Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ingenuity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fortnum (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 12 May 2023 (→‎General comments: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ingenuity

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (186/1/0); Scheduled to end 15:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Ingenuity (talk · contribs) – I am proud to begin my admin-nominating career with Ingenuity. Primarily working in counter-vandalism and AfC, Ingenuity has experience in the deletion processes, and most importantly for me has experience in content as well, taking three articles to GA and almost always using edit summaries. There has been a recent outpouring of support for Ingenuity to be granted the mop, and I think it's time to give the people what they want. All in all, this is a solid candidate whose induction to the admin corps I look forward to seeing soon! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

What more can I say about Ingenuity than they are an incredibly solid user that's very quickly become a very knowledgeable and consistent editor. I very much think that they are well suited for adminship, with a knowledge of both the content creation and backend sides of the encyclopedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you to John M Wolfson and Lee Vilenski for the nominations. I have never edited for pay and will not do so in the future. I have two other accounts: IngenuityBot and IngenuityTest. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: The areas that I'd like to work in are mainly counter-vandalism, which is where I currently spend much of my time—administrator intervention against vandalism, requests for page protection, and revision deletion. I've made over a thousand reports at AIV and requested revision deletion a number of times on IRC, and it can often take a while before the reports are addressed. I'd like to help keep the backlogs down in these areas. I may also work at requests for permissions (specifically rollback) and speedy deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best content contributions are my good articles: Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, and Irene Parlby. I've also written a number of articles, and I'm currently trying to get Brownie Wise to GA. I'm also proud of my user scripts, particularly AntiVandal. Recently I've been working on another user script for editing citations. I have also worked at articles for creation, where I've reviewed several thousand drafts.
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: It's impossible to avoid conflict entirely on Wikipedia, but thankfully, other than the occasional threats and insults from vandals, I don't get into conflicts with other editors often. I've found that it's important to acknowledge and learn from my mistakes, rather than doubling down on them; I think a good example of this would be this discussion from a couple months ago.

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

Optional question from Bbb23
4. You started editing Wikipedia a little over 2 years ago. You've managed an impressive 65K+ edits to the project, and editing in a great many areas of the project. You began with edit summaries that were outstanding, neither too short nor too long. Within a few days you created a decent article. Had you been editing before as an IP (nothing wrong with that, of course) and reviewing policies, guidelines, good examples of content creation, etc., before creating your account? Or are you an incredibly quick study? To be clear, I am not accusing you of having had an account before this one; think of it as praise rather than implicit censure.
A: I think I made one edit as an IP before registering this account, but I never edited before that. When I created my account I was (and to some extent, I still am) afraid of making mistakes, so I obsessively read policy before writing articles to avoid making mistakes. That's not to say I didn't make any mistakes; one of my first articles, for example, was on a non-notable subject and I eventually nominated it for AfD after learning more about notability guidelines. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dolotta
5. Of the areas you plan to use the admin toolset, where do you consider yourself to have the least experience?
A: Of the areas I'd like to work in - AIV, RFPP, REVDEL, PERM, and CSD - the one that I have the least experience with is requests for permissions. This is mainly because non-admins are discouraged from doing any clerking, so other than nominating some other users for the Autopatrolled right I haven't participated there. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Illusion Flame
6. Which pillar do you think is most important and why?
A: Wikipedia would be a significantly different place without any of the five pillars, but I think the most important is the second: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. The reason so many people read Wikipedia is because they can trust it to provide reliable, unbiased information. Especially in an era where biased news is widespread, it's important that Wikipedia's articles are based on reliable sources, rather than the opinions of its editors. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Lourdes
7. Thank you for your outstanding contributions. This question is related to understanding your editorial views on globally sensitive topics. As mentioned by Bbb23 above, please do not take this as any aspersion on your personal views. In the article detailing Russia-Ukraine war, you maintained a stand initially that it was not a "war",[1] despite news articles detailing Putin launching the military assault. Were you semantically requiring that news article qualify this as a war, before accepting it is a war? Thank you for your answer in advance.
