Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whpq

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

Whpq

Final: (213/9/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 03:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Whpq (talk · contribs) – Hi folks, I'm very pleased to be nominating Whpq for adminship today. He's had an account on Wikipedia since 2005, been active editor for the entire time (17 years!), and amassed an incredible 129,000 edits. Whpq has created 39 articles, 2 DYKs, and made substantial contributions to dozens more. He's also one of the few editors on Wikipedia who are *very* well versed in copyright and our media file policies, and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he knew more than me on many of these concepts! Whpq frequently makes valuable contributions to FfD, has a keen eye for spotting (often subtle) copyright violations, and is an expert at identifying NFCC violations. Plus, we could really use his expertise at FfD, where there are few active admins (we have an effective bus factor of three at the moment). I'm also routinely impressed by Whpq's remarkable degree of patience, calm disposition, and willingness to explain things, especially when it comes to complex copyrights and/or media file policies. The way he adeptly handles such situations, always resolving them in a polite and amicable way, is very commendable. I'm confident that Whpq will be an excellent and much-needed addition to the admin corps. Cheers, FASTILY 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm proud to co-nominate Whpq for adminship. A veteran editor with over 100,000 contributions, Whpq has been a backbone in file deletion areas for several years and is highly active in tagging copyright violating files for speedy deletion. Whpq has demonstrated a high degree of knowledge in a difficult area, and their talk pages archives are filled with calm and collegial interactions with new users. Whpq has also assisted with numerous cleanups over the years, such as the WikiProject Gastropods cleanup and other image based Contributor copyright investigations. A dedicated and thoughtful worker, Whpq will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am glad to accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited under any other accounts. Prior to registering an account, I did make some edits as an IP editor. I do not remember what those edits are, but I can assure you that the edits were not vandalism, and alas, not sourced. I've improved on that in the intervening years. -- Whpq (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: The idea of a free user generated encyclopedia was an enticing idea that prompted me to create an account in 2005. That idea is still enticing to me, and it is obviously enticing to others as we have seen Wikipedia grow enormously over the years. That growth needs to be supported with administrators to ensure policies and procedures are dealt with properly. Two areas that appear to need some more helping hands is dealing with files, and with copyright issues. These are areas I have experience with as an editor, and feel I can help with the administrative load. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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

A: Best can be measured or considered in many different ways. For me, working on the Unreferenced BLP Rescue project is a high point. As a bit of background, in 2010, there was a very real possibility that all unreferenced biographies of living people would be deleted as a matter of policy compliance in a mass deletion. This project took on the task of clearing the huge backlog of unreferenced articles. It was personally rewarding as the editing took me across a wide variety of subject areas, working with some very nice editors in a collaborative and fun environment. More importantly, Wikipedia was able retain articles that otherwise would have disappeared. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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: If I am feeling heated up, or stressed, I step away for a period to clam down. There is rarely any issue in editing that requires it to be dealt with right away, so using a little time to cool off can make a huge difference in stress levels. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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 0xDeadbeef

4. Will you be open to recall? If so, under what conditions?

A: No, not as such. The addition of more avenues for drama is not a good thing. Having said that, if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you clarify this answer Whpq. You foreground your response with a "No", then go on to outline your criteria for a WP:RECALL, so it looks like you're saying yes. Being open to recall means that you'd be willing to resign without going through an avenue of drama such as ArbCom or ANI if editors you trust and respect say you should resign - and that's what you've said in your response. SilkTork (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

What I have promised looks very close to criteria that many might use when saying yes to recall. But I am not saying yes to recall. The recall question is being used as some sort of promise of accountability from the candidate. The fact that I, or any other candidate has stepped up to an RFA is a promise of accountability. A recall process which in which the rules for recall are made up, not uniform, can be changed at any time, and then are also non-binding anyways is just window dressing. I'm not signing up for window dressing. The question is also being used as a bulwark against insufficient procedures for desysop. I can understand that position. But the answer is to get a uniform process that is binding, and applies to all admins. Whpq (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

5. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?

A: As noted in my answer to question 1, my activity is going to be related to dealing with files, and copyright issues. I don't expect to be working in dispute resolution, or or requests for various permissions or protections. If an editor asks me about these, I will, of course, direct them to the appropriate venue for fulfilling the request such as WP:RFP if they are looking for page protection if the request looks reasonable. If the request looks like a complete non-starter, such as page protection for a page that is stable, I would explain why their request is not a good idea, including directing them to the appropriate guidelines or policy. As for new users asking questions in the file or copyright area, I will answer and guide them as best I can. We have venues that can help new editors (and even experienced editors) on media and copyright, so I try to include a link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and Wikipedia:Teahouse when appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Shushugah

6. If a file was uploaded appropriately onto enwp, but due to licensing expiration/changes it can be uploaded to Commons, how would you preserve the history of the local enwp file, and under what circumstances would you delete/preserve the file locally?

A: There are two components to copyright on files, the copyright on the file itself, and the copyright on the text description of the file. A log of the users contributing need to be maintained to satisfy any attribution requirements of the licensing. License changes on the file could be due to VRT confirmation of a free license, or a file aging into the public domain on a file that was originally uploaded as non-free content. The tool transferring the file to Commons includes the contrribution log from enwp which is sufficient for attribution, and the local file can be deleted. A local file would be preserved if tagged with {{Keep local}} but that would still be subject to FFD if somebody wanted to delete the file in spite of the keep local request. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from GhostRiver

7. First of all, I want to congratulate you for nearly two decades of active editing, especially for your work with file copyright, an important area of the Wiki that I feel is often overlooked. That being said, after 17 years as an editor, what inspired the jump to RfA?

