Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Open for discussion
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Ansh666 129 18 13 88 09:40, 22 September 2017 1 day, 13 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Robert McClenon2 RfA Withdrawn 4 Sep 2017 66 76 22 46
SoWhy2 RfB Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2017 115 44 8 72
Cullen328 RfA Successful 23 Jul 2017 316 2 3 99
Salvidrim! RfB Withdrawn 18 Jul 2017 28 41 3 41
GeneralizationsAreBad2 RfA Successful 13 Jul 2017 205 0 2 100
Anarchyte2 RfA Successful 7 Jul 2017 166 6 0 97
ONUnicorn RfA Successful 30 May 2017 192 2 2 99

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

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details and Template:Centralized discussion.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading Advice for RfA voters.
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what he or she would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[1]
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


  1. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 20:10:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (129/18/13); Scheduled to end 09:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Ansh666 (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to be nominating Ansh666 for access to the administrator toolkit. Since creating his account (almost exactly) 10 years ago, Ansh has become a valued member of the community, with over 12,000 total edits and experience in all the places that make me confident he would make a fine administrator.

In his November 2015 ORCP discussion Ansh received quite positive feedback, with the only substantial negative feedback being the lack of content creation. I'm happy to say that since then he has been able to write a few articles (1, 2, 3), showing that he knows what goes into creating content on Wikipedia. Ansh's best work, though, comes from other areas. His AfD log is one of the longest I've seen, with nearly 1600 AfDs contributed to (a combination of sorting and voting) - a glance through his contributions there shows a good knowledge of deletion policy, with well reasoned arguments which usually match with the final outcome (note that the AfD log only shows 200 at a time, and Ansh occasionally files or fixes AfDs on behalf of other users). Ansh's CSD log is also quite extensive, and a spot check didn't flag any substantial incorrect tagging.

Most importantly, in my opinion, Ansh666 is both friendly and humble. His talk page interactions show that he is happy explaining Wikipedia's rules to new editors, willing to assist them in learning to edit, and willing to admit when he has got something wrong. Overall, I see a productive and friendly editor with a solid knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and community, and hope you agree that he can be trusted with the admin toolkit. Sam Walton (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, of course. Thanks for the nomination! ansh666 09:38, 15 September 2017 (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: If I'm granted the bit, I don't see myself changing my editing patterns too much. Where being an admin would assist my normal editing is closing AfDs and doing AfD cleanup (e.g. scripts on AfDs whose pages which have been moved deleting the resulting redirect instead of the article, or AfD tags placed by new editors on their own created pages - my CSD log is full of these two); cleaning up BLP vios on current events articles and talk pages using revdel and page protection; and simple main page edit/error reports. I sometimes wander over to RfD as well, and I could help out there too in a pinch. I'd also like to help with the more uncontroversial types of speedy deletion (I'd define that as G4-8 and 12, R2, and U1-2), edit requests, and general revdel and RfPP, though I'd have to ease into the latter two since I don't generally have as much experience in those areas. What I'm not interested in doing: AIV, UAA, SPI, sorting out AN/ANI discussions, or really any other situation that could possibly have to do with user conduct and/or the block button, unless it's an obvious emergency situation and I'm somehow the only one around to deal with it - though I'm still likely to participate in those in a non-administrator capacity every so often. This may change in the future if I get more comfortable with the toolset, but for now I don't think I'll be involved in that aspect. And one last thing, since I note the monkey selfie is back in the news: I'm not touching file copyright stuff. Not if I was offered a million bucks, not on pain of death. Just not interested in that at all.
For a more concise version of this answer, see Q17. ansh666 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Usually, candidates point out their content work here, listing out all the DYKs and GAs and FAs and whatnot...but I obviously don't have any of those. That's not to say I'm not proud of the three short start-class articles I've written, that one disambiguation page I created, all those random redirects I made, or all the typos I've fixed, but I can't in good conscience say those are my best contributions to Wikipedia. Instead, I'd say that my best contributions come in the talk and project spaces. Keeping potential BLP violations out of terrorist attack articles and even their talk pages (there have been too many, unfortunately, that I can't find what I was looking to link here), making April Fools' Day less of a headache for everyone, that sort of thing. As far as another other thing I do which may qualify as my "best" contributions, based on sheer quantity: I take no pleasure in AfD; many of the articles I nominate or discussions that I participate in or close are on topics that interest me personally (obscure firearms, video games, current events, etc.) and I'm usually sad to see them go when they do, but I do believe that Wikipedia is better off if we can maintain a general standard of quality, and big part of that is AfD (with a smaller part being BLP, which I mentioned above). Contributing to this maintenance is something that I feel is also an important part of my participation on Wikipedia, even if perhaps it's not the most important.
