Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji

Money emoji

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (115/28/4); Scheduled to end 12:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Money emoji (talk · contribs) – Money emoji is one of the most diligent and prolific participants in copyright cleanup. It's a thankless task to have to slog through hundreds, if not thousands of contributions suffering from potential plagiarism, and the backlog is horrendous. He knows exactly what to check for, and has a good idea for spotting close paraphrasing in articles, and flagging them up. He started the daunting Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, which has the unenviable task of trawling through the early contributions of a prolific editor (and my friend) for obvious copyvios and resolving them, without upsetting Blofeld in the process. It's a difficult balancing act and as he says himself, it's a long hard slog - but somebody has got to do it. It's got to the stage where I would trust his judgement of a copyvio over my own, and that in its own would be sufficient reason to recommend he gets the admin tools. But that's not all, he's got a good corpus of content under his belts, including major contributions to Pizzagate conspiracy theory, a tricky article for balance and readability, and he's recently being appointed a trainee clerk at Arbcom. He shows all the signs of being a straightforward, no-nonsense type of admin who just wants to get on with the job of maintaining the encyclopedia with the minimum of fuss. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TonyBallioni I'm very pleased to present Money emoji to the community for consideration as an administrator. Money emoji has been active since March 2018, and has been a positive presence in Wikipedia in that time. His work in copyright as a non-administrator is thankless but important, and he generally has the sense of when to ask for help when help is needed. As Ritchie has noted, he's been involved in some areas that can be controversial, both in project space and in mainspace, but in each of these areas, he's managed to thread the needle appropriately and act in a civil and dignified manner: understanding policy and working to seek common ground when needed. Ultimately, but granting Money emoji access to the administrator toolkit, we will be gaining a competent administrator who will not abuse the tools and who is willing to work in some of the most underserved areas of our project. I'm pleased to support him in this RfA, and I hope you will join me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I happily accept the nomination. I have only edited from 3 other accounts, all of which were legit socks, and also have never and will never accept payment for my edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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: Copyright areas, unsurprisingly. That means dealing with Copyright problems, working at copypatrol, and Contributor copyright investigations. Unfortunately, there simply aren't enough admins/editors dedicated to working in the copyright area, leading to large backlogs and some pretty daunting tasks (Not to discount the efforts of Diannaa, DannyS712, Justlettersandnumbers, MER-C, Sphilbrick, and Wizardman- love you all). Having the admin tools will let me see hidden revisions (which is extremely helpful for CCI), revdel, and delete pages, all of which are helpful abilities to have while removing copyvios. As a non-admin, I've help complete 43 CCIs, and I'll be able to clear others out much faster with the tools. It would also allow me to clerk at CCI and CP, since only admins and clerks can archive reports; and no new clerks have been appointed for a while, since there just aren't enough people in the area. I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance that they no longer need to worry about coming back to help out with copyright. I'll participate in other areas for sure, but copyright will be the primary one.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My work on CCI in general, fighting back against our copyright backlog and hopefully renewing the community's awareness of the area. At copypatrol, I have the 7th highest amount of reviews with 1,113. I'm particularly proud by tough CCIs I defeated by myself, like Md iet, 67.184.212.160, and 20110727 06 (Which started out as this when I first got to it, here's the history with me slowly going crazy but ultimately triumphing). Other highlights at CCI include me helping spearhead efforts to combat some of our largest/most dangerous CCIs, such as 20110727, Elisa.rolle, DrB, and The 2010 CCIs. There's also my CCI list and guide to CCI, which I have put much work and care into.

I have much to be proud of outside of copyright, as well; I helped Pizzagate conspiracy theory become a GA, and carried the torch for articles like Ahed Tamimi and John B. Magruder after the person who wrote them, TheGracefulSlick, was blocked (and for the former, someone started a review on it and was then blocked as a sock). I also did a peer review for Saving Light, an article now on it's Fifth FAC (Poor MicroPowerpoint keeps getting snubbed ☹️). I also tried fixing List of NC-17 films, the messiest article I've ever seen, and I'd say it's better than it was before I edited it. For articles I created/largely expanded, I have a few small song articles, and am trying to create an article for every song on Travis Scott's Astroworld (all of which are notable). I've only got two so far (Stargazing (Travis Scott song), Carousel (Travis Scott song)), due to my dedications to the copyright area- but I'll hopefully get them all created one day, even if it's after CCI has been completed.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I wouldn't call them conflicts, but I've had several different editors take issue with my reversion of their edits over copyright violations, and others take issue with my presumptive removals relating to CCIs. When people come to me with a complaint/question, whether they're unhappy with me or not, I try and have my responses fulfill four criteria:

• 1. Assume good faith. Most people come to me because they want help understanding; no matter how rude their tone may be or word choice, I know they want my help. They aren't trying to hurt me or tear me down; they're just confused and worried. And if they are out to hurt me and tear me down, it'll be clear that they are and I can deal with it appropriately. No reason to get unnecessarily angry, after all.
• 2. Be natural. Talk like I normally would.
• 3. Be factual. Explain exactly why I did what I did, people like when you are honest with them. And if I was wrong, oh well. Next time something similar happens, I won't be wrong.
• 4. Take my time. A rushed response will likely make things worse. A long, well thought out response is better than a short, rushed one. I'm not in of a hurry, I can afford to take my time.

---

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

Additional question from MrX

4. Have you had any registered accounts on Wikipedia prior to this one? - MrX 🖋 13:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A: Long story short: no. Long story long: In 2015, the late summer specifically, a friend of mine encouraged me to edit wikipedia; they taught me about anti-vandal work, and instructed me to edit in that area. I did not register an account (I thought you had to make a donation), and edited from an ip between late summer 2015 and early 2017. I grew disinterested and stopped editing, but became interested again when my friend (who had become quite rude towards me) stopped editing and I found out that I didn't have to donate to register an account. So I rejoined in March 2018, and have been using this account since. I initially thought that I had had another account before this one because I voted in an afd as an ip, and I thought that only registered accounts could vote in afds so I must have been tricked into registering by my "friend". That's why I initially said I had just frogotten the name and password and how I knew so much about stuff like TW and GAs.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Cbl62

5. On eight occasions in the past two years, you've nominated articles for deletion where the consensus was to "keep". On several of these, you closed yourself and were critical of your own failure to find sources that were brought forward at AfD. The willingness to revisit your initial view is an admirable quality. Have you taken steps to better investigate before nominating at AfD? And do you believe your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Boat Museum were correct?