A: Because Fastily and Moneytrees asked me. Honestly, I have no burning desire to be an admin, but I do have a burning desire to ensure Wikipedia remains a great free encyclopedia. Part of ensuring that happens is having admins deal with policies and procedures that keep things running smoothly. In the areas of files, and copyrights, the number of admins that handle this is very small; too small in fact, so I am willing to help on some that administrative load. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from 2601:647:5800:4D2:8143:2CE2:510C:681C

8. User:Whpq, what are some criteria you use when deciding whether to block a user for file copyright violations?

A: Ultimately, blocking is used to prevent further copyright violations, so it really boils down to determining how likely is it that the editor will continue making copyright violations. Do they have a history of copyright violations? Have they been previously blocked for copyright violations? What actions have been taken in communicating to the editor that those types of contributions are not acceptable? Especially for new users, Wikipedia can be confusing, and the standard notices about copyright violations may just look like a lot of "blah, blah blah". {{Uw-copyright-new}} can be helpful to give new editors a more comprehensive notice about copyrights. I've taken to bolding the the particular bullet point that applies to their situation. Sometimes, it needs a simple blunt message to stop copying files from the Internet. Whether it be a standard message, or a more tailored communication, if that stops the copyright violating activity, then no block is needed and would be the best outcome. -- Whpq (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from GeoffreyT2000

9. Will you be closing FfDs or other XfDs (e.g., AfDs) as "delete" often?

A: I intend to only be closing FFDs. As for closing as "delete" often, that's going to be a yes, because that is the reality of FFD. Even though FFD stands for "Files for discussion", most nominations are for deletion of the files. And these nominations are done after due consideration by the nominators that the file should be deleted. If I didn't close FFDs as "delete" often, there would be huge issue of poor nominations that would need to be addressed. If this question is a feeler about my bias towards deletion, and how it will affect my actions if I were and admin, then I will say that I will try to implement decisions based on relevant policy and guidelines. If you are trying to evaluate my bias, full stop; then perhaps the reason why I created Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children will give you a better idea. The Ransom Riggs article was nominated for deletion. At the time, he had only one notable work, and we didn't even have an article on it. As an author with only one book to his name of any note, I felt there was a real possibility that article would not be kept. The novel was clearly (to me) notable, so I created the article to ensure that there was a valid merge target in case the AFD for the author did not head to a keep. See also my answer to Q2. I am not an inclusionist by any means. There's lots of stuff that doesn't belong and needs to go. But there's also stuff that should be kept, and I will work hard to keep it. -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

10. Also, will you ever rename files after becoming an admin? Note that you currently have AP, ECU, NPR, and PCR rights, but not FM (file mover).

A: Maybe? But certainly not right now. Moving files wasn't a reason for stepping up for adminship, but if we ran short of file movers, then I would. -- Whpq (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Indignant Flamingo

11. Say a long-time contributor has written hundreds of articles, some of which refer to older sources that are difficult to access but may in some cases be in the public domain in the US. The problem is that someone has discovered that the contributor's articles include widespread blatant copy-pasted text as well as copy-paste-change-some-words-style close paraphrasing of cited sources. There is good reason to suspect that most, if not all, of the contributor's articles contain potential copyvio of this sort, and the sources that can be checked easily have consistently borne out this suspicion. But as a practical matter, it's not possible to check all of the contributor's articles against their cited sources. And again, some sources might be in the public domain. In your opinion, what is the best course of action to move forward with cleaning up the contributor's articles? For example, is something like pre-emptive article deletion a sensible approach in such a case? (I have seen similar scenarios happen multiple times in reality, with responses ranging from "delete everything" to "give the editor a chance to fix their issues" to "leave it there until someone gets around to checking them all", so I am interested in how you think about this scenario from a copyright standpoint.)

A: These types of hypotheticals are really hard to answer because each case of persistent copyright violations is going to be a bit different. Presumptive deletion (or reversion) is really a matter of last resort. Given the conditions you've laid out in your example, I would think that presumptive deletion is on the table. That action shouldn't be take lightly, and as such, I'd look to get opinions from others working in the copyright area to get a consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Robert McClenon

12. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Few other large web sites take copyright seriously, and many web sites essentially ignore copyright. Much of the work of copyright admins seems to be due to good-faith users who are clueless that Wikipedia respects and enforces copyright. Do you have any ideas for how to communicate this 'difference' to new editors more effectively without coming across as bitey?

A: Certainly the prevalence of "share" buttons on various social media sites have put many in the mindset that things posted through Instagram, Twitter, etc. are "free", so the challenge for us is to educate the editors that being able to be freely shared is not the same as the free licensing that Wikipedia requires. For new editors who appear to be interested in contributing images, we have {{Welcome-image}} which provides some information in a welcoming way. {{Uw-copyright-new}} is a kinder, gentler version of {{Uw-copyright}} which is useful for communicating to new editors. Just my observation, it seems copyright violations tend to be all files or all text, and it is not that common for an editor to be committing copyright violations in both text and files. As mentioned in my answer to Q8, I've taken to bolding the relevant bullet point in that warning. Perhaps separate warnings for text and files would allow for more specific information relevant to text, and files can be provided if split like this. Expand {{uw-copyright-img}} to provide some more education for new editors perhaps. This is something that is definitely worthwhile digging into more but this is not really the place to further develop ideas. @Robert McClenon:, or any other interested editors, please drop by my talk page to further look at improvements for communicating copyright concerns to new editors. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Mz7

13. Thanks for volunteering! I agree in full with your answer to Q3—we should all definitely take a step back whenever we're feeling stressed (shameless plug for my essay on this). As a follow-up to that question, were there any specific disputes or stressful situations that came to mind when you were answering this question? I'd be interested in learning more about a specific example.

A: I don't really recall any incidents that upped the stress level too high. I just try to never let get that far. Earlier, this was mentioned. I must admit, my immediate reaction was "Well, F*** you too!". But that is obviously not the right thing to do. That sort of thing is not acceptable, but it is understandable. Editors can get upset when their work is deleted, and I try to understand that and respond to the issue and not the insult. So I switch tabs on my browser to Youtube, watch some squirrels run a ninja obstacle course, and then I'm in a much better place to respond. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Saturnrises

14. Can a user remove a CSD tag from a page he has created?

A: No, but they can contest it with a message on the talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Saturnrises

15. What is the difference between a indef block and ban

A: A block is a technical restriction on editing placed against an account. A ban is a community sanction against an editor restricting their editing priveleges. A block may be used as a means to enforce a ban. Indefinite refers to the block or ban having no specific duration, and does noy mean permanent. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Whpq: Whpq (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Whpq can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support as nom -FASTILY 04:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
2. ...As co-nom! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 04:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Support seen them around and thought they were an admin already due to their competent candor ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 04:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Editor's experience, intentionality, and attested character suggest a suitable candidate for admin rights. Also, any fencer gets my support by default. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
6. Support --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Support I haven't much experience interacting with this editor, but I'd trust anyone recommended by both Fastily and Moneytrees. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
8. Glad to support a veteran editor as well. Volten001 ^☎ 05:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
9. Support, I expect good things from this editor. BD2412 T 05:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
10. Support, looks like a perfect fit. – Popo Dameron talk 05:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
11. Support more than happy to vote early. Has written plenty of perfectly clean article to demonstrate he know all about content creation. New Page Patroller since 2016 and thoroughly 'all round', his vast and long experience obviates any further digging into his history (which would be too time consuming anyway) and checking any other criteria on my 'laundry list'. It's about time he was an admin, and who am I to argue with such respected nominators? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
12. Support More important than their edits is the amount of clean up they've done, which is a LOT. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
13. Support Good-natured, very knowledgeable, and likely to be a huge net positive. I'd normally look more closely at content creation, but I think their work at FfD is so important that a lack of GAs wouldn't change my opinion. Ovinus (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    Withdrawn. Support. I don't know the nominee and I've never written a Good or Featured article in my life, I'm just happy to welcome people aboard who will shoulder a share of the administrative load in good spirits and be happy to serve our encyclopedic purposes. – Athaenara ✉ 06:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