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: To be honest, I think that anyone who hasn't been in any conflicts or stressful situations isn't ready to be an admin, since that's so much of what they tend to deal with. I do try at times to keep a lower profile and avoid conflict when possible (hence wanting to avoid user conduct stuff as I said in Q1), and that's my preferred method of conflict resolution, not getting into one in the first place. I'll even go as far sometimes as to type out a full comment or response with no intention of saving it, just for a bit of catharsis, and then walking away and doing something else for a while. Of course, this isn't always possible, so other ways I tend to respond to stress and conflict include somewhat long-winded, rambling, but usually detailed explanations of my actions (examples 1 2), apologizing, and sometimes a bit of both (see the hatted part). I'm also usually the first to admit that I'm wrong if someone asks me about something I did wrong, and even if nobody does (like all those struck entries on my CSD log).
And of course, I'd be willing to expound on all of these incidents I've cited or anything else that you may find (except perhaps older ones which I don't remember as clearly) if someone wishes to ask me about them.

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 Mahveotm
4. You happen to have reverted a vandals edit, leaving a self written summary alongside. The vandal undo's you edit as 'The idiot replied'. What will be your next action as an admin, especially if the edit is from an IP address with similar contributions but has not received any talk page warning.
A: Assuming it's clear vandalism (e.g. replacing a page with random profanity), revert again and leave a warning, which any editor could do, not just an admin. If it isn't as clear (e.g. changing attendance numbers on a Super Bowl to one unsupported by any sources) I'd probably seek a more regular editor of the page/field for advice and leave it alone.
Additional question from Ritchie333
5. The first thing I looked at was your userpage, which says "CAN'T RETIRE - This user tries to leave Wikipedia, but finds that they can't do so..." Adminship can come with quite a bit of grief and hassle, so in addition to what you said for Q3, can you explain why you have tried to leave Wikipedia several times, and what has made you stay?
A: The banner is a relic from my days in college; I tried multiple times to leave because my school load was getting heavy so it wouldn't distract me, only to return when it cleared up a bit. I forgot I still had it on my userpage; I'd removed it from my talk page a while ago. I've now graduated, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore. I do like how it looks though...maybe I should find a replacement which is more accurate.
For anyone coming here late, I've removed it to prevent any confusion, past this RfA at least. ansh666 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Oshwah
6. What are some specific things that you feel that administrators in general fall short of doing well, or need to improve or be better at doing in order to serve the community and keep their trust and respect? How will you edit, interact, or do differently to set a proper example as a leader and be a positive influence to show that we need to be better at doing these things?
A: I'm somewhat amused by the contradiction inherent in the first sentence, some specific things ... that admininstrators in general fall short of doing well. My philosophy is that everyone is different, they have their own strengths and shortfalls, and so while they may all share a common title on some random website on the internet (this one, if anyone's wondering), there is no panacea for getting everyone to behave perfectly. This may sound like a bit of a dodge, but I'm serious - turn off the admin highlighting script I use, and I'd have zero idea who is an admin and who isn't (other than the lucky - or perhaps unlucky - few that I recognize). So this may not be the type of answer you're looking for, but it's what I came up with.
I do realize that adminship is, at least in the public eye, a position of authority with which there have been and continue to be issues of trust and accountability. Speaking as broadly as I can, I think humanity, humility, and a willingness to admit mistakes is very important in maintaining trust. That's not to say that all, many, or even any admins don't have these qualities, but they can be difficult to maintain, especially in stressful situations. It's also important for everyone to remember that nobody's perfect, and we'll always manage to screw up somehow no matter how careful we are. For people in a higher position, it comes with higher scrutiny and greater backlash when they do ultimately make a mistake. Understanding that this is going to happen, why it's going to happen, and how to deal with it can ultimately make or break someone's "career" not only as an admin, but as an editor here. This answer also ties in to a very specific wording I used in my Q1: This may change in the future if I get more comfortable with the toolset. Note how I said if, not when. In my non-admin opinion, admins should never get comfortable with the toolset; there are some very scary buttons in there that can ruin someone's day, or worse. That, and the fact that the vast majority of people here don't have those buttons, is in my opinion a very important thing to keep in mind.