A:Because of my past failures, I try and refrain from nominating at AFD; I admit that I'm a bit nervous I'll miss something, and try taking the position of voting instead. In recent Afds, I've tried to be very analytical and I spend a long time looking for sources; See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Workmans Club, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binish Desai (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jokers' Masquerade (2nd nomination).

Both of those Afd noms were wrong. In the case of the boats afd, I should have looked for book sources; In the case of the American one, I was very sick, tired, and upset when I wrote that (I had just driven 5 hours to pick my sister up from Niagara Falls), and mistunderstood policy. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky caldron

6. You were appointed a trainee clerk on 7 January. You recused on the next available new case although your availability does not seem to have been a issue. Why did you not wish to supplement the much needed clerking effort on that case? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A:Serial Number 54129 asked me this before and I responded at the time. Basic summary: The aformentioned "friend" in Q4 feels as though they were treated unfairly by Kudpung and vocally told me this several times, and later congratulated me on my clerkship. This person had previously asked me to make certain edits for them, and I declined to do so because they were petty revenge requests against other users. So, predicting that they would ask me to do something to Kudpung, I recused to dicourage their antics.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

6A. Your signature, with it's combination of small font, dull colour, and multiple symbols reduces it's readability somewhat. Thinking of those with visual impairment using a range of equipment with various display characteristics, is this something you will consider tweaking now that it has been drawn to your attention?

A: My signature used to be 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸, but I stopped using it because it took too much space up at CCI and I felt like it attracted too much attention to me; I liked how it looked, but it looked like I was saying "LOOK AT HOW COOL MY SIG IS ITS GREEN". If people feel as though that one is better than my current one, or feel as though the current one is inadequte, I will happily replace it. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Feminist

7. In what situations should a sysop provide non-admins with revdeled content and/or copies of deleted articles?

A:The typical stuff at WP:RFU, stuff deleted under WP:G13, contested prods, requests for a redirect with the history restored for whatever appropriate reason, etc. (As long as there are no copyvios)- the usual stuff. For my specific area, articles presumptively deleted that a user wants to rewrite (and wants to see what the deleted content was for reference), or if a non-admin needs access to deleted content to help get an idea of what to do at a specific CCI; See User talk:Money emoji/Archive_4#Copyright problem for an example. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Girth Summit

8. Thanks for standing. Let me say straight away that this question is not intended to try to trip you up - to be honest, I'm inclined to support purely on the basis of our past interactions (and Diannaa's support, since you work in COPYVIO, makes that inclination stronger). I wonder though whether you'd be willing to expand a bit on your answer to Q4, the last sentence of which I find rather confusing. When did you say you had forgotten your former username and password? And, assuming that by 'TW' you mean Twinkle, how would you have come to know about that (since IPs can't use Twinkle)? I just wonder if you'd be able to clarify that, without divulging any details that you would be uncomfortable with, or which would risk disclosing your former IP address, naturally.

A: Oh gladly, the answer is strange but true. I said it when I first opened my account and claimed it afterwards for a while. I knew about TW because my "friend" told me that they reverted edits using twinkle. That person told me that I had to "install" it; I stayed away from it because I thought that meant that I would have to pay money for it. They were wrong and I believed them until I figured it out myself when I registered an account. As you can tell, my friend left me in the dark about a lot of things.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A:Like many, I have little knowledge of scripts and don't really understand them. I also wish I could be a more consistent content creator; I've had fun writing the articles that I have, but my work at copyright often intrudes on it and I'm not able to write as much as I'd like to. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Rhododendrites

10. I think I first came across your username when I was considering reviewing Pizzagate conspiracy theory for GA a while back. I hesitated, however, because it's uncommon for the nominator to have never edited the article, and looking at your userpage I saw this rather extreme retirement message. Could you talk about what was going on there? (BTW: regardless of how it started, kudos to you for your work in bringing Pizzagate to GA).

A:I'm not really sure what the hell I was going on about quite honestly; for some context, I was in a very, very rough period of my life then; I was depressed, three people I knew well had died around that time, and I failed a GA review because I had to leave for Arizona to meet my grandfather, who was dying of cancer. After he died and the review failed (no prejudice against the reviewer), I was very unhappy with the site, was disillusioned further by some ultimately meaningless nonsense I was seeing at Ani, spat that out, and left, which is why I edited less for the later part of 2018. I came back in 2019, and have improved massively since then, I've learned how to better cope with stuff in my life and I see this place in a much more positive light. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from King of Scorpions

11. What Wikipedia policy do you believe is the most important, and why? (I'm still fairly new and don't know all the acronyms, so please write the full policy name or provide a wikilink...)

A:WP:V, or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically, it boils down to a piece of information being true and readers being able to verify that it is true. Without verifiability, some of our other most important policies, like Our Biography of living persons policy and our Reliable source policy, wouldn't be what they are. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 21:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from JC

12. Hi, thanks for volunteering to contribute in this capacity. Do you have any misgivings about serving as an administrator under the identity of "Money emoji"? Or, if you like: if you knew when you registered that you would one day be blocking people and deleting their articles, would you have selected the same username?

A: Kinda funny, I think about this sometimes. It's a fun username, one which has no backstory (I came up with it on the spot), but it's kind of stupid. I was actually considering renaming myself "Moneytrees" a few weeks ago but it escaped me. Maybe I'll rename in the future.

13. How do you justify claiming credit for GAs like John B. Magruder, where your edits during the promotion process were essentially confined to three words and two emdashes?

A:I was wondering if this would be brought up or not. It is true; I did not edit John B. Magruder very much. User:TheGracefulSlick wrote that page, and I made sure it became a GA when they were unable to edit. By claiming credit, I'm assuming you mean the GA box and topicon on my userpage; the logic for me putting those there was the amount of time I spent looking for an appropriate license for one of the images; it took a few hours before I figured out the right one. My thought process for putting up the GA stuff was "Hey, I didn't really edit it, but I did spend all the time getting the license, so that must count for something" but I agree that it looks like I'm hogging the glory for something TGS did. I've removed the related GA stuffs from my page. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

14. 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: Ah, the iconic elementery school question; I think I may have come across this exact situation? This is right in my wheelhouse...