14. Support I don't have a problem supporting this nomination based on the above and nominator statements. Wishing you the best of luck with this application, @Whpq:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
15. Support - This user nominated some of the images I uploaded on commons sometime ago for deletion due to copyright issues that I wasn't aware of and I think some of the files I uploaded here on en.wiki too. At first I was so unhappy and felt very bad, but as time goes on, I'm happy they did what they did. I'm sure they'll perform well as an administrator. Goodluck to them. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Support I'm surprised to realise that i don't recognise the candidate's name or signature at all ~ just shows how gnomic i am, i suppose ~ but a brief investigation, my default, and my respect for the noms leads me here. Plus, i really like the simple answer to Question 3. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
17. Add my support. I've seen Whpq around quite often, particularly in file space; he always seems capable and reliable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
18. Support Good candidate. No issues. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    Still full support after the candidate said no to that useless thing we for some reason bring up at every RfA. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

19. Support No issues, has a clue, has a need. Good luck. KylieTastic (talk)
20. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
21. Support—Wikipedia would benefit tremendously from having Whpq as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
22. Support Competent, experienced, no issues. Maproom (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
23. Support: long-time editor who is an expert at what they do best which is an area few editors understand or engage and where help is needed. As stated by the nominators, Whpq's contribs indicate calm interaction with other editors in a difficult area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
24. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
25. Support Another "Wait I thought they were an admin already!" nominations. Would easily be a positive addition to the admin group. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
26. Support per noms, thanks for volunteering. DanCherek (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
27. Support looks good to me. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
28. Support I trust that the nominators have trust in this candidate, and so by extension I'm happy to support. A quick review of this candidate looked good also. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
29. Support as a good, competent and trusted user in file sector, have a >15 years tenure and highly active for a long time. Thingofme (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
30. I'm very glad that you ran. Easy support. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
31. Have been seeing him for years, and always thought he was an admin. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    I support his non-validation of the non-consensus and troubled-history WP:RECALL. Wikipedia:Administrative action review is now a serious avenue for giving serious feedback to administrators. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

32. Support. No brainer. ✗plicit 13:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
33. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
34. Support Can't say I've come across him, but if it reduces the level of talk page moaning about the lack of candidates... Per SG. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
35. Support: I really don't see why this person shouldn't be an admin! I'm willing to bet that there are hardly any Wikipedians from 2005 around today, much less someone of this caliber and with this much expertise. A gem we can't afford to lose. I think the "oppose" folks will be hard-pressed to find a reason to do so... That Coptic Guy 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
36. Support per nominators and above. I trust him on a (somewhat cursory) review. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
37. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
38. Support – plenty of experience in a difficult area. I like how Whpq patiently explains our guidelines for non-free content even when receiving insults. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
39. Support – an excellent candidate; knowledgeable, polite, long-term committed Wikipedian. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
40. I have seen this editor around and, at the risk of sounding clichéd, was actually surprised that he wasn't an admin yet. Whpq has a clear need for the tools and has the right temperament for adminship. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
41. Support --, LGTM, Drummingman (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
42. Support —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
43. Support Andre🚐 16:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
44. 4 Yeses! This one's a keeper! More candidates like this, please. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
45. Support. a!rado (C✙T) 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    Also, that squirrel picture on user page is really cool, so count my !vote as Extra Strong Support. a!rado (C✙T) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

46. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
47. Support NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlaster^talk 17:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
48. Support, great candidate DFlhb (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
49. Support, lovely squirrel on user page, has a clue and is friendly, so meets my criteria. did you know the Dutch word for squirrel, eekhoorn, sounds almost exactly like acorn. Femke (alt) (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
50. Support, currently do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
51. Support with thanks for accepting the invitation to go through this process. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
52. Support Sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
53. Support. A lot of wikipedia experience so why not.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 18:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
54. Support. MER-C 18:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
55. Support. Established editor and the answer to question 7 from GhostRiver suggests the tools will be in good hands. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
56. Support Long-term editor, adequate content contributions in the past, clearly very knowledgeable on copyright. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
57. Support Good contributions to file copyright and WP:FFD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
58. Support. Whpq seems to be competent, experienced, and low-drama—exactly the sort of admin that we need more of. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
59. Seems good to me; I also object to question 9 as possibly loaded; how an XfD is to be closed depends on rough consensus, which will likely vary between articles and with a variety of good arguments one way or the other, and does not (at least ideally) depend on the closing admin in question, so "will you close as 'delete' often" strikes me as a rather useless and unduly tricky question. The steelman for it that I can see is that Whpq might be overly aggressive in deletionism, but I feel like better questions could be formulated to address that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    FfDs don't usually get a lot of participation, so it's standard practice to soft delete problematic files as no quorum. Unless we're talking about something that's truly evil, any editor may request that a soft deleted file be restored at WP:REFUND. So is the question loaded? Sort of. Could it have been phrased better? Absolutely. -FASTILY 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

60. Support, Why not? Sea Cow (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
61. Support, WP:NOTBIGDEAL – and there are no concerns from I can see. Best luck, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
62. Support I don't see why not. No obvious issues. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
63. Support - Haven't seen any good reason not to support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
64. Support Long and distinguish tenure, expertise in critical area, tools would be useful in that area, no drama. Banks Irk (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
65. Support: Whpq's knowledge and judgement of file policy (especially copyright/NFCC) is clear and trusted by many. Discussions like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 5#File:Siniristi 1933.png aren't rare at all. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
66. Support --Ferien (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
67. Support, never met the editor during my work in Wikipedia, but becoming an admin should not be a big deal. As no cause of concern is voiced by other editors, I will support it. Furthermore, the editor seems to be VERY experienced in copyright issues, complex issues that is beyond my knowledge right now. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
68. Support - Normally, I'd like to see at least one GA, but good copyright-related work is very valuable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
69. Support – Experienced; keeps a cool head. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
70. Moved from neutral. No opposition for lack of GAs from me, either (hey, I've none) — though, raise the double standard. Anyway, as I noted in my neutral comment (eventually), RfA participants like FASTILY represent the worst of the RfA ecosystem. They provide blasé and aspersion-laden (and heartless) opposes and go on like it's nothing. Zero consequences. No one even questions it. Last week was my first and only RfA nomination, which barely passed, and it'll certainly be my last. The reason it'll be my last are RfA participants like FASTILY, the nominator of this RfA. That said, this candidate seems qualified and I'm sure they'll make a good fit. Though again, I'm puzzled by how many only-two-GAs oppposes there were last week versus zero here (which, again, I hope it stays that way, as it is my view that that criteria is super-dumb). I don't think the candidate is a sock, either. El_C 22:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