A: The edit I reverted stated On February 24, Vladimir Putin declared war on Ukraine; this was incorrect, and not supported by the sources provided. For example, this source stated that Russia "effectively declared war", which is different from a formal declaration of war. Even several months later, Russia still hadn't formally declared war. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Lightoil
8. Do you foresee yourself working on the "dramaboards" such as WP:ANI and WP:AE and imposing sanctions such as bans and blocks?
A: Not really, at least for the foreseeable future. I only know the basics about contentious topics, arbitration enforcement, etc. since those aren't areas I'm interested in, so I'd have to learn the ropes before participating in those areas. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Googleguy007
9. Would you be open to recall, and if so, what recall criteria would you use?
A: Yes, under this criteria: if five editors in good standing (1k edits, 6 months old, not currently blocked), including at least two admins, sign a petition for me to resign in a one week period, I will either resign or submit a reconfirmation RfA. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Cecropia
10. Given the relative rarity of RFAs, how do you feel about the small number of new RFAs, and the even smaller number of approvals, compared to Wikipedia History. Do you think Adminship has become intimidating? Should more users be encouraged to apply? Why or why not? - Cecropia (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A: Adminship itself might not have become more intimidating, but the RfA process definitely has. The most obvious reason for this is the increasing standards for candidates; back in the early 2000s, candidates were only expected to have a few thousand edits, but now a candidate passing with under 10,000 is rare. RfA reforms, such as WP:RFA2021, resulted in some interesting proposals, like temporary adminship and admin elections, but unfortunately neither gained consensus, and no significant changes were made. I think we should encourage qualified candidates to run, but ultimately the only solution is a major reform of the RfA process. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from ShticktatorTal
11. As someone who is likely to be administrator (and I undoubtedly support you in your quest to gain the position), what technical improvements to the site do you desire to make editing an easier process for newer editors? Also, how do you seek to improve the quality of underdeveloped articles and to encourage all editors to do so? Do you feel that it's something that should be promoted on a larger scale within the Wikimedia movement, or rather just a basic responsibility of all editors, not just admins and hardcore users, to undertake? Sorry, this is a mouthful. :)
A: Newcomer retention is a big problem that Wikipedia faces, and new editors often leave because of how complex and confusing Wikipedia can be. Even small technical changes to improve the user experience can go a long way; for example, the AfC help desk wizard was recently implemented, and it's much better than the template that was being used previously. I participate a lot at articles for creation, and I've seen the difficulties new users face. In the future, I'd like to help improve the AfC process to make it a better experience for new users.
As for the second part of your question - promoting the improvement of articles, especially ones that are underdeveloped, is the job of all editors. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all, and so our highest priority should be to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Scottywong
12. Thanks for agreeing to put yourself through the wringer here at RfA. I noticed that the nomination statement here indicates that you have experience with the deletion processes. However, this experience seems to be focused primarily on speedy deletion, as you've only contributed to about 40 AfDs. Two-part question: first, is there any particular reason that you've avoided the discussion-based deletion forums like AfD (or RfD, MfD, CfD, TfD, FfD)? And second, do you have any intention or interest in participating in discussion-based deletion forums in an administrative capacity?