The most obvious one would be WP:G12 as an unambiguous copyright violation (obviously I would check if it were under an appropriate license, but it probably wouldn't be), and maybe WP:G11 as unambiguously promotional. As a user, I would simply tag the article with G12; As an admin, I would probably stub the article down to a single sentence not similar to the source and revdel offending revisions.

Ones that would not apply include G1, G2, G3 (unless it was a prank school or something?), G6, G10, G14, A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, and A11.

Ones that may apply would include G4, G5, G7, G8 (if it was created in the wrong mainspace), G9, G13 (hopefully the violation would have been found before then...), A2 (this actually happened with CADENCE Ensemble), and A10. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from QEDK

15. Why would anyone not support you for adminship? Full disclosure: This question was originally asked by Atsme at my own RfA. I think she ended up not voting (due to my answer or otherwise) but it was a good question imho and if candidates can show that they understand the criticism, it helps to allay some of the concerns the opposition might have. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A: I've seen a few different reasons cited, and I find them understandable.

Lack of Content creation The major one I'm seeing. And I more than sympathize; I'm aware creating content can be very difficult, and I think admins should create content. I would not have run if I thought I didn't know much about writing the actual encyclopedia. If anything, I can actually relate to content creators more than I can to the typical "behind the scenes" admin. Like content creators, I work in an area involving the mainspace, an area that few understand well. Like content creators, I sometimes feel as though some people discount my efforts, and don't understand how much effort I put into my work. Like content creators, I put hours, days, sometimes weeks into what I'm working on. And like them, I do it for the "Free encyclopedia"- but while they work on the encyclopedia part, I work on the free part. I make sure we are what we advertise. Content creators can count on me to understand their struggles and what content is. I may have little article credits under my name, true, but my understanding of articles is very strong; I can tell the difference between something that is likely copied, and something that is close to the source but acceptable.

Lack of experience It's true. I've only been around for 4 years or so, and only on this account for a little less than 2 years. Between my ip edits and my account's edits, I only have about a little over 10,000. But I believe that, despite my somewhat low tenure, that I know enough to be trusted with the tools. It's not big deal, after all. If the community feels I have wronged, they are probably right and I will resign.

Maturity I've seen some concerns over maturity, specifically over this. I do not agree with anything I say in that retirement statement. Infact, I can't really put into words how much I disagree with it; to say it's a load of garbage is a gross understatement. I don't know what I'm talking about there, and if you had asked me what users I had been talking about, I wouldn't have an answer. I was very angry with my life then (see Q10), and decided to take it out there. I shouldn't have, and it's obviously grossly immature. If someone who was in that state of mind ran for rfa now, I would probably oppose. But I would say I have grown since then. I can talk to people who are not happy with me. I can reassure people who are worried. And I can provide advice to people. That is something the person who wrote that would be unable to do. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from AmericanAir88

16. Hello Money, I am very impressed with your work with copyrighted material. Mock Scenario: As an admin, you uncover a multiple accounts that are doing a copyright ring on various school articles in the category "Public high schools in Connecticut." They are rapidly adding copyrighted material from school websites and other unacceptable sources. What is the process you would do to stop this Copyright Ring as an admin? AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Tymon.r

17. Hello! The content creation requirement is often cited against some RfA candidates who have great experience in counter-vandalism activities, but have never been into writing articles. Would you support an RfA candidate who declares he will use his rights primarily to stop disruption on Wikipedia, but has written (let's assume) just 3 or 4 stubs? Why? It's technically impossible to grant an user just some rights connected with the admin status, but does such declaration change anything? Or maybe you believe some admin rights should be moved to a separate group (like e.g. blocking IPs from editing) to make them easier obtainable by the experienced officers of Wiki Police Department ;-)? Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Money emoji: Money emoji (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Money emoji can be found here.
• Afd tracking cut off at a certain date; I've logged my recent ones at User:Money emoji/AFDlog

---

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 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support A very good and worthy candidate. The bit will surely fit them. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support 100%. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni are both nominating this candidate? You don't get much higher recommendation than that. Looks like they are not a jerk, have a clue, and have created good content, which are my three criteria, so happy to add a support. Good luck!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Support no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Money emoji is level headed, mature, and interacts well with other editors. Just the kind of person we need in the admin corps. Thanks for volunteering. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
7. Support I've known Money emoji for two reasons: one being the atrocious use of brackets and the second being utmost friendliness. I'm sure they will make a fine administrator, open to critique with all willingness to improve. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   QEDK, I Don't know what youre talking about 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   We (know) you do (sure you do!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   There are far too many disambiguation links in that sentence. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

8. Support One of those "wait, why aren't they an admin yet" candidates. Highly recommneded. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
9. Support - no issues at all, and all the best for the mop. Tolly4bolly 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
10. Support precious "I edit here when I have nothing else to do, just for fun." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
11. As co-nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
12. Support - no concerns. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
13. Support per noms. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
14. Support - clueful, respectful, and having the bit will certainly help with their work. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
15. Weak Support - the more complicated aspects of copyright and CCI are seriously technical and a major pending risk to Wikipedia. Having another qualified admin would be a major addition. While total edit count doesn't worry me, since I'm aware a significant amount of effort can go into some copyright edits, I am significantly more concerned about his content creation, with 1 created and a couple more with major additions. So character clearly isn't an issue, nor is knowledge in the admin field. So while I would like more content creation, I don't think it's a necessity. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    Given more detail on the pizzagate GA, I think a WS is a more reasonable description for my state of mind at this point. Nosebagbear (talk)