71. Support – We need more admins working in copyright areas. Yeeno (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
72. Support – per all above,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
73. Support — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
74. Support Leijurv (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
75. Support Well qualified candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
76. Support – Good candidate, very experienced and competent. I see no issues. DB1729^talk 00:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
77. Support - Experienced editor. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
78. Support, no concerns that I can see. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
79. Support Whpq's work cleaning up the fantasy online game show pages that were a scourge for years was absolutely invaluable, clearly has what it takes to be an admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
80. Support - I don't believe I've ever interacted with Whpq in any capacity, but from what I've looked into I don't see any reason to think that they would be anything short of a good administrator. - Aoidh (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
81. Easy, per nom support.--John Cline (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
82. (edit conflict) Support. I never have previously heard of him, but a look at his contributions makes it look like he is a established user who has a WP:CLUE. Clyde ^{State your case} (please use {{reply to|ClydeFranklin}} on reply) 04:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
83. Support - Copyright is a highly technical area and, from reviewing their contributions, I believe Whpq has both the expertise and experience to make a positive contribution in that (and other areas) as an administrator. Best wishes, Mifter (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
84. Support, noting that copyright in particular is a valuable area to have new admins working in. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
85. Support I hope they win — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkus9061 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
86. Support Thank you for working on Files for Discussion and on copyright! 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 09:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
87. Support. Somehow haven't come across him before, but seems like a great candidate all-round. – Joe (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
88. Support It will be good to get an additional editor with that experience. The answer to the question by Indignant Flamingo seems reasonable. Gusfriend (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
89. Support – Has a clue. I see no reason not to give them a chance. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
90. Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
91. Oppose: This candidate has been around longer than I have, yet has never applied for adminship before now. This indicates a lack of desire for power that I would expect to see in any self-respecting admin. Seriously, Support per nom. — Voice of Clam 11:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
92. Support: a good candidate and I see no reason not to give them the admin rights. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
93. Support per User talk:Whpq/Archive 11#Adminship and this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
94. Support enthusiastically. Trustworthy candidate who will make a terrific admin. Best of luck! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
95. Support per Ritchie333 and many others. Some of the articles in user:Whpq#Articles started are a tad stubby (but then so are many of mine), and a couple of entries need updating as the candidate's articles have now moved and the link is now to a dab page. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
96. Support Yes please. 0xDeadbeef 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
97. Support If Whpq doesn't fit the bill, then I don't know who does. Maybe WP:SNOWPRO will apply here. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
98. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
99. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
100. Support I don't believe I have ever interacted with him, but a view through his contribs shows that he is very experienced with copyright cleanup, something that is desperately needed by the community. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
101. Support I have to see some pretty concerning behavior to oppose in general, but this candidate is quite the opposite. Looks well-rounded and unlikely to cause disruption with the tools. KoA (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
102. Support Hey, why not? Sarrail (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
103. Support -- Alyo (chat·edits) 17:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
104. Support Trusted user with a clear need for the tools. Schwede66 17:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
105. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
106. Support why not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
107. Support - seems like an all around rockstar editor who would make a fine admin. nableezy - 18:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
108. I checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
109. Support - Very experienced user in a difficult and much-needed area. --Fadesga (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
110. Support BTW, noting the first opposes, I read the "open to recall" question as "are you willing to be subjected to a particular drama fest just because one person asks for it and because you said "yes" in the RFA"?. And I think that their answer was a fine one. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
111. Support A net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
112. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
113. Support: Excellent contribution. Trusted editor. All the best. --Titodutta (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
114. Support: Clearly competent and experienced, and being open to a recall procedure is not compulsory (in any event admins who say they are open to a recall procedure can change their mind at any time). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
115. Support: good edits, good behavior, I can't see any problems with them. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
116. Support doesn't seem to be any reason to oppose. Recall isn't really a thing after all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
117. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
118. Support no reason not to that I've ever run into... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
119. Support as per many. I am especially impressed by the honesty and good sense of the reply to somebody's question about being open to recall. Honesty is not always a virtue but good sense definitely is. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
120. Support. Fully qualified candidate with important, useful expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
121. Support and good luck! :) — sparklism ^hey! 22:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
122. Support appears to be respectful & knows what they are doing. Not convinced by the "open to recall" opposes - saying you are going to abide by some process that does not have community support & is unenforceable seems to me to be nothing more than virtue signalling. --Find bruce (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
123. Support Qualified candidate with a history of cleaning up difficult topics and getting them into shape. Molochmeditates (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
124. Support has been around a long time and managed to write some content. I always say that the job of an admin is to protect content and content creators. I feel that this candidate will do both. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
125. Support as showing clear dedication in keeping this encyclopedia's content as free as possible. Also, additional administrators focusing on non-AfD XfDs is a welcome sight. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
126. Support, I see no reason to suspect that they would abuse the tools, and would be a real benefit to the project as an admin. Guettarda (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
127. Support When I don't see any red flags, I'll almost always support an RFA candidate who wants to work with files and copyright issues which are areas that are chronically understaffed on this Wikipedia project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
128. Support - No red flags and clear support from a number of highly trusted and experienced editors. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
129. Support Well qualified, with no red or yellow flags. The opposing comments are unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
130. Support for pretty much many of the same reasons as given above by others. I've found Whpq to particularly helpful (and civil) when it comes to file related matters and think they will do an exceptional job in that area. In addition, their content creation and preservation work is also a huge positive in their favor, even though I don't personally think that not having such experience should automatically disqualify one from becoming an admin. Finally, it might not mean as much to some others perhaps, but someone who has been around since 2005 and who's never been blocked indicates, at least to me, that they have to ability to edit colaboratively and maintain their cool when dealing with others. I like the answer they gave to Q3 and think such an approach has served them well over the years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
131. Support. Looks good to me, can you start right away?! Loopy30 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
132. Support - seen them around.... a lot! Good stuff. Good answers to questions. Obviously has clue. Good temperament. Yes, please. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
133. Support Nobody has contested the candidate's copyright expertise, and this is a skillset that is obviously related to administrative work, and we should all be applauding the willingness of an editor with this track record to take on the burden and responsibility of serving this encyclopedia as an adminstrator. Now, to discuss the concerns of the editors who oppose on the basis that the candidate is unwilling to commit to a recall procedure. I simply do not consider this a valid reason to oppose, and here is why: I have been an active editor for over 13 years, almost 2/3 of the history of this encyclopedia. As far as I know, there has never been an actual recall process actually carried out, successful or failed, in that time. If one happened before the summer of 2009, I would like to know about it. Yes, there was lots of discussion about recall but the practical result of all that debate has been nothing. It is not as if we have gotten rid of a bunch of bad administrators who previously agreed to a recall procedure, but failed to remove bad administrators only because they failed to agree to a recall procedure. When we get rid of bad adminstrators, which has happened many times, the recall "process", if you can call it that, has played no role. In other words, recall is not really a thing on Wikipedia. I would like to address the oppose comment Admins should be open to input from the entire community. This is a sentiment that I agree with, but in actual practice, the widely varied recall processes have no real impact on adminstrator accountability. The large majority of good adminstrators respond to good faith concerns about their administrative actions promptly. If the administrator has screwed up, that is pointed out by newer editors, more experienced editors and fellow adminstrators. But recall almost never is discussed in such conversations. In conclusion, I am an administrator who is proud of the trust that the Wikipedia community has placed in me. I am also 70 years old and have seen in stark terms what aging can do to people's good judgmement. I have known people who declined rapidly in their 70s and other people who were lucid and perceptive at age 95. I hope that I am in the second group, but if it turns out that I am in the first group, I will not need a formal recall process to force me to retire. I would simply step aside as other administrators have done, when the community started concluding that my reasoning was no longer consistently sound. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

     Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests. 4 successful, 2 unsuccessful, and 1 incomplete request since 2010. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

     I stand corrected, but six in 12 years is pretty rare. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

     Only two since 2013: one (self request) in 2015 and another WP:FRAM related. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 12:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

134. Support Candidate with a clear expertise with little reason to decline being an admin. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
135. Support Seems overwhelmingly qualified. And I respect his measured response to the "have you stopped beating your wife" recall question. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
136. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
137. I wasn't going to vote because the outcome is already clear but I wanted to help cancel out the current two opposes. I respect the straight answer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
138. Support Clearly qualified for the job. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 10:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
139. Support Looks good. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
140. Support I thought he already was an administrator! Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
141. Support Easy choice. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
142. Support LGTM. --Victor Trevor (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
143. Support: no temperament concerns have been raised. Good content work and good use for the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
144. Support, no concerns. Great candidate! Rollidan (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
145. Support Rcsprinter123 (witter) 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
146. Support– Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
147. Support A little disappointed that they are not open to recall, but I've seen them around and trust that they will do good. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Strike first part. Recall is pointless if it cannot be enforced. Anyone with a sound heart and mind will step down if asked by their compatriots. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
148. Support - Great record and good judgement.--NØ 19:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
149. Support Didn't know they weren't an admin already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
150. Support I was gonna sit this one out as I didn't think my participation would change anything, but, in light of the Opposes over refusing a voluntary non-binding recall promise which we have no actual machinations for, I've decided to support. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
151. Support Excellent candidate; qualified, clueful and willing. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
152. Support. I'd rather the candidate just be honest about not being open to recall (the process is a complete joke anyway), rather than just lying about it for the votes. Wizardman 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
153. Support I wasn’t familiar with this candidate at first, so I did some poking around. No red flags found. His CSD log is almost completely red, which indicates that he has a deep understanding of the criteria. He’s very well versed in matters of copyright (especially images) and I think it’s important we have admins who specialise in this area. HelenDegenerate(💬📖) 23:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
154. Support Long history of competent, drama free service. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
155. Support will make an excellent admin. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
156. Support Vouched for by good people. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
157. Support I wasn't planning to comment here but appreciate their honest and bold stance about not being open to the toothless recall process, unlike the empty pandering to voters we see in most RFAs. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
158. Support per King of Hearts (I didn't know they weren't admin either). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
159. Support good answers, and this also to Q4.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
160. Support as I think they will do good for this website and willing to get muddy. cookie monster 755 05:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
161. Support I think they will continue to do a great job for this project. --Enos733 (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
162. Trusted. Salvio 09:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
163. Support Open to recall is a rather meaningless promise and has never to my knowledge been used. There are better ways of desysopping. Aside from that point, candidate is easily qualified for the unpaid work. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
164. Support. I appreciate that criticisms about lack of content are about looking for people who empathize with the work it takes to make excellent articles, but I don't agree with making that a binary position. I also appreciate the frustation about the current removal processes, but I'd rather see someone say right now that they will not engage in a voluntary recall process, rather than having a change of heart later. Given the whole picture, I see an editor who would add to the project, not to the drama in the project pages. However, the frequency with which this process is used to express frustration about other, failed processes is a big, red flag about how management of this site system works right now.~TPW 13:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
165. Support — hako9 (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
166. Support JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
167. Support. No skeletons that I can see, and solid content work and knowledge of life at the coal face seems to be present. And an editor who has beaten my ten years between joining the project and getting the mop by seven! Re the opposes below, I say the opposite. Congratulations on being honest about not being open to recall - having a voluntary scheme of that nature is largely pointless IMHO and you seem sensible enough to not get into situations where a desysop might be on the cards anyway. I think it might almost be worth banning that question at RFA, as it's largely meaningless since nothing said here is a binding promise, and it causes needless friction. Good luck, and welcome to the corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
168. Support When I applied for adminship I also did not agree to have a recall button, but said that I would resign if some editors I respected asked me to. Wny, because recall is not fit for purpose - it can be and is abused. This candidate is obviously like minded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC) also WP:SNOW
169. Support - we've got a content creator, an editor who is skilled in copyright, and we need to fill the areas where we are lacking. For me, it's a no-brainer. Does this comment make my S look big? Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
170. Whpq is extraordinarily well qualified. All but one of the current opposes are poorly thought-out, but at 98% support, it is not worth the time to engage with them, IMHO. (FWIW, the same is true of the occasional oppose I've seen because the candidate is open to recall.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
171. Support good content creation, copyright expert, not seeing a reason to oppose. The recall system is controversial as currently set-up so not agreeing to that is reasonable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
172. Support I see no reason to oppose. Clearly more than experienced enough to handle the bit. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
173. Support, net positive. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
174. Support, we always need admins willing to help with copyright. Recall should either be Total (i.e. mandatory for everyone) or not be asked from people who haven't got any experience as admins -- making up rules for a hypothetical situation that may or may not arise in the future just doesn't work. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
175. Support. The user seems legit and has experience to become an admin. Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
176. Support nbd. I do not believe having a different wiki-philosophy to the opposers is any evidence of the candidate's suitability. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
177. Support. I'd have preferred the candidate have a less cavalier attitude to recall: such promises are non-binding, but breaking them would still lead to substantive loss of trust; so I do not see them as valueless. Nonetheless a clear net positive. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
178. Support Excellent answers to questions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
179. Support - First, the candidate is well-qualified in general. Second, we need more admins to work on copyright issues. Third, failure to answer yes on a question about an undefined recall procedure is not elitist or cavalier, but realistic. We should have another recall procedure for admins besides Arbitration, but that is a policy issue, not an issue for one or another candidate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
180. Support. Long experience, including content creation. Calm and respectful demeanour. Thoughtful and well-articulated responses to questions. For the avoidance of doubt, for me that includes the recall question. I understand why some, singed by cliques and factionalism, see his "No" answer there as elitism. I take a glass-half-full approach and note his declaration he would step aside if requested, just on the basis of personal feedback by respected users rather than after a drama filled "trial" of some sort. I think that is an eminently defensible position to take. Martinp (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
181. — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
182. Support No Big Deal. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
183. Support - seems quite qualified. I don't much care about not being open to recall; we have, or ought to have, robust processes in place to deal with problematic behavior by admins. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
184. Support as a matter of form, because (for the second time in a row) I find the opposition rationales to be completely unconvincing. Deor (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
185. Support Decent candidate who can do real work well. scope_creep^Talk 20:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
186. Support Very qualified and seems to be a very good candidate particularly for working in copyvio. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
187. Support - I've seen Whpq around forever, and consider them a valuable and devoted contributor to our project. Their skills in file copyright issues is key - this area of the encylopedia is confusing to a lot of users, and another admin with those skills would truly be a positive addition. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
188. Support - No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
189. Support -Editor understands copyright as much as anyone can in what is a complicated and contested area. I wouldn't have even gone so far as to say "Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously" without qualification (as Robert McClenon did, not the candidate). FFD can use their talent and experience. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
190. Support- Seen this editor around Wikipedia and I trust them to utilize administrator tools wisely. Helloheart (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
191. Support I understand the "elitist attitude" issue that others have raised. I'm not thrilled by an admin refusing recall. That being said and carefully considered, Whpq becoming an admin is still a clear net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 05:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
192. Support Hakuna Matata - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 10:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
193. Support, a candidate cannot be faulted for refusing to go through a recall process that has never been granted consensus by the community, indeed I applaud their bravery in taking a principled stand on this matter, even if I disagree with it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
194. Support Wish the candidate was open to recall but given the fact that process doesn't formally exist its not a huge issue for me.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
195. Support I was a little hesitant because I feel some GA or FA are definitely desirable for an admin; but I feel the tremendous amount of good work in (tricky) areas outweighs these shortcomings. Has need for the tools, and will likely use them wisely. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
196. Support Candidate clearly has sufficient experience, and good answers to questions. Despite no GAs or FAs, I believe the quantity of article creations is sufficient to show familiarity with content. Not really concerned about recall. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
197. Support Experienced and has understanding in copyright. from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 22:27, 30 September 2022‎ (UTC)
198. No concerns; opposition unconvincing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
199. Support Appears competent -- Dolotta (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
200. Support. I like that he has been involved in and understaffed part of the project, and I'm eager to support candidates with some proficiency in such areas. I like to see familiarity with content creation and Whpq passes my (low) bar. I've seen multiple ArbCom desysops this year and am not concerned about add-on avenues for pulling the mop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
201. Support, trusted contributor, no red lights. By the way, none of the opposes is based on the candidate's merits, while here it's merits that matter. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
202. Support per excellent answer to Q4. I'm thrilled that the candidate has stood up to the borderline bullying of candidates over recall, and that this RFA has made it abundantly clear that recall is in no way, shape, or form a requirement for new admins going forward. Hopedully those that keep trying to make this a de facto requirement can finally see that it very much is not and will stop pushing recall at every RFA. It's time to stop pretending we have a recall process. --Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
203. Support looks good, oppose reasons are unconvincing to me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
204. Support - Already thought they were an admin, Experienced and trusted editor who will make a great admin!, The opposes are laughable and should be ignored in their entirety (RECALL should be down to the individual and imho shouldn't really be asked at RFAs as it's sort of irrelevant in some ways), Anyway easy support. No red flags. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
205. Seems to have the appropriate experience and temperament to make a good admin. If the biggest thing against him is that he won't do voluntary recall - when the community has rejected forcing recall on admin - that says there isn't much to argue against. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
206. Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with this candidate, but they appear to have all the necessary qualifications, and given that this is one of the least convincing RfA oppose sections in recent memory, I see no reason to deny Whpq the extra buttons in their interface. Q4 was merely about whether the candidate would be open to this archaic procedure; it was not a question about whether the candidate would be open to feedback from the broader community about their administrative actions. In fact, they specifically stated they would resign if they felt that they lost the confidence of the community. Editors in the oppose section are tunnel-visioning on the phrase "editors I trust and respect" and interpreting it to mean that they would ignore the views of people not within that subset of the community, but that's not what the candidate is saying. Determining whether you have lost the confidence of the community can be vague and subjective, but one big red flag is when editors you respect (e.g. perhaps because you have worked with them on projects in the past) are telling you to resign. Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
207. Support. No further comment. SWinxy (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
208. Support as we need more copyright admins. I respect the right of other editors to oppose based on recall though. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
209. Support - Reliable user.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
210. Support - I like his user name. T. Mammothy (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
211. has a clue, not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
212. Support If needed, there are ways to desysop.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
213. Support. I have run across Whpq's work here in the past, and I have no objections, despite what others may say about the response to Q4. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Not open to recall. Admins should be open to input from the entire community, not just a few people they deem "respected". This response shows me an elitist attitude which is contrary to the needs of the position. OrgoneBox (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   Quick question. How many times has the recall process been used successfully?→StaniStani 19:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   I can think of no successful case in recent memory. Being "open to recall" is a toothless and vague commitment—it certainly doesn't allow open input "from the entire community". As a matter of fact, the recall system that most administrators implement is precisely something along the lines of "if X editors I respect ask me to resign, I will". Admins "open to recall" can change the terms of their own "recall" system at any time, and they can always ignore it without penalty even if someone does try to invoke it. For these reasons, the recall process is never actually used in practice. I think the candidate's answer here is entirely reasonable—it reminds me of Q17 from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Girth Summit. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   I always consider "open to recall" to be a standard of accountability that's less open to community feedback than an admin should be. I know a lot of people who describe themselves as open to recall don't mean it that way, but honestly I think "willing to change my behaviour if people tell me I should" is the appropriate standard. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   In answer to the above question, I believe there have been two cases where a recall (I prefer "reconfirmation") process went all the way thru. In one, the process to recall was initiated, went thru to a full-dress discussion, the community decided that the admin should turn his talents to other tasks, the admin resigned, so system worked. In the other, same process, but the admin refused to resign, basically on "well, I didn't expect it to actually happen" grounds, so system did not work. (There were several cases where the reconfirmation process was begun and the admin resigned right off, sometimes because the figured the would lose, so system worked there.) Anyway, there's no enforcement process, and it's exactly those admins who most should resign who are most likely to refuse to in the end. I've agitated for an enforceable process and made draft proposals, but it's clear that there never will or can be one. So in a way it's kind of kabuki. It's legit to oppose on those grounds, but it doesn't really mean anything IMO. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