A: I don't participate at XfD discussions often because I'm not really interested in those areas, so I only comment when nominating an article or when I come across an AfD notice on an article. I don't plan on closing deletion discussions often, at least in the foreseeable future. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 May 2023 (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. Let's go, Ingenuity! Solid candidate! Your CSD log is no doubt great, your AFC log is also excellent, and ever since I've met you in January 2022, you've grown to a productive and substantial editor! I'm rooting for you! Oh yeah, and the AntiVandal and your several bots are extraordinary! Tails Wx 16:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As co-nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I've seen Ingenuity on my watchlist frequently, cleaning up bad edits before I can get to them. A look at his contributions and talk page shows that he responds to questions politely and helpfully. I think he'll make a good admin. Schazjmd (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support has put in the time and effort to be trusted. Clearly had a clue. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't usually jump into an RfA this early, but I've seen this user around and been consistently impressed with their work. A quick look at their stats adds to that impression. This is a solid and well rounded user with an enviable record of contributions to the project. Happy to support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I trust the nominators to nominate users ready for adminship, so it's a support from me. I've also seen Ingenuity reviewing drafts at AfC and have a good impression of them. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Another instance of "wait, they weren't already an admin?" Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this. ^ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've seen Ingenuity around quite a bit and I've always found them to be level headed and to do good work. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Don't see why not, more eyes dealing with vandalism and page protection is good. TylerBurden (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I use their script all the time, and I trust them strongly. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Had been on my radar for a while. I'm glad they're making this jump. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Trey Maturin™ 16:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I will gladly support a user like this. Their AFD log is great, their edit summary usage is impeccable, and they seem like an all-around great user. Wikipedia needs more editors like this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Ingenuity is one of those people who you'd think has been around forever, given the scale and quality of their contributions. Excellent candidate. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Very happy to see this, long overdue. Says he has made over a thousand reports to AIV like it’s nothing. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Yup. Next. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: good to see you running. Substantial content creation is a bonus alongside stellar maintenance work. A nice CSD log with not much blue gives me a good impression, as CSD is one of the candidate's suggested work areas. As for anti-vandalism, you wrote the book script! I have no problems supporting this RfA. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as nom (slightly belated). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've seen him rv vandalism while I was patrolling recent changes and per the above comments, I'm happy to support him. :) Sheep (talk • he/him) 18:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Clue, big deal, blah. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No concerns. DanCherek (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Suppport: I've worked with Ingenuity a good bit in my time here and I'm very pleased to see this RFA. They have a clue and I think they'll be a net positive as an admin. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: Somebody who I am surprised was not an admin already. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: Absolutely :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, have interacted with this user before and they would make a great admin. Not only are they well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and have some decent contributions, but they've also created an entire userscript solely for anti-vandalism and have also attempted to quickly squash any bugs that may pop up. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support what's the technical term for 'thought they had the mop already!'? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per Ad Orientem, except that I rarely jump into RfAs at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. No concerns here. I remember positive interactions with them. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Good luck in the future, you have my RfA support. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support of course. I've had good experiences with him when working on the AFC helper script, where he has +2 access. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Vandal-fightin'! Script-writin'! Article-creatin'! More of this in editors, please. I really like seeing the consistently calm demeanor, as well. Joyous! Noise! 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I've seen the candidate around and don't see any reason not to trust him, honestly. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A positive addition to the admin group. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I've seen many of their fine contributions at AfC. They are also great at removing vandalism. While I'm here, I'll also take the time to thank them for creating the AntiVandal tool, which easily qualifies as the most accessible and user-friendly vandalism removal tool we have. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support because the user checks all the boxes. Content creation? ✅ Admin areas? ✅ Not a jerk? ✅ Need and Clue? ✅. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. User is well prepaired and trained a adminastrator.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Volten001 ☎ 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support always impressed by a fast learner. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I stay away from recent RFAs unless it's a name I recognise/the arguments are particularly moving. I have noticed Ingenuity at least a couple times and have come off having a strong opinion both times. Solid candidate. Soni (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Looks like a great candidate and net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support An outstanding editor with clear need for the tools. Thingofme (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, Great editor! SVcode(Talk) 23:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Honestly thought they were one already. Patient Zerotalk 23:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A few days (or weeks??) ago, a vandal did their best to undo all of Ingenuity's edits. That tells me that they're a good candidate. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support as they're clearly a better candidate than myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Surprised they weren’t an admin already. I see them in anti-vandalism efforts and they’re always doing a great job. —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 00:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support no concerns. Thank you for your efforts to help anti vandalism. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No issues as fellow AfC colleagues. Advanced congratulations if RfA gets through. – robertsky (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - good candidate, sufficient tenure/experience to judge character and knowledge. Will be further able to improve Wikipedia with extra tools. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strongest possible support: we've worked together quite a bit on RCP and believe me, with the amount of LTAs we've had to deal with, the project would definitely benefit if Ingenuity had the mop. I was actually about to reach out and suggest that they run! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 01:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support thanks for volunteering your time w Wikipedia jengod (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Candidate appears to be well-qualified for the role. In particular, I was impressed by the candidate's involvement in the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. That discussion had a lot of eyes on it, and I can't imagine it was particularly easy to close. While there are some minor aspects of the closing statement that I don't fully agree with, overall I believe it was a fair summary of a complex discussion which later survived its inevitable AN review. Mz7 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  59. count me in another of the "wait, you aren't one already?" lettherebedarklight晚安 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Perfect mix of content creator and vandal fighter that I look for in admin candidates. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Good candidate, has a clue, net positive. — Askarion ✉ 02:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Positive interactions with Ingenuity with regards to the Antivandal script and other times noticing their contributions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Stephen 03:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support a productive, clueful editor working in areas where they (and wikipedia!) will immediately benefit from them being granted the admin tools. And, as their close of the Vector 2022 RFC shows, if/when they decide to participate more regularly in the less tool-dependent "admin" tasks (closing discussion, mediating disputes), they have the skills to do so. Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support my turn for the "thought they were already one" cliche. I see them around AfC and have always been impressed with their work. Always handy to have extra admins familar with the AfC process, even if they don't plan to focus on that area. Rusalkii (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)][reply]
  68. Support excellent range of across-the-board experience. Blythwood (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Great candidate who I've seen do excellent work at AfC. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support incredible all-around editor who will clearly make excellent use of the tools. I'm especially impressed by their involvement in the Vector 2022 RFC closure, as mentioned by others, showcasing both a willingness to close contentious debates and incredible civility in doing so. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support His work against vandalism and at WP:UAA has been great. Nobody (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support information suggests likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. The great anti-vandal warrior, will sweep even cleaner with the admin's mop. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 05:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Excellent anti-vandal, and a quick look at the rest looks good too. In fact, I genuinely assumed you already had the mop. No qualms. Blue Edits (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I don't see why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, I've only had good experiences with this editor. Graham87 07:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, seems to be a solid candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Ingenuity has made excellent contributions to the project, and I am confident that they will use the admin privileges wisely. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, use it well and on RfD please read and be guided by the wings of WP:SHADOW. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, Amazing contributor to the encyclopedia, and an excellent anti-vandalism patroller.—*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 11:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support civil, NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 11:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, made excellent contributions to Wikipedia. 141Pr {contribs} 12:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, looks good --DB1729talk 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, They weren't one already? -- Grapefanatic (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Sounds like a solid candidate, with much experience! Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Pourquoi pas? Girth Summit (blether) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I thought Ingenuity was already an admin. :-) Apparently not yet. Ingenuity is an adequate candidate for the mop as an excellent vandalism fighter. Drummingman (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I liked your answer to Illusion Flame's question! Angerxiety 14:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did too! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Ingenuity has done some incredible work in counter-vandalism, they’ll definitely be a fine administrator! Khrincan (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Per User:Joyous! and others. A good all around editor who is also quite helpful at AfC, not just reviewing drafts but also suggesting/making improvements to the script and other related processes. S0091 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support: Not particularly experienced (no FAs, like many modern-day RfA candidates, for instance), but nonetheless a committed and diligent person from my experience, AV shows clear technical skill, and someone who's not just a hat collector. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And...nominated his own article for AfD after learning about N...definitely. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - solid work on some of the Famous Five bios. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Yet another instance of "I thought they were an admin already!" If I recall, I have seen Ingenuity while patrolling recent changes beating me to reversions with lightning speed! Let's go!!! - L'Maynerque - ("May you [insert query here]?") - 17:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, Seems to have a clue, and no red flags. I don't recall any incidents or drama, so happy to accept the general consensus. Cheers and good luck, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Time to let them do their share of the chores. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support So happy to finally see Ingenuity at RfA! Great candidate! LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support An excellent candidate - good luck! Josey Wales Parley 19:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Extremely well-qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support: no temperament concerns that I can see, and plenty of experience and skill. Thanks for standing! — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support with no concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I read through the editor's AfDs and found a curious ivote here - not very troubling though and possibly letter-of-the-law-right. Nice to see that the editor is not overly involved at ANI - I read through the incidents where they were there and I do not see them seeking drama. I see a controversial close of an RFC that demonstrates a willingness to make tough calls. I hoped for more content creation but I see that the editor has three GAs. The question for me is always, will the editor protect content and content creators? I see evidence that they will. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support meets the basic expectations of WP:MRFA and clearly has a WP:CLUE. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Leijurv (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support User:ShticktatorTal Seems like an incredibly well-qualified candidate to me. Strong yes! — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  108. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Legoktm (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - A very easy support. - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support, and best of luck with the mop. JPG-GR (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, strongest possible - this is the kind of editor I try (usually fail) to be: good at staying cool when the editing gets hot. casualdejekyll 00:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support! Chlod (say hi!) 00:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Sounds good. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Galobtter (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  117. support very strong candidate Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support even though I *think* I've never seen them around before, but I like the username and userpage. (Those seem like good enough indicators to me, but if they aren't enough for others, then please do read on...) Also, I'm impressed by the good editing history in such a short amount of time. Huggums537 (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support – bradv 03:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support per 78.26 and Abecedare. The candidate has been on my radar, and if I'd found the time to vet them fully I would have offered a nomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Well qualified; good experience in content work as well as in other areas, especially counter-vandalism. AIV is not always handled as promptly as it has been in the past and new administrators working in the area will help the project. Appears to have a good demeanor for interacting with other users without drama. Donner60 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  123. —Kusma (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - A very well qualified candidate; no concerns whatsoever. WJ94 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Clear positive addition to the mop corps Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support -- No issues on my end. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - Well qualified. Sufficient edits both in vandalfighting and content. Enough time online. No reason to oppose. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support On the basis of the answers to the questions, especially #6, which i have asked myself two or three times recently, #7, & #10. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 12:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support 100%. I believe @Ingenuity will make an amazing admin. We have had quite a few interactions in the anti-vandalism area of the project and I appreciate their efforts to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism while also doing quite a bit of content creation. This is a very clear win for the encyclopedia/community. --ARoseWolf 13:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  132. The Night Watch (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  134. has a clue, of course, not a jerk! ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Thumbs up icon – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. You have my vote! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 17:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. I trust them. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. Happy to have another qualified anti-vandalism admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Not much personal experience with the candidate, which might be a good thing, and a lot of good people vouching for them. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support has a clue, has a need. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 18:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support – nihil obstat. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support- No concerns whatsoever.   Aloha27  talk  19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - no issues here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Looks good. Also has experience in the areas that they plan work in and also has exhibited thoroughness and carefulness that I think would guide their entering into tougher admin areas where they don't have experience. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. No concerns. BD2412 T 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Hope to see you as an admin. Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Nice editor who creates the amazing tool AntiVandal. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Never encountered this editor, which is hardly surprising considering no FAs. Normally like to see more content work, but GAs are good work and show a solid understanding of the content creation process. AntiVandal tool is well-written. Normally unenthusiastic about anti-vandalism editors but no concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Bruxton (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Never had personal interaction with this editor but I see a good chunks of contributions to both the main space and user talk. This editor has only two years tenure but those are incrediblty productive two years expecially in counter-vandalism, Good Article work and interaction with other editors.Blue Riband► 04:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - Seen them around, no concerns spotted, and convincing nomination and co-nomination. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Ingenuity is an asset to Wikipedia already and would be an even better one as an admin – good at the work they do, helpful, knowledgeable, and hardworking. Perfect4th (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support — Already thought they were Sysop. So, sure, why not? Reading Beans (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Great vandalism patroller, could clear backlogs, and created AntiVandal, which is very useful for a Huggle-like tool on public computers. And yes, I thought you already had the mop. 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 06:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Great candidate and trust completely. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support No issues, good to see more people seeking out qualified admin candidates. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support—looks good. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support I am impressed with Ingenuity's answers to the questions, and satisfied his experience with editing and technical work both show sufficient clue to be an admin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  161. zoglophie 17:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Salvio giuliano 18:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Creation of useful tools is always a big plus. Good history, and a spot check shows no cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Frostly (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support – more than qualified to wield the mop. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support I have seen you around. You'll be a great administrator. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support should do well.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support I think you're a very strong candidate for adminship. Easy support. 747pilot (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Editors that help with vandals are always great, having another one with a mop helps us all. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  171. ResonantDistortion 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strong support. Truly outstanding candidate. — kashmīrī TALK 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support. I've seen him before and he already does amazing edits, even though he joined in 2021. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support if nobody has found a reason to oppose yet, the candidate is probably safe. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support. Well-rounded candidate; no concerns. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. Need many more like this candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Squeaky clean record and clear net positive. ceranthor 00:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support: The nominee has excellent content creation and process experience. Their answers to the supplemental questions are satisfactory. I look forward to their continued contributions. ZsinjTalk 01:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. Looks great, I've seen him multiple times reverting vandalism! ULPS (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Highly qualified, professional candidate, and a formidable adversary of vandals. Handing them the mop to enhance their contributions, especially their vandalism-fighting efforts, will have a positive impact. Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support per WP:WTHN Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 05:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. No doubt an excellent asset. If I am not mistaken, I saw your name many times when I am doing anti-vandal patrols months ago. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Ingenuity contributes in many different areas, and I can assert that he is a solid candidate. Carpimaps (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. Great candidate and we need more admins. --Bduke (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - We need more admins. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support - not repeating what's already been said. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose: You are an outstanding editor, and are relatively fair-minded in your judicious application of Wikipedia's policies as they are written. Your contributions are fantastic. The quality of your articles are great, your edits are well-written, and your discussion in AfD is fair-minded and polite. There are strong reasons to support your candidacy, and the overwhelming support you have received on this page is a testament to the quality and value your contributions have brought to this site.
    However, some of the discretionary votes you have made on AfD weigh too far (in my view) on the side of deletionism for me to support your candidacy.
    In particular, I take issue with:
    The following deletion votes : Wherwell Primary School, George J. Fritschel, Luis Fernando Cifuentes, Zoop (platform), Ry Armstrong (actor), C3controls (2nd nomination)
    The following redirection votes: Roosevelt Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey), Washington Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey), Mark Ashton (musician)
    This Merge vote: Raid of Mar-a-Lago
    Thank you for your great contributions to this site. Jack4576 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, the fact that the above, only one (Ashton) isn't still at the same place as the !vote cast surely shows they have a very good grasp of what is suitably notable for a page? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree it may suggest they have a good grasp of community consensus. But I take issue with that consensus; both in relation to the particular results above, and in relation to the systemic problems caused by what appears to be the incumbent WP consensus more generally. Jack4576 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger, but it appears to be greatly poor form to oppose a candidate on consensus that is not directly related to the candidate or in his control. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral


General comments
  • Some curious time dilation, where "a few months"([2]) suddenly becomes weeks. SN54129 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Ingenuity, how do you pronounce your username? Is it In-gen-you-ity or In-gen-oo-ity? Just wondering! Tails Wx 13:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it in-gen-you-ity, but you can pronounce it however you like :) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been saying "engine-u-ity", likely wrongly Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a matter of accent more than anything (Americans such as myself will likely say "in-gen-oo-it-y", whereas Commonwealthers will likely say "in-gen-you-it-y"), but "engine-(y)oo-it-y" sounds like the Kay's Cooking of speech. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity, rename yourself to Engineuity. ;) Tails Wx 15:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay, what about, Engine-T? Does that work? ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you've gone that far, might as well go all the way and go for N-G-Nu-I-T. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or N/G–New–E.T. — kashmīrī TALK 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for someone to come up with an oppose on some totally ludicrous basis. It's been a few days already, and I'm not very good at waiting. Just saying. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jinx it! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: candidate can't recite every Wikipedia policy off the top of their head without breathing in between words. Clearly unsuited for such a trusted position [FBDB] -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that a certain topic frequently attracts opposition... Remagoxer (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This RFA is boring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good sign, I love a good boring RFA! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about an exciting one? Tails Wx 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, exciting RFAs are those where 100+ people support the candidate, but there is one user that opposes for a stupid reason. The part I find quite funny is when the community completely rejects/destroys the user that opposed. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, candidate's signature indicates rigidness and lack of creativity ;) — Kashmiri (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong oppose: Above discussion reveals an ambivalent attitude towards the pronunciation of 'Ingenuity', which clearly indicates a propensity towards indecisiveness. Fortnum (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have 3 opposes. Guess this won't be a perfect RFA after all. Tails Wx 13:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 4? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what the kids call 'manifesting'? Fortnum (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ingenuity&oldid=1154439736"