Additional question from SoWhy
7. Administrators are expected to be good at communicating their actions to avoid misunderstandings and bad blood. Usage of edit summaries is imho crucial to achieve this. You have not been using them consistently, especially on minor edits or removal of content. Why is that and do you plan to change this?
A: I rarely use the minor edit button; I reserve it for mostly fixing typos or adding a word or something extremely small like that, things that I really did't believe need an edit summary. As far as removal of content, could you give some examples? I scanned through my last 500 mainspace contribs and could only see one example, which I will admit probably should have had an edit summary.
Follow-up: you really consider this a minor edit? As for removals, there is [1] [2] [3] from the last 500 mainspace edits for example. My beef is that whenever you don't leave an edit summary, you force other editors to check out the diff to see what you did, wasting everyone's time. Are you willing to change this behavior if this request is successful? Regards SoWhy 11:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, that first one isn't an actual minor edit, and it's adding material. I should probably leave edit summaries on the rest, yeah. I tend not to when I feel something is uncontroversial or easily explainable, and I have popups to see diffs so I rarely ever read edit summaries myself, but I totally understand what you're saying. So yes, I am willing to change this behavior, though it may take some time to fully get through.
Additional question from Linguist111
8. You come across an AfD for an individual season of America's Next Top Model which has racked up the following votes:
  • Nominator's statement: Article for an individual television show season which is not notable. Lorem, 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable. Ipsum, 00:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: poorly written, unsourced, overall unencyclopedic. Dolor, 00:00, 20 August 2017
  • Delete. Can this be speedily deleted? Sit, 00:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why delete this? It's just as important as the other seasons, which also have articles. Amet, 00:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Relisting statement by Consectetur at 00:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC): Too few voters, no policy-based arguments.)
  • Delete: terrible. Adipiscing, 00:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: we don't need an article about this subject per WP:IINFO. Elit, 00:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: too much jargon, can't understand it. Sed, 00:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: so much edit warring going on on this page and no-one wants to protect it. Let's just put it out of its misery. Do, 00:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Relisting statement by Eiusmod at 00:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC): Again, no sufficient argument put forward (cf. WP:ATA).)
  • Keep as notable enough. Tempor, 00:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (Relisted by Incididunt at 00:00, 8 September 2017)
  • Procedural keep as none of the voters have put forward a valid argument (cf. WP:JNN, WP:RUBBISH, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:USELESS, WP:LIKELYVIOLATION etc.) Ut, 00:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
How would you close this AfD and why?
A: I perhaps naively find it unrealistic that so many comments would be made without a valid argument, especially in an area in which I know multiple experienced editors will show up to the AfD. It's also difficult to judge an AfD without also looking at the article to see if the comments actually make sense or not. So I can't say how I'd close it or if I'd even attempt to close it.
Sam has asked me to elaborate on my answer to this question, so I'll try. I'm a firm believer in WP:VOLUNTEER - nobody has to do anything. If I by some chance came across an AfD like this, I feel like it would honestly be a better idea to add an actual valid vote in to make things easier for the next poor fool to come along than to close it. If I were somehow forced to close it, my best guess would be a no consensus close, citing the lack of strong arguments (I somewhat disagree that they're all completely invalid as stated by "Ut"; WP:OSE as implied by "Amet" is actually a good reason to keep in this case if the sources support having it, and WP:TNT as implied by others is also not a completely invalid reason to delete, though I know it's somewhat controversial), but as I said I probably would not attempt to close it.
Additional question from Usernamekiran
9. This is not exactly a standard question. In your first answer, you answered in which areas you would, and wouldnt work the most. But you haven't mentioned new page reviewing/patrolling. Would you be contributing to that area? If yes, what will be your approach/MO in the area of new page patrolling? (either as a sys-op or in non-admin capacity)
A: I have occasionally done NPP in the past, but I find it boring and unfulfilling, and have no desire to participate in it any more.
Additional question from AlexEng
10. Could you comment on your understanding of WP:REVDEL and how/if you anticipate using this tool? Please describe a specific example of material you would deem appropriate to remove under each of criteria 2 and 3 of WP:CFRD.