   The phrase "the recall process" suggests that there is a Wikipedia process for recalling administrators. Maybe there should be one, but the haphazard variety of self-written requirements is not that.~TPW 18:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

   Comment I'm not going to respond to the questions/comments about whether recall is a successful or even consistent process because it's beside the point. My point was that admin candidates should be open to whatever communication avenues the community has, and saying they'll only listen to a few "respected" people and characterizing recall as a "drama fest" goes against what my idea is of a good admin who will listen to the concerns of others. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose with regret per OrgoneBox above. Being open to recall is my only hard requirement in adminship candidates. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 17:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   Since it's been brought up in at least one of the support votes, I don't read a question about an administrator being open to recall as "are you willing to be subjected to a particular drama fest just because one person asks for it and because you said "yes" in the RFA". Realistically, it doesn't matter if an administrator is "open to recall" or not to be subjected to a "drama fest" at WP:ANI or WP:ARB. What being open to recall does, though, is send a clear message that you are open to and appreciate the opportunity to be held accountable for your mistakes by the broader community. I unfortunately do not see that reflected in a vague deference to "editors I trust and respect." Again, no real judgement against Whpq as an editor here - It's just my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   Several recall processes of well-respected admins mention specific users and, when boiled down, essentially say "I respect these people's opinions and will resign at their request". "Recall" is such a broad term that I don't see how Whpq's pledge differs from these in anything but name. eviolite (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

   The difference is exactly what you say - There are users specifically mentioned, which I view as inherently more transparent than "editors I trust and respect." I don't really think I need to elaborate on my vote past this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Oppose, not open to recall or the nature that their actions can impact community trust. Entrenched admin with zero respect (Refraining from naming a few because it's old potatoes) for community input is something I dislike seeing. The potential leads me to oppose. Likely it is just a footnote when the supports are so heavily in favor. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose - since not open to recall. Elitist attitude. Has to go through the "drama" of popular review to get the position, but after that, will only resign if close friends tell them to quit. Wants a life position, obviously. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   The "obviously" is really a nice touch here, well done. JBL (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

5. Oppose - no FA/GAs found, does not meet my criteria for being an admin. In addition, I agree that not being open to recall is a problem. GregJackP Boomer! 06:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Goodness gracious, I think this is the first time I've seen a candidate flat out say "nope". Heh, I guess you have to give the candidate points for honesty anyway. But I mean, this shows a pretty dangerous turn of mind, and that's more important.
   
   I mean, look. Anybody can say anything when they're trying to get something they want, and some will. Donald Trump said he was going to release his taxes right soon. No one is like "Well, I if I'm elected, I'm going to be pretty corrupt, hypocritical, and generally hateful, to be candid", heh. The world doesn't work like that. It just doesn't. A good part of the reason people don't say that is, not that they're necessarily being consciously mendacious , but because people generally don't know themselves near as well as they think, and most people look pretty good in the mirror.
   
   I mean DangerosPanda wrote this essay full of high minded thoughts. In his RfA he said "My way of handling situations is to try and help" and "I believe in transparency - not only as an editor, but I would say even moreso as an admin" and so on. But he was lying. He turned out to be a blackguard. Maybe he meant to, but he probably did believe the things he wrote. So, I mean, words can only go far. I'd like to see more than promises when we're dealing with running a huge organization like this.
   
   Candidate states "The addition of more avenues for drama is not a good thing". Well if you want to talk about drama, I mean, for instance User:DangerousPanda was a shockingly horrid and toxic editor, blocking good long-term editors who hadn't done anything wrong because he felt like it, cursing at editors, and so on. A lot of people wanted him gone, I mean Jimbo said there was no way this guy should be an admin. But there was nothing anybody could do about it. Was there. There was nothing the communitycould do about it. Finally after great drama he was dragged to ArbCom where he was able to wriggle off with very sincerely written promises to reform, and then he had to finally be dragged to ArbCom again before he was finally 86'd. How many hundreds of man hours wasted, and talk about drama. Compare that to a reconfirmation which is just basically an RfA. Much less wasted energy.
   
   OK, well but you can say Well DangerousPanda was an outlier. Yes of course but it is the outliers that this is for. Very few admins are going to be asked to reconfirm. This is for those that need it. So is this candidate going to be an outlier?. Well, very probably not. I trust him but I also like to cut the cards, and if he's going to be fine why is worried it? Supposing he does get called to reconfirm. He'll pass easily, so where's the problem?
   
   I mean, I think the Swedes reconfirm all their admins on a regular rotating basis. Heck, ArbCom members have to be re-elected periodically. That is true of most positions of any kind anywhere in any organization. Yes I get that a cogent point is "Well but we're volunteers at a non-profit, it's not a 'job for life' cos it's more an unpaid annoying burden than anything". OK, but I mean name me another non-profit that is like "These are our volunteer event coordinators. They can't be removed from their positions for anything short of skinning cats alive". That would be silly. No organization on the planet would do that. Oh, I mean except this one.
   
