user has been around long enough to know the basics for what may come up; and what they don't know, somebody will volunteer to tell them. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per the nomination statements. It's great to see a level-headed, patient editor volunteering to do admin work. Ajpolino (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Excellent candidate. The answer to Q13 was very honest and knowledgeable. Will be an asset. AmericanAir88(talk) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Giving this user the mop seems like a plain net-positive for Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - Thank you for offering to serve in this role. - MrX 🖋 02:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Has a clue, good temperament, content creation is adequate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Samir 05:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC) looks excellent all around[reply]
  110. Support - will be a net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Can't see a reason why not. Regards SoWhy 07:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Solid nomination. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Contribution search shows level-headed responses on talk pages with the needs of the project always upper-most in his motivations. Thanks for running for admin. Loopy30 (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support eligible user.PATH SLOPU 11:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Suppport Did my homework on them as I knew we've interacted the past but haven't been sure where, and while there's a couple AfD !votes I disagree with them on, their general corpus of work plus their responses here means I'm firmly in the support camp. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Great understanding and explanations of policies. feminist (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support per the 100+ others above me ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Helpful, patient, civil, trustworthy, knows where his weaknesses lie and isn't afraid to ask for guidance. That's pretty much the entirety of my criteria. --valereee (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Come across GS many times on AIV; very even temperament and considered approach. Has no problem changing mind when the facts dictate it. Here for right reasons. Britishfinance (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposer's concern, including the discussion of it on the talkpage, and find it unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, if only for this reply. - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - clear net positive for the project. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - the candidate is active in a couple of the same areas I like to work (Teahouse and AFD) and I have never been anything other than impressed by their contributions. I am delighted to see them run for adminship and I have no doubt they will do an excellent job. Hugsyrup 15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - It's extremely rare that I even bother to read the user questions and the answers, but as my concern for the appropriateness of some types of question has been recently rekindled, I took a look. I must say that I have rarely seen such excellent answers, especially to such as one that is posed in defiance of the multiple-question ruling, the excellent and non-comittal answer to Q17, and the perfect understanding of the situation at Q6. The (active) tenure is short(ish), the edit count is good, the nominators have each made an excellent case, so therefore based almost solely on the clarity and perspicacity of the answers to all the questions, the candidate has more than demonstrated their suitability for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - seems like a good candidate — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support I see no issues here, and WP:NOBIGDEAL. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Impressed with answers to questions above. Excellent contributor, with a strong positive demeanor. Happy to support. CThomas3 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Definitely a net positive. Home Lander (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - No concerns here. -- Dane talk 20:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support per nomination statements, per answers to questions, and because I would like content creators to have an easier time out here. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - seen 'em around and trust their clueness. GABgab 00:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support I'm confident he'll do a fine job as an admin. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - Plenty of reasons to support (nom statements, Q1, excellent demeanor, CLUE, etc) and no reason found to object. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - Excellent statement and answers to the RfA questions - I've seen them around a few times, but I can trust them. No concerns here. ItsABlackHole (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Trustworthy user who will help in areas that need it. SpencerT•C 03:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Willingness, kindness, empathy and thoughtfulness... I had the opportunity to experience it personally. I'm sure GS will be one of the best admins here, --DoebLoggs (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support I've seen this editor at work, unreserved support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Competent and clueful, no concerns. Yunshui 雲水 07:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - Can be trusted with the admin tool.-- FitIndia Talk Commons 08:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support, I don't have any concerns. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Great answers - looks to me like this user will make for a good admin. ComplexParadigm • Talk 12:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Girth Summit is an experienced user and I am satisfied with the answer he gave above. I found no reason to oppose this nomination. Make him admin, will look forward to work with him. He's fine for role. -- Harshil want to talk? 14:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - excellent candidate for admin. JohnThorne (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support, in balance to Mr Ernie's ridiculous oppose (now neutral). If there is to be a purge of iffy usernames, then user:rogerd needs to look out as well. SpinningSpark 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Yuuuuuuuuuuuuup. — 🦊 16:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Excellent candidate, definitely worthy of the sysop tools. Quahog (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  154. 😎 yasss.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support, however my comment is probably redundant already as there is almost no possibility that this RfA could fail at this point. Utopes (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Happy to pile on here. The candidate will be an asset to the admin corps. Miniapolis 02:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - Satisfied with my question's response. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - GS will be a great addition to the corps. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - appears to be a valuable addition. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support; I encourage this candidate to continue to gain further content creation experience, but, with that said, do not see a reason not to support them. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Anti-vandal work is always good with well communication :) –Aνδρέας talk | contributions 16:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  164. I like his username, and I guess he'll do a good job too. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support I have not interacted with Girth Summit, but the nominations and the answers convinced me. The years active is not an issue for me in this case. Content creation, patrolling and the AfD track record justify granting the tools. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. No concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. No complaints Rollidan (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. support I don't think I've run into this editor before (it's possible we have and I don't remember), but everything seems great here. Humility is a big one for me, and this user shows it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  169. ...support I really need to check RFA more often. Seen 'm around. No concerns or reservations.-- Deepfriedokra 21:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, please see User:Deepfriedokra/On RfA for my standards that this user more than meets.