A: My understanding of RevDel is admittedly not very deep. There's a lack of examples for applicable material, given the highly sensitive nature of what it deals with compared to things like CSD, and it seems like Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples never really got fleshed out very well. I'll probably still continue to request other admins for it or at least seek their advice for now, and even after I think I've gotten a good enough idea to do it on my own, I don't anticipate using it often, probably only for clear-cut WP:BLP issues. For example, if someone said that "(celebrity) is a suspect in (terrorist attack)" or something like that on a talk page for whatever reason (and it was obviously not true, of course), that would fall under RD2, and then "hey look here's proof (link to anti-celebrity hate group website)" would be RD3 (and also probably still RD2).
Additional question from Mahveotm
11.You come across an article which is heavily edited daily by multiple editors from around the world. And during this routine patrol you notice in the article's revision history that some editor's (let's assume 4 or 5) are constantly reverting each other's edit over a particular section which has been recently added (which includes some references and sources not yet verified) by using their primary account and also editing while logged out through their IP address(s) for some days now. A few users among them have also made personal attacks against each other regarding that. What appropriate steps and measures will you take as an Admin to solve the ongoing dispute as being the first one to encounter/spot this situation ?
A: Nothing. Well, as far as using the admin tools, nothing. Just like Q8, I doubt I'd be the first one to spot such a situation on any such heavily edited article. Remember how in Q1 I state what I don't want to do? Well, this is a perfect example. I might open a talk page discussion, report at ANEW, request protection at RfPP (might even do it myself, if it's urgent), or file a SPI if I think there is enough evidence of any socking (i.e. not just "I think that's them editing logged out"), but I'm not likely to use any tools in such a situation. This scenario is really far too broad for me to say anything else; depending on the topic area and content that's being disputed (BLP? discretionary sanctions? something I'm interested/knowledgeable in?), editors involved (clear sockpuppets? not-autoconfirmed SPAs? respected editors?), severity (constant reverting for days, or slow-moving edit war?), and any number of other factors, completely different actions could be appropriate and effective. ansh666 16:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from TheGoldenParadox
12. You say that if you become an administrator, you will help close AfDs and have already contributed to over 1,600 AfD's. Let's say there is an AfD about a controversial person in the media, and the users are split on deleting it, with great arguments on each side. Will you delete based on your personal opinion, or will there be another course of action you will take?
A: Again, hypothetical situations of this sort are fairly useless. Merely saying "great arguments on each side" isn't enough to judge what those arguments are, how strong they are in comparison, etc. I'll adapt my answer from Q8: if I have a strong opinion about the subject article of the AfD, it would probably be more useful to leave a comment in the AfD recommending said strong opinion; otherwise, it would probably be something close to a no consensus close but again without an actual article and discussion to judge it's impossible to tell.
Additional question from Tigraan
13. Your NAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrille Bara was overturned (actually, I found this via the oppose section). Do you think your NAC was erroneous, and why/why not?
A: I've already stated in the Q3 link ("apologizing") that the NAC was erroneous. I don't know whether not having tools as others stated played into it, though it definitely may have. My opinion is that articles should not be deleted if there is a valid alternative outcome presented in the AfD and there are no major issues with the page itself (e.g. copyvio or BLP vio) per WP:CHEAP, and I probably let that bleed into my thoughts a little. Looking back, I may have also accidentally read the bolded comments as "delete or redirect", since that's much more common than "delete and redirect", but that's not at all a valid excuse.
Side issue collapsed - TigraanClick here to contact me 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I just had a nagging suspicion...I can't check now obviously, but could an admin please look to see if someone had already redirected the subject article before I'd closed the AfD (and before Spartaz deleted it, of course)? If so, I should have stated it was a procedural closure instead of pulling a rationale out of my ass; that would mean I didn't attempt to assess consensus and is therefore a bit more valid under WP:NAC#Appropriate closures #4; that type of thing (i.e. "article boldly redirected by nominator/article creator/drive-by participant with little/no other outside input or complaints") is probably the most common type of NAC that I do. That's not to excuse myself from guilt, since I did assess consensus, and incorrectly too, in the close, but if true it may provide a hint as to why I attempted to close it in the first place.