16. Support Money emoji seems to know what they are doing, and having admin tools is extremely useful in the field of copyright cleanup; they would be even more of an asset with a mop. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
17. Support No issues here, good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
18. Support I see no issues and have seen this user around. Being a fellow trainee clerk and also dealing with copyright violations (I usually only deal with clear cut cases eligible for G12), I can attest that having the tools is both very useful (in some cases necessary) to ensure a job well done. Their answers to the questions helped me to see how they have good judgement and foresight, (see their answer to Q6). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    To add, I see them meeting my criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Support: I've seen CASSIOPIAs contributions to the Wikipedia especially coping with vandalism and being neutral and effective in solving disputes. As per co-nom by Ritchie333 ^(talk). I vote for them in support strongly believing they'll do their best being an administrator. — The Ultimate ^{Let's Talk} 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    The Ultimate, I think you put this in the wrong rfa.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    The Ultimate, I struck your comment for now, as it is obviously in he wrong RFA. Please revise accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

19. I will always support editors who work in copyright problem cleanup. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
20. You have my unreserved Support. Good luck to you! Puddleglum ^2.0 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
21. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
22. Support per answer above, which seems reasonable, and per support from trusted, experienced and respected sysops working in the same area. We need more people well-versed in copyvio, thanks for stepping up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
23. Support seems like a good fit. LanHikari64 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
24. Support Always a good sign when I am surprised by an RfA, because I'd always assumed they already are an admin. Money Emoji demonstrates a clear understanding of policy and guidelines and will do a good job helping improve the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
25. Support Very strong track record. Interstellarity (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
26. Support - Definitely. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
27. SupportHhkohh (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
28. Support Money Money 2020 -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
29. I've tried my hand at the CCI cleanup and it's hard. MoneyEmoji knows it well, and the tools will reduce the workload for other admins fulfilling their requests for revision deletion. Clear net positive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
30. Strong support Absolutely!! I first ran into MoneyEmoji when I reviewed their Pizzagate GA, and was all around impressed. Since then I have watched as Money has comported themselves excellently and been an active Wikipedian all around. Their work at CCI is exceptional, and having the tools to work in CCI would be a great addition to Money's endeavors. I see no reason to expect abuse of the tools, and believe that Money would be exactly the kind of level-headed sysop we need more of. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
31. Support I'm impressed on how Money deals with CCI. —BeyWHEELZ • T • C
32. Support. Copyrights shall be protected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
33. Support If Ritchie likes Money than so do I ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
34. Support I've seen plenty of good copyright work, and that's definitely an area where we need more admins. Hut 8.5 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
35. Support does a thankless task, but does it very well, and in an important area of the project. Demonstrates clear need for the tools. Would be happy to support, whether they stick to just copyright infringement, or if they want to branch out further. Agent00x (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
36. Support Would love to have you on the admin team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
37. Without a doubt --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
38. Support obviously. MER-C 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
39. Yes, has the temperament and the skill level. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
40. Support My experience with this user is positive and they are helpful. DBigXrayᗙ 20:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
41. Support No red flags and we need more admins working in copyvio.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
42. Support Seems to be a good candidate and their contributions are good. What more do you need in an admin? (I may be wrong as this is the first RFA I've participated in...) King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
43. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
44. Can't think of anyone more qualified in 2020 to get access to the tools, and I say that without hyperbole. Wizardman 22:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
45. Seems to be a good editor, and willing to listen to others. I don't feel it's a requirement for an administrator to have extensive content creation experience. I feel they must simply demonstrate a solid understanding of when to, and when not to, use the tools that the community is trusting them with, and the willingness to learn and listen when they might make a mistake (no one is perfect). I also feel very strongly about WP:V and respect their answer pointing that out as the most important policy. Excellent COPYVIO work. Waggie (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
46. Support - Though Money emoji has only been here for two years, it looks like he has more than proved his suitability for the admin tools, having worked in the CCI field. I think that the admin tools would help him out with the CCI backlog. And despite his username, he is not actually a money emoji, so I guess that's another plus ... shows maturity, I think epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    As said in the questions above, they have had lots of experience in the copyright area. They said there were not that many copyright admins here. I think they will be a good new addition to the admin community. --TFFfan (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

47. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
48. Candid answers to my admittedly nitpicky questions... no complaints there. As mentioned above, the candidate plays a crucial role in the mainspace regardless of what the "articles created" or "kilobytes added" stats tell us. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    Please consider this a strong support to help balance out the idea that you can't learn how a website works over the course of five years and 10,000 edits. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

49. Support. Anyone willing to tackle the hellscape that is CCI deserves the mop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
50. Support Well versed in CCI issues, clear net positive, and cordial with all they come across to boot. I wish I could clone Money emoji and have more admins like them. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
51. Support: While the editor isn't big on creating new articles, I lean WP:GNOME myself. I see a >40% mainspace contribution ratio [1], which is solid (much of the rest is in "Wikipedia:", which we'd expect for someone doing admin-ish stuff, plus lots of talk namespaces, a general indicator of collaborative and dispute-resolution behavior). Clearly an asset when it comes to copyvio patrolling, and I don't see any history of jackassery or boneheadedness. I'm not sure this candidate would exactly pass my criteria in a literal reading, but they're flexible. This editor is clearly clueful, WP:HERE, and would continue to be a net positive with the extra tools.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
52. Support good work in CCI clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
53. Support Strong copyvio work is very important for the project, and it's clearly demonstrated here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
54. Skimpy on content work, but their mainspace edits are not frighteningly negligible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • S - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Moving to oppose - needs more time.
55. Not as thoughtful an answer to my question as I would have liked, but OK. feminist (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
56. Support per Diannaa. Enthusiastic editor, willing to work in a tough area. Miniapolis 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
57. Support solid work in copyvio area, where we need more admins to handle G12 and revdel. I don't think it's necessary for admins to be content creators. buidhe 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
58. Support. While I cannot recall any particular interaction I have had with this user, I am impressed with their Wikipedia "resume" and can only expect this candidate to be a net positive to the project. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
59. Support, almost exactly along the lines just expressed by Utopes. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
60. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
61. Support Everybody likes this. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
62. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
63. Support – Some people got to have it, hey-ey-ey! Some people really need it - ahh, listen to me y'all! Kurtis ^(talk) 10:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
64. Support Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 13:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
65. Support - Normally, I would be reluctant to promote an editor with so little content creation, but the need to effectively tackle the CCI backlog outweighs my slight reservation. Other than a WP:PERSONALATTACK edit summary, I see no reason not to support. - MrX 🖋 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    MrX, I was making fun of myself for not realising that a site was a mirror.... unless you knew that already. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Yeah I know; I was injecting some humor. It was funnier in my own head. - MrX 🖋 15:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