-- Deepfriedokra 21:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  170. support Thoroughly clued-up editor: will be very safe pair of hands as an administrator. DBaK (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support I do support the candidate for admin per their actions as an editor, albeit their name can be interpretted in a very inappropriate manner by some. NoahTalk 01:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support GS will make an outstanding admin. Great answers and interacts very well with others of different viewpoints. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  173. 'Support I've been busy IRL recently so missed this till now. Adding my 2 cents to the avalanche of support: User is calm and communicative which I think are th eost important qualities for an admin. Hydromania (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support. Answers reveal intelligence and thoughtfulness. Haukur (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support I have seen the candidate in AfD discussions, though I'm not sure if we have participated in the same ones. Anyway, I have certainly seen them consider other editors' comments and sources and change their opinion after weighing up the evidence. That matches with what I see in their questions above - calm, considered, willing to think and rethink, unassuming, unhurried - all excellent qualities for an admin, plus with lots of relevant experience already. I find the very few oppose !votes quite bizarre. I suppose we all have different life experiences - certainly those connotations did not come to mind for me. But then, I come from a country that has the related word girt in our national anthem ..... RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support: A great candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - The handle is a little bit odd but the explanation of it checks out, clearly an experienced NPP contributor and hope they can learn the ropes at general AFD (a ~80-90% delete ratio is OK for someone active at NPP where there's loads of articles that should be deleted and where speedy may be declined so you have to AFD them, but way too high for typical AFDs). All in all someone who could clearly contribute more as an admin. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Well qualified. The username means nothing to me but there again, I’m a Brit :-). I suppose many usernames may have some meaning somewhere in the world: an Ernie is $100 worth of pot in NZ, I believe, and a philandering milkman in the UK (Ernie got his ‘cocoa’ three times a week at the home of a widow named Sue who lived all alone at number 22 Lindley Lane...) ;-). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support candidate is qualified and I don't think the username is a problem, although I accept that reasonable people disagree with me on the latter point. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Clueful and qualified. Thoughful answers to the questions. The username issue is overblown (and trust me, I know what of which I speak).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support I'm one of those people that doesn't really 'read' usernames, but now that it's pointed out, I do see why people might take offense. Having a safe editing environment is essential for increased participation from some underrepresented groups. Lovely candidate, so still support 100%. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support - sensible, thoughtful and pragmatic. Graham Beards (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Hate to be a paine in the ass, but I support this candidate in spite of his lurid username. To summit up, not one of the objections I've read either here or on the talk page has any girth – no, no girth at all. If this candidate were ever to change his username because of all this, he would not lose my support, just my respect. The thing about adminship is its connection with the trust of this community. Let us proceed accordingly! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support - will do a great job as admin. Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - Excellent track record. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support per nom ~Awilley (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support after review. No major issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support looks good. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support But at this level of experience they should stick to routine matters for a few years.North8000 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: My review of the candidate's work shows that Girth Summit will make a great admin and be an asset to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking duplicate !vote. Iffy★Chat -- 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support Looks qualified to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Well versed in the rules and I think the candidate will excell in this role.Tirronan (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Eminently qualified for the admin role. As for the moniker, well, like (Shakespeare's) Caesar I prefer to have well-rounded admins around as opposed to the sleek-headed Cassii, always hungry for perceived offense. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Upon a bit of investigation, it seems like they are qualified and there are no outstanding concerns. The username matter seems more like a matter of cultural differences than an actual problem to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support based on the thoughtfulness displayed in the answers to the additional questions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Thoughtful and polite, experienced, writes good articles. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support - has navigated an unnecessarily escalated false drama with genuine concern and thoughtfulness, which is a skill most admins are forced to learn after getting the mop. No concerns. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support - Realize I forgot to Support earlier. All my interactions with the candidate, while limited, show a willingness to enhance the project. They would clearly be a net positive. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support – Per everyone above me. Kurtis (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. I'm getting here late, but this is an easy support for me, per all the reasons above. (And I read the discussion about the username on the RfA talk page, and I've got to say that the supposed double entendre would never have occurred to me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support of course. Best of luck! :) – Aranya (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support per co-nom Barkeep49 and excellent answers to questions. IP75 (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support Trusted user. Solid answers to the questions above. Will be a net positive to the encyclopedia. The opposes below are some of the weakest and most unconvincing I've ever seen at an RfA. Welcome to the admin corps, Girth! Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

#Oppose because something about your user name makes me uncomfortable. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Candidate has explained, see talk.[reply]

Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose because of lack of experience. I don't know if there is a certified minimum, but most admins I know have been editing more than three years actively before they open the RfA. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose Looks a good candidate in most respects, but opposing due to user name. Redacted: taking the liberty of removing most of my possibly overly detailed rationale, which provoked the understandable reaction of Bbb23 & WaltClip below. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Username is a bit of a concern. I think that a good administrator should take feedback into consideration and make changes if issues are identified, even if they are not required to do so. It seems to me that "girth" may not have sexual connotations in the UK but does elsewhere. Now that that has been identified, I think it would be responsible to step back, say "huh, didn't even consider that", and then change the name to something a bit more professional. This request will obviously pass, and the candidate will very likely be a fine admin, but I think this is something that the candidate should consider. And I don't think that this concern is trivial to the point of deserving the response it has previously been given. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: Striking oppose. While I am still concerned with the username, my concerns are not with the candidate and not intended as a comment on their character. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. — Ched (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Per talk. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not personally aware of this particular editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
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.

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert 

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.


  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=922119804"