No, it had never been a redirect before you did so at 03:40, 12 August 2017. The preceding edit was at 12:11, 3 August 2017, same day as the start of the afd. —Cryptic 23:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; just wanted to make sure. I've struck the now obviously irrelevant stuff up there. ansh666 00:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ansh666. Follow-up: do you see a difference between "delete and redirect" and "(delete or) redirect", apart from a matter of procedure? (If it was only a matter of procedure, this would IMO fall squarely within WP:IAR.) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As with so many of the other questions, it depends on the article. I obviously can't see this one anymore since it's been deleted, so I can't comment on this specific case, but usually yes it is a matter of procedure; either way, the article is converted to a redirect, but the latter preserves the history where the former does not, which usually doesn't matter. Where the two results wouldn't be identical is if the content of the article is problematic in some way - a copyvio, a privacy violation, potentially libelous, that sort of thing - and so needs to be hidden; or if it's more of a "redirect with an option to merge" case, where the history of the redirect would provide the necessary attribution for the merged content. From my previous experience, "delete and redirect" is a recommendation usually left by people who aren't aware of these types of issues. ansh666 21:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Northamerica1000
14. What is your view of the Supervote essay?
@Northamerica1000: I feel that this question is far too broad for me to answer in a reasonable manner. Would you mind narrowing it down to more specific questions? (which I don't think should count against the 2 question limit in case you were worried about that, since I'm requesting it.) Thanks, ansh666 03:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
14a. What is your view of supervotes being used to close AfD discussions?
A: Well...that's honestly not too much better, but I'll take what I can get, and I think I can work with that. As with a couple other questions above, I'll note that I dislike generalizations of situations that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Also, while I'd heard the term "supervote" before, I never actually knew that the essay existed until you linked it, so thanks. With all that unnecessary stuff said, let's get on to an actual answer.
Where "supervotes" are inappropriate, to get it out of the way first: when there is an unambiguous consensus, and there is no other valid action which can to be taken contrary to that consensus (e.g. the page being speedily deleted for copyvio somehow undetected by the participants). In this case, the only valid way to close the AfD is following that consensus. Anything else would be blatant disregard of process.
Where "supervotes" are okay and perhaps even encouraged: basically what the "non-prejudicial supervote" section of the essay describes, but only where there is a mixed kind-of consensus and a separate editorial recommendation has been made (a bit more restrictive than the writer of that portion of the essay thinks, IMO). For example, if there is a mix of "delete", "redirect", and/or "delete or redirect" and there are no concerns about BLP or something like that which would require the content to be actually deleted, it could be appropriate to redirect the article if the target is appropriate, since this creates effectively the same result and avoids issues like breaking links; or if there is a mix of "keep", "merge", and/or "keep or merge", it could be appropriate to close the discussion as keep and recommend a merge discussion be started on the article's talk page, since consensus is that the content be maintained but there is disagreement on exactly where it should be - both editorial judgments (or, well, punting that editorial judgment to others in the second case). This also somewhat applies to procedural closes of the type I mention in the struck portion of Q13 where the article has been redirected during the course of the AfD; the closer is making an editorial judgment on whether or not the redirect is appropriate, then usually without needing to assess consensus closing the discussion as moot (but generally only if either the article creator agrees with or did the redirect, if the nominator did the redirect before anyone responded to the AfD, or if participants generally agree with the redirect). These shouldn't generally be controversial, and I disagree that, as the essay states, they can just be reverted by anyone who objects. This "non-prejudicial supervote" type makes up a lot of my AfD closures, actually, now that I think about it.
Where "supervotes" are inherent: in many close and/or controversial cases, a closure in favor of a position other than no consensus (and even sometimes a no consensus close, as in SoWhy's oppose - in fact, both of the closes he mentions in his oppose are this category) is inherently a "supervote". Since these types of discussions require the closer to assign value to certain arguments to compare with each other, they reflect the beliefs and interpretations of the closer. Since, as I've said in Q6, everyone is different, different people will see things differently. The consensus that one person may see could be completely different from another, whereas a third may see no consensus at all. This is the situation in which such a closure would be discouraged in favor of leaving a comment as I advise in Q8 and Q12, and if someone does decide to close one of these, they should be prepared to defend their closure in detail, because people will disagree.
Additional question from Linguist111
15. What do you think about the strength of the arguments put forward in this miscellany for deletion discussion?
A: I would like to avoid getting sucked into the ongoing disputes about draft deletion, and I don't believe any answer I could possibly give will be of any use. Sorry, but I will not answer this.