66. Support CCI area will benefit from having more people with the tools. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
67. Support Shaking my head at voters demanding 10000 edits from admin candidates. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Also shaking my head at voters demanding admin candidates participate in areas other than the ones which interest them. I don't know why it's so hard to grasp the pointlessness of making such demands of people who edit Wikipedia without pay and ask to perform admin duties, also without pay. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

68. Support - Say the right things, does the right things. Makes mistakes, learns from them. Rosser Gruffydd 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
69. Support with pleasure; qualified and helpful in a very underserved area. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
70. Support Will be a large benefit to the project with the tools, has my trust. Spencer^T•C 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
71. Support. I'm very pleased to see this nomination. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
72. support seen 'm around. per nom statement. per other supports.-- Deepfriedokra 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
73. Support per nomination. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
74. Support The tax accountant in me was won over with the user name. In all seriousness, the candidate appears to be well qualified and has my trust. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
75. Support per Diannaa and Hut 8.5, with thanks to the candidate for their hard work in a difficult area. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
76. Support - no concerns, and nothing valid in opposes. GiantSnowman 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
77. Support, seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
78. Support Mkdw ^talk 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
79. Support: no behavioural issues and a passion for copyright issues are more than enough reason for support. Giving the mop to an editor working in CCI is the least we can do to help them out. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
80. Weak Support I see no problems however I would personally like to see more edits and more work with CSDs in the future. Bobherry Talk Edits 02:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
81. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
82. I have no concerns about Money except that I would normally look for more content experience in an RfA candidate, and so to that extent the oppose !votes gave me pause, but Money's enthusiastic dedication to copyvio work makes up for it. In the end, I'm pretty sure they won't delete the main page (unless it's a copyvio). – Levivich 04:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
83. Support - No concerns. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
84. Support Grudgingly. Because the candidate fails my criteria of being the perfect candidate. Because I distrust both the nominators. Because the RfA fails my criteria of having at least 3 nominators. Because AfD !votes of the candidate should have been exactly 50% keep and 50% delete. Because I only normally support candidates with zero opposing editors.... And hopefully, in case of a crat chat, my well-explained support !vote would get the importance it deserves. That it. Lourdes 10:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
85. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
86. Support per my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 13:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
87. Support no issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
88. Support No pressing concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
89. Support Nominated by editors with good judgment, good answers to questions, an editing record that makes sense for what they would use adminship for. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
90. Support Truly amazing work at CCI. I'm astonished they're not already admin; they're friendly, helpful, and extremely knowledgeable. Tamwin (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Per their answer to King of Scorpions. It is very reassuring to see a potential sysop with that attitude about WP:V. It truly is the most important policy on Wikipedia. Various editors have !voted oppose due to a perceived lack in total contributions, but I question the validity of that argument. None of the added privileges of sysops directly involve content contributions. It's all about maintenance, and this editor has proven to be a friendly person that is willing to help out and make the encyclopedia better. Good enough for me. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    ​I didn't realize my question would be so RFA-affecting... King of Scorpions (my talk) 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

92. Support. Strong record in an understaffed area; good demeanour. No concerns. AGK ■ 20:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)'
93. Support as I really appreciate the user’s work on an area that has a high backlog and the ability to rectify decision such as the AfD nominations mentioned in the questions. GoodCrossing (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
94. Support I APPROVE :) Flalf (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
95. Sure. — 🦊 03:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
96. Support, anyone willing and able to deal with CCI deserves the mop. Renata (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
97. Support due to nothing but positive interactions at CCI. Content production isn't as much of an issue for me where an admin declares an intent to focus on a particular technical area for which the admin toolset is a major help. Gricehead (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
98. Support per AGK. Dekimasuよ! 10:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
99. Support When an editor is unfailingly civil and helpful, knows what they don't know, and can admit mistakes, I'm not too concerned about lack of content creation. This editor is working in a much-needed area and needs these tools. I see no reason to think they'd use them to cause problems for content creators. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
100. Support --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
101. Support, everyone makes mistakes. BEANS X3 (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
102. Support. Copyright cleanup is really important, and hard. If he's willing to do it, let 'im. And if he worked on the Blofeld swamp, that a good indication that he will. Content creation, enh; it's a data point, but not a huge one. Lots of good managers were shitty catchers with 49 lifetime at bats. What I'm much more looking for is of the guy's editing contributions were bad, or if they guy's a jerk. If you're not a jerk, we can work with you as you learn and grow. And none of the oppose votes indicated that he's a jerk or makes bad edits. They're all about Well he hasn't done enough writing, which just doesn't bother me. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
103. Support: Well-trusted user. ToThAc (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
104. Support I've known Money pretty much since we both started anti-vandalism work in April 2018, and I think he can be trusted to use the admin tools without abusing them. Copyright cleanup is a very important area, and another admin specializing in CCI will be very helpful to Wikipedia. I know he doesn't have a whole lot of content creation, but we have content creators, we have admins, and we have some that do both. As long as Money does not intend to take part in those content disputes that wind up at ANI, and uses his admin tools in copyright issues and areas he is comfortable with, I think he won't screw up. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
105. Support - I see no problems with this user that would make them a bad admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
106. Support Not a jerk, has a clue. I wish we stop looking for perfect admins, since we will end up short. The candidate has demonstrated the willingness, need, and sufficient competency to take up an understaffed job at CCI, and should be given the tool. No such user (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
107. Support - Sounds like a good guy. I don't really care about content creation as much as some others do. Personality is king. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
108. Support: no concerns, the administrator tools are not for creating content. The retirement message, while over the top, took place under extreme circumstances unlikely to be repeated. – Teratix ₵ 00:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
109. Support - I trust the nominators and see no reason to oppose. --Bduke (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
110. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
111. Support - demonstrated need for the tools. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
112. Support for copyright work, despite the reasonable issues raised by opposers. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
113. Support for needed work in the rather thankless frontier of copybook cleanup. We need all kinds of specialists to build an encyclopedia for the world. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
114. Strong support can be trusted, clear use case --DannyS712 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
115. Support - Competent and trusted editor, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 10:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No content creation to speak of: one article. My belief is that an administrator needs to protect content and content creators - we are an encyclopedia. Experience creating content is important IMO. The candidate also has an 82% delete !voting record at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Just curious; do expansions from redirect count towards your articles created metric? 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Yeah, I suppose those can count. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Oppose, reluctantly, for failing my criteria - which is a really low bar, IMHO. On the discussion of content, I do not believe every administrator needs to be a scribe as we need techies and people willing to do tedious tasks. Delete vote % is generally meaningless to me, I assume good faith on the part of the majority of the nominations at AfD. But, while an edit count above 10K doesn't move me, I would like to see at least that. Maybe just a little too soon? Ifnord (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   Although you did say that it will not move you, I have now hit 10k edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Insufficient content contributions; a few stubs on songs expanded from redirects is not enough to judge, and I feel the nomination has overegged the editor's experience in this area. Some of the recent archived talk-page discussions also make it clear that even in the area of copyright the editor is not yet 100%; eg the discussion on close paraphrasing in S. H. Ervin; where precisely to draw the close-paraphrasing line is an area that it helps to have experience from the article-creation side, in my opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ETA: As this RfA progresses, I'm also increasingly concerned about judgement and maturity issues. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