   And I mean the main point here is so the possibility of a reconfirmation being initiated. If you're doing poor admin work and a bunch of people are telling you that, you can tell them to sod off, but if the possibility of a reconfirmation request is there, that might focus your attention a little more. That's human nature.
   
   Yeah I know the argument that "Well an admin can piss off a tag team of bad editors and get required to reconfirm". For one thing, yeah, lots of things can happen, but this won't. I don't think. Maybe rarely. If it does, well, the admin will sail thru the reconfirmation process and hardly needs to even engage. It's a nothingburger. Requestors need standing, and protection against harassing repeated requests can easily be put in -- once per year, or whatever -- or even assumed, and harassers get booted. It'll be fine. And of not, we adjust it.
   
   Yes I know about ArbCom. ArbCom can remove admins, and does. Since ArbCom removes admins, we can assume that admins need occasional removing to be true and that is good and healthy for the project. It's labor intensive, drama intensive, slow, the ArbCom is overburdened, and probably (IMO) they probably don't produce better results than the community can. If ArbCom is better than the community at figuring out who should remain an admin, why are they not appointing the admins? They'd be smarter than the community at that, right? Quite possibly. But we don't work like that. This a community organization. Lots of things the community does are wrong. We sometimes make silly rules and stuff. So? Apparently the whole thing is holding together so far. If we want to not be a community organization so much, have the Foundation hire and pay admins, and make rules, fine, and maybe that'd be better and maybe it'll happen sooner or later. But til then, let's not insult the community and the idea of community. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Herostratus couldn't an asshole voluntarily agree to an RfA recall process, and then quibble/change their mind afterwards? I am agreeing with the issue of difficulty in removing assholes, but asking assholes to enforce it seems even less likely to me, than someone of good faith like User:Whpq stepping down regardless of what toothless pledges they made in an RfA; when the room is telling them they're not suitable for adminship anymore? I do think there are more mellow examples of successful voluntary admin recall, but the extreme cases of uber-assholes remain squarely the responsibility of the community/arbcom enforcement, not some duct-taped pseudo legal process. 16:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)@Herostratus: Sorry to interrupt, but this is a very long speech for an oppose. Don't you think it's good that they are honest to the community, rather than say what they'll not do? Mohammadu Buhari was elected in 2015 after he campaigned that he was going to fix the insecurities ravaging some parts of Nigeria and was going to fight corruption to the fullest. Hehehe, remember I said he said he was going to fix insecurities ravaging some parts of the country, now insecurity is everywhere, it has never been this way. The corruption in his government is the highest. Imagine the former acting chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission that he appointed and was not confirmed by the Senate(due to reports they have about him) was removed due to corruption allegations, after he has served as the longest acting chairman. Same person who said his government was going to fight corruption, gave presidential pardon to 2 former governor's convicted by the EFCC for corruption while they were in government, even after all the stress EFCC went through to convict them. Everything the dude campaigned with has gone from bad to worse and more. If this fellow is being honest with us, I don't see anything wrong with it.Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Herostratus, in their recent RfA, the recall question was answered by Z1720 as follows: I anticipated getting this question, and gave this a lot of thought. The short answer is no. My view is that the community should decide the desysop procedure and I do not want to add additional rules or mechanisms that have not been community approved. This means that, at the time of this RfA, I can be involuntarily desysoped by the Arbitration Committee (or bureaucrats under specific circumstances). However, I will be readily accountable to the community, answering questions on my talk page and participating in discussions about my actions in other locations, as it is required per WP:ADMINACCT. If an editor is concerned about my conduct, I would encourage them to message me on my talk page or send an email. After a discussion, if there is still a major disagreement about my conduct, I would encourage them to open a thread on WP:XRV, WP:ANI, or wherever would be most appropriate for the concern (and if I think my action/conduct needs a wider community discussion, I would open it myself). I would refrain from acting in the affected area while the thread was ongoing. If the community endorsed an ArbCom case, I would actively participate in the case and answer any questions. If the community changed the desysop procedure, I would fully adhere to it. If the community decided to put in a grandfather clause for older admin, I would refuse it as I would want to be held to the same standards as incoming admin. The current RfA does not appear to be the first time a candidate has said no to a process that appears to ask an involved admin to serve as the judge, lawyer, and client in their own case. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

7. Weak oppose. While recall is (and should be) optional, I am concerned that this users sees accountability as drama. I am aware that the user's statement has a second part where they say they would resign if editors whom they respect call for it, but the answer to "Who does the calling?" would be subjective. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose per answer to 4, seeing accountability to the community as a mere avenue for drama. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose, regretfully. The candidate's tenure is certainly something worthy of recognition, but the fact they have refused to be open to recall also worries me, given that I believe it is necessary in the interests of transparency and accountability. Patient Zero^talk 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

First neutral, ever. Oppose per FASTILY (bad nom) + support per Moneytrees (good nom) = neutral. Stop protesting! El_C 14:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I agree with El C about the poor choice of nominator, which leads me to want to abstain from this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC) DUH moved to support Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Not cool mate, seriously not cool. If you don't trust the nominator's judgment then please review the candidate's edits for the sort of thing that in another case you would take on trust from the nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 11:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• For the record, FfDs bus factor of 3 isn't that unusual; TfD has a bus factor of 4, CfD has a bus factor of 1 (!), MfD has a bus factor of 4. It's really only RfD and AfD that have broad bases of closers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  TFD does have the luxury of non-admin closers. Izno (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  True, as does CfD (the one person I was referring to was a non-admin), so I may have underestimated a little, but that doesn't really change my point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  The obvious solution is promoting more editors who are willing to work in FfD/TfD/CfD/MfD. A low bus factor for such important processes is unsustainable and a recipe for burnout. -FASTILY 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Non-AfD XfDs (as well as RMs) are my lifeblood in Wikipedia editing. The fact that these processes have poor bus factors hits me dearly. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  We already don't have enough people to help with splits or removing tags if no consensus or consensus against. That proposed splits are scattered between Category:Articles to be split and Wikipedia:Proposed article splits instead of being centralized like RMs doesn't help. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  So article splits shouldn't be split? :) – FlyingAce^✈hello 00:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to the clerks, but this pun is too good for me to not respond. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• We have 40 support votes but in the main RfA page only 33 votes. Is there any problems on the 34th one? Thingofme (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like the 34th vote added a new line in the support above; this fixed it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oops. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  *Whack!* Panini! • 🥪 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Whpq I was just wondering how your username is pronounced? I've been saying it the way I would spell it (W-h-p-q), but I could be mistaken. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Correct. Whpq (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh. So not with a weird swooshing and guttural sound...? Eh, fine with me. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.