   Just wondering, what should I have done differently in the S. H. Ervin case? Archive for reference. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

5. Oppose Nominating just barely a month after they have been named an ArbCom clerk is too soon. He should have been working longer to get more of a track record. The account has been registered for less than two years (I think the answers to Q4 & Q8 are a bit shoddy, but I will assume good faith, and the rules say you have to reveal your past accounts only to the ArbCom). Most edits have few bytes in them. There is the burnout episode referenced in Q10, which shouldn't be held against you because it happens to the best of us, but it makes the short-ish Wikipedia career somewhat volatile. Money emoji seems like a laid-back person, which I would be more than happy to see in an admin, but this is premature. --Pudeo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose lack of article creation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Pudeo and the numerous comments to opposers. Nihlus 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose – Sorry, but this has to improve and only time can help in that cause. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose – Sorry, but I've never supported anyone with so few edits and such a short time on the project. Another year and I would consider it. Deb (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   Deb, don't mind me but you passed RfA in the yesteryears via a mailing list where the expectations from a candidate would not have the edits or tenure of one "Money emoji", let alone more than one. Even if we let that be with a "it's a different place now", is it really fair to assess them on parameters such as edit count and tenure which mostly have literally no impact on administrator's output, let alone on parameters that you yourself would have not expected from yourself in 2003? I totally stand by your criteria but I believe for adminship, all candidates need to be looked at from a wide-ranging perspective and not only a narrow set of ir/relevant parameters. Feel free to clarify further. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   You're correct in thinking that Wikipedia is a different place now - a very different place. Being an admin was relatively simple in 2003 (just as I was then relatively experienced; in the early days, a large proportion of my contributions were new articles created from scratch) and I've had to learn as I went along, not to mention re-learning almost everything two or three times. Yes, the criteria are different now, but I certainly don't agree that "parameters such as edit count and tenure ... have literally no impact on administrator's output". I think those things are quite critical. Deb (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   I understand completely, I'd just rather see you give them a fair hearing where you assess them on more parameters. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   You're implying that I'm being unfair and I resent that. I very rarely oppose RfAs. Deb (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   No worries, you're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine. Just tried to change your mind, and it's alright if you don't want to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

10. Oppose Seems like a good editor, but comes off as too green for RfA. I'm not a big fan of how recent that immature retirement outburst was, especially when coupled with the user's already rather scanty tenure. That, when combined with the sloppy representation of content creation during this RfA, gives me enough pause that I can't support this nomination. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Nohomersryan: Hi. Can you kindly provide link to the retirement incident? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    [2] Nohomersryan (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    It's mentioned in Q10 with an explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

11. Regretfully, after consideration I find myself in the oppose column. I think the candidate does a lot of good work, and I can definitely see myself supporting in the future, but I think it's too soon. "Too soon" not because I have some particular standard about content creation or edit count or account age that they will someday meet but because I think they're on a positive trajectory such that the ratio of [evidence of positive contributions and a strong grasp of policies and guidelines] to [concerns] will continue to grow. I came to this with a concern, which I asked about in Q10, relating to submitting an article for GA without having editing it and, far more importantly, a retirement message citing the obnoxious/pretentious/passive-aggressive/arrogant/cringey/annoying/asshole-for-the-hell-of-it personas the mass majority of users on this website. I'm sympathetic to the extent to which real life events can color one's involvement with other hobbies/activities, but we need evidence that admins can manage difficult interactions/users and know how to pull back from stressful situations before telling off "the mass majority of users". IMO give it another 6-12 months (of course, I say that, but this looks likely to pass at this point). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Seems immature and has an inadequate record of accomplishments. Smallchief (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
13. Regretful oppose I agree with Smallchief that the responses to the questions here, as well as Money Emoji's talk page interactions, give an impression of immaturity that do not give me confidence in their ability to be an effective administrator. In addition, while I don't have a specific list of RfA criteria like some other !voters, only ~2000 non-automated edits in mainspace seems a bit low to me. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 23:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    I'm afraid I haven't seen any evidence of that myself - do you have some examples? The example mentioned earlier in this section - User talk:Money emoji/Archive 6#S. H. Ervin and copyright, ME's reply was brief and possibly terse, but certainly nothing out of the ordinary compared to a typical editor. I tend to have a low tolerance of admins or admin candidates who behave like children. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    I guess I was initially put off by the answer to Q4, which came across as petulant (especially bringing up that their friend had become "quite rude"), the retirement statement was recent enough that it caused me worry, the constant blaming of a "friend" for everything from the recusal to the blanking of the arbcom case requests page, and blaming a bad AfD nom on being "sick, tired, and upset" all give an impression of someone not mature enough to own up to their mistakes. I'm not going to go through their edit history again, but I came across several talk page posts that, while by themselves weren't all that bad, in aggregate gave me pause (such as this unhelpful response and this first interaction with EEng). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

14. Oppose Not much content creation.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
15. Oppose -- I am not comfortable with such little content creation. EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose for full adminship, due to temperament, lack of content creation and lack of experience. If the tools were unbundled, then I would absolutely support. Unfortunately, you are requesting the only possible option: the full toolset. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Bison X: I find this oppose very strange, it reads like an objection to how adminship is structured in general, perhaps it would be more clear if you explained which tools you would trust them with, and which you would not, and why? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Beeblebrox: I oppose the general promotion based on the 3 reasons I gave. I would not be opposed to them having and using the access they mention in Q1: Having the admin tools will let me see hidden revisions (which is extremely helpful for CCI), revdel, and delete pages, all of which are helpful abilities to have while removing copyvios. This is not meant to be a protest vote; I was expanding on my overall oppose so the candidate would know I trust their CCI judgment but it should not be used as a wedge to obtain the whole toolset. Seems like there was another RfA a few years back where a candidate wanted to specialize and said they would not use the tools they were not interested in, and I believe that one failed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for your reply, that's much clearer. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

17. Oppose actual content creation is very weak. Anyone who is going to take actions against content creators needs to understand what it is like to build the encyclopaedia, and this nom doesn't meet my expectation of at least one GA they have made a major contribution to, including steering it through GAN. Claiming the Pizzagate article is massive overreach, 24 edits with 200 bytes added? I recommend doing some actual content creation and coming back in six months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
18. Oppose The candidate seems immature, over-influenced by a mysterious friend, overly-impressed by his own efforts, and over-ambitious as to what he may be able to achieve at CCI. He mentions that one of his best contributions was trying to improve List of NC-17 rated films. Although he has done some useful work on finding references, he did not complete the task and the article is still tagged as having multiple issues. His retirement statement was way over the top. Altogether, I cannot bring myself to support this candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
19. Oppose Content creation is fairly weak, and pointing to some fairly poor efforts as evidence of strong content creation only makes that more of a concern for me. Answers to Q4 and 8 (and, to a lesser extent 6) honestly really bother me; I just can't shake the feeling there's something not quite right there. I'm not sure about temperament and maturity overall, but the retirement statement is a bit of a red flag and it wasn't all that long ago. Hug^syrup 12:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
20. Oppose - the link provided by Rhododendrites is a red flag substantiated by this link. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
21. Oppose: Though I echo the opposition of Cwmhiraeth, my main concern also centers around the lack of content creation, which is, sadly, disqualifying in my view. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
22. Oppose, per Rhododendrites. If this RfA fails, please take the rejection gracefully. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions#Clerks lists only one active non-admin clerk. I'd suggest running for clerk and coming back to RfA with some successful clerking experience under your belt. With regard to the Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, note that many of Blofeld's article creations were done by bot or semi-automated edits pulling content from online databases. These can be evaluated as a group rather than individually; either they are all copyright violations, or none of them are. Evaluating similar automated creations as a package should save you some time. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    Hmmm. In your answer to Q1 above "It would also allow me to clerk at CCI and CP, since only admins and clerks can archive reports; and no new clerks have been appointed for a while"... your response, posted 3 mins. after my oppose !vote. wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    I'll elaborate. CCI was essentially dead before I started helping out. After I finished some investigations, I asked about 4 different times to be appointed a clerk; 1 2 3 4; None of the requests received much response, except from Diannaa, who said "activity at CCI is very low, almost negligible, so the need for clerks is correspondingly low. That's prolly why no one has replied." Since she's essentially the authority when it comes to copyright, and no one else really responded, that basically makes non-admin clerks at CCI completely obsolete. As for my "response" of sorts; I'm trying to not directly respond to opposes in order to not come off as rude; I'm trying to respond more indirectly, as I did here. Your oppose put me in quite the pickle, since it's currently impossible to clerk at CCI. So I thought the best response would be marking the clerk area as historical, since no applications are accepted. But that also comes off as somewhat rude and shady, so I guess I have no choice but to respond. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

23. Oppose (Moved from "Neutral".) After reviewing the comments made thus far in the RFA, this looks like a WP:NOTYET/WP:NOTQUITEYET situation. My primary concern at this point (besides the low edit count and the age of the account) is that the nominee seems to have a breadth of experience in one specific aspect of Wikipedia, and needs to branch out more and participate in more of the various functions of Wikipedia. I really think I am more on the "WP:NOTQUITEYET" team rather than "WP:NOTYET"; I could see myself supporting this candidate in 6 months if they start branching out from the tunnel vision-like small batch of fields they have participated in thus far. With all that being said, if this nomination fails and the nominee chooses not to branch out from their current stomping grounds, since it does seem like they are doing fairly well with what they are doing now, I hope that they stick around and continue to do what they are doing in a non-admin capacity since it seems like for the most part, the community is happy with the participation the nominee has done in the place(s) they have. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Pudeo and Q4. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
25. Oppose on several grounds: (1) maturity issues raised by several others above relating, among other things, to over-the-top retirement statement; (2) reluctance to give full tool set to an editor lacking substantive content creation; and (3) concerns about AfD nominations, including 8 of their last 24 ending in "keep" decisions. I inquired about the third issue at Q5 and was not very satisfied with the response re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War (nominated just eight months ago) admitting they were "very sick, tired, and upset when I wrote that (I had just driven 5 hours to pick my sister up from Niagara Falls), and mistunderstood [sic] policy." I do appreciate the honesty, but question the judgment of making ill-advised AfDs when "sick, tired, and upset." This reinforces concerns about maturity raised by others. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
26. Oppose per the diff cited by Rhododendrites, which is still recent enough to be concerning. Lepricavark (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
27. Oppose because of the message cited by Rhododendrites. Administrators should have restraint, and that message demonstrate that this user fails at this fundamental requirement. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
28. Oppose Content creation? BLP writing? AfD? Zero for three, though working on copyrights is good, I find it insufficient for full Admin desires. Collect (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Normally I would strenuously oppose an editor at RFA with this content contribution profile (they actually had only 24 edits and 0.7% authorship at the GA Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so there is actually very negligible content creation here, in contrast to the nomination statement, to an extent that I find alarming at RFA). Nonetheless, for those with demonstrated work in the under-staffed area of copyvio, I'm willing to adjust my usual stance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   I looked at the user's contribs, and they seem good, but I'm not going to lean one direction or the other in case there's something I don't know about... King of Scorpions 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Changed my mind. Re-reviewed contribs and decided to support. King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Voting neutral is not a waiting ground, it is for people who have performed a careful assessment and cannot lean either way. And in case there's something you think you don't know yet, assume good faith. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

2. Good point from Sandy. I wouldn't blame a candidate because their nominator erred, but, really, @Ritchie333: do you stand by your suggestion that authoring 0.7% of an article is a major contribution. ——SN54129 08:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   Edits like this are not major heavy lifting, granted, but as the edit summary says, it was a good-faith attempt to improve the article to FAC, even though it was premature. Anyway, that wasn't really the point I was going to make, which was rather that Money emoji isn't simply a one trick pony who can do copyright investigations and nothing else. I would focus on the CCI cleanup work he has done, Dr Blofeld's is one such example, and the conversation that started me thinking "might be a good admin candidate" was this one regarding a cleanup of Elisa Rolle's work. Like TheGracefulSlick, the community seems to be divided on Elisa, but they did good content work and we should try and keep hold of that while managing the other difficulties they fell into, for the good of the project. And like Sandy, I am prepared to trade-off a track record of GAs / FAs against a specialist skill that not many admins have; in this case, copyright cleanup. I tried to have a go at Elisa's and flippin' heck, it was tedious. But somebody has to do it - as the message says at the top of the edit window, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I understand the candidate and nominators' case for needing the tools ("revdel ... while removing copyvios" is definitely a sentence that shows the candidate knows what he's asking for) but "I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance" worries me that the candidate will burn himself out before he begins... Deryck C. 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   Don't know too much about this editor, but now I'm concerned that they are going to respond to almost all votes in the "Oppose" section. I'll just park it here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   (Moved to "Oppose".) Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

4. I'm not overly impressed by some of the answers, particularly #4. On the other hand, I am not bothered in the slightest by the "resignation statement", and - more importantly - fighting copyvios is important work which is made easier if the admin tools are available. As I find myself with no strong conviction towards either supporting or opposing I declare myself neutral. --kingboyk (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• I hate to nitpick, but the candidate says they started in March 2018, and Tony says it was March 2019 —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fat-finger :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• If this is the best example of content creation Richie, best not to big it up. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• I want to address some of the complaints about "lack of content creation". From a quick search, I can see that Money emoji is the significant contributor to, amongst others, Guinness World Record: The Videogame, Carousel (Travis Scott song), EOE: Eve of Extinction, Stargazing (Travis Scott song) and Zuu. Anyway, "content creation" as a term in itself is somewhat misleading - after all, a paid editor writing hedge fund spam is "creating content" but we waste no time in dragging them up by their boots and telling them not to hit the door on the way out. Part of the problem with searching through ME's stats is, as you might expect, the majority of mainspace edits are removing copyvios. Content removal is still content work if it makes the article better and more in alignment with our core policies. Significantly, I see comments such as this one on Catherine Sulem; "Feel guilty about butchering this womans bio, but copyvio from: https://cms.math.ca/Prix/citations/kn1998.pdf". Yes, it's not nice to have to gut a biography of a woman when there's a core grass roots project trying to not do this in order to readdress systemic bias, but as long as we are "the FREE encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this course of action is correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Removing copyright infringing or unverifiable claims is indeed content work. However, I don't think it's quite content creation. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing my experience but I find it much easier to remove/merge/edit content than to sit down and write new content which requires me to find good sources, read them, figure out what's important, and then paraphrase that. To me the links you provided to those four pages are indeed content creation in a way Sulem is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Very few editors want to tackle Dr. Blofeld's copyvio backlog. Money emoji has done a good job of trying to close it down while emphasising that Blofeld is one of our most prolific editors. Similarly, when I went through a phase of improving a lot of Led Zeppelin articles to GA a while back, I had to start Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Edelmand because he had plagiarised many of the Zep articles from books I owned and I noticed exact matches . For example : this edit on Led Zeppelin IV, or User_talk:Fram/Archive_36#Edelmand and copyright violations where I cited this edit on Led Zeppelin III that had sat in a plagiarised stated for almost a decade. Plagiarism and copyright violations are serious issues, as they make a mockery of our "free encyclopedia tag". Then we have Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles, which has been ongoing for almost ten years. We badly need editors who want to work in this area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We certainly do need more editors who like emoji work in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 FWIW I find it much easier to create from scratch than to edit someone else's work. We each have our own strengths. I'm not disagreeing with you about what's easiest for you, just saying maybe we should allow each contributor to contribute in the areas they're best at and most interested in. IMO the reason for requiring content creation is to ensure an admin understands content creation and its challenges well enough to be helpful to content creators. If a person is civil and helpful and useful in at least one important area, do they really need to be content creators too? --valereee (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely not on team "need content creation in order to be a sysop" but am respectful of those who are. My bigger qualm, such that there is one, is that removing copyvio material is content creation which I think is different than editing others work - which I agree poses its own challenges. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't see how anyone can deal with close paraphrasing issues without having tried to create properly fleshed-out articles within the rules. All content creation is on a tightrope between copyvio/close paraphrasing on the one side & original research/unverified material on the other; until one has tried to walk that tightrope – particularly to develop higher-quality articles – one can't understand how the close paraphrasing rule works in practice. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, I hope I don't seem argumentative, but I guess I don't follow. Those seem like two completely different skills to me. I totally can see how someone could be great at checking copyvio but terrible at creating content from scratch in English. Maybe that's because I find creation fun and easy, and I find copyvio-checking the opposite of fun, to the point I know I could never become good at it? Please understand I'm totally willing to accept that other people have a different opinion on the importance of content creation from my own, and I respect those opinions. It's not that I don't consider content creation important, I'm primarily a content creator myself. --valereee (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: See what you think of the content removed at S. H. Ervin versus this source. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, well, to me it looks like an editor made a not-ideal correction, another editor questioned it at the first editor's talk, and the first editor agreed it was an overcorrection and added the info back in a way that was less of a close paraphrase. I think what you're saying is that someone who was a more experienced content creator would have seen from the start that the problematic content needed rewriting rather than correcting the close paraphrase by removing any of the bits of information, all of which were important? (This discussion is becoming quite long, should it move to the talk?) --valereee (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)