@Ansh666: That's fine by me. Admittedly my AfD question (number 8) was a bit of a curveball and I'm satisfied with how you answered it. No worries. LinguistunEinsuno 23:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Additional questions from George Ho
16. What are your views on civility, one of the five pillars, and the policy related to it?
17. Besides the AfD process, do you intend to work on also other interests?
A: I did kind of answer this in Q1 but since that's honestly a long and unclear mess I'll condense it here. Besides AfD, I also intend to do some specific speedy deletions, a little RfD, and ease into RevDel and RfPP. I may eventually expand over to AN/ANI and SPI since I'm active there currently as well, and other areas if there's a serious backlog, but I don't intend to immediately start on them.


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

  1. Support as nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Kinda okay ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Ansh666 meets the expectations we should have for our administrators, and then goes that little bit further - their work with content (creation, improvement and yes, deletion) shows a significant understanding of our policies. Their answer to question 1 highlights the enthusiasm Ansh666 has for serving the community, and I look forward to working with them -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - Perfect CSD log and seems to be good at AfD work. Also, they respond to talk page messages when needed and admit when they messed up. Overall, a great and uncontroversial candidate. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 10:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support. No time to review in depth during the next week, but I thoroughly evaluated Ansh for a potential RfA before and found nothing that particularly concerned me at the time. There's an off-hand chance he did something crazy in the past few months, but I doubt it; he struck me as a level-headed and uncontroversial candidate (once the content creation was in place). No concerns based on the previous research I did. ~ Rob13Talk 11:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support - Experienced editor.  FITINDIA  11:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support: Trusted user, otherwise no issues overall. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 12:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Go for it! (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) (User:My name is not dave on wikibreak -- I'll come back if I see any RfAs or whatever).
  9. Support Net positive for the project. David in DC (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support I was going to sit this one out, because while I've run into ansh666 a few times, I never came away with a strong opinion one way or another on him. Collect's neutral is fine, but let me be the first to call out the opposes as being petty. Adminship isn't a trophy, and that's what the current opposes make it seem like. ansh is a fine editor who I highly doubt will misuse the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  11. Support I expect he will be a net positive with the tools, and I am not particularly interested in his article creation involvement (or lack thereof). Lepricavark (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  12. Support Has a good track record with CSD and AFD and has created a few articles. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  13. Support Ansh666 has probably been more active in AFD than many current members of the mop core. Since the candidate hasn't had any issues, I have no problem supporting. Dolotta (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  14. Support - candidate shows WP:CLUE, has consistently demonstrated WP:CIVIL, and has 5 years of consistent WP:HERE editing (I'm starting at 2013 when he upped his engagement here). He has clearly stated in #1 what he wants to work on, and what he does not, and has demonstrated expertise in his areas of mopping interest. As it stands, there's no indication that giving Ansh666 the extra tools will harm the project, but there is strong indication that he will improve the project with access to them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  15. Support per 78.26 candidate appears to have a WP:CLUE, and after a quick glance through their edit history I see nothing that raises a glaring red flag. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  16. Support clear WP:NETPOSITIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  17. Support I've been on the fence, but ultimately it comes down to this - do I trust Ansh666 with the toolset? Yes. Do I think he will go bezerk, delete the Main Page and indef Jimbo Wales? No. Will he accidentally full-protect Donald Trump in a vandalised state? Unlikely. So let's give him a go. The opposes are unconvincing and seem to come from people who don't have much admin / RfA experience themselves. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Hey, some of our current admins may have some issues with that second one...Face-tongue.svg ansh666 07:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  18. Support. The candidate should do fine. 12,000+ edits is, if I recall correctly, more than I had when I passed RfA, which admittedly was in 2011, but still when the RfA climate was mostly similar to now, which makes the opposes based on this wholly unconvincing to me. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  19. Support - No concerns, and it couldn't possibly hurt to have another maintenance-oriented admin around. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  20. Support per BU Rob13. I also remember seeing the candidate around RfD a few times, and I'd love to see another admin help out there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  21. Support - might not check all my boxes, but I can't find any reasons not to support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  22. Support why not? Jianhui67 TC 18:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  23. Support Excellent interactions on his talk page, a sound deletion/maintenance mindset and just enough content experience to realise the effort it takes to make an referenced encyclopaedia. I also really liked his answers to the opening questions, they sound like someone who has their head screwed on straight and realises that this is only a website and we are all volunteers. AIRcorn (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  24. Support as per Rob & Ritchie - The Opposes are laughable and should be ignored entirely - Experienced editor who participates in the admin areas and quite honestly keeps this place running smoothly with their maintenance work. –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  25. Support I liked the candidate simply because he had a clear idea of what he wanted and didn't want to do as an admin, and because he explained how his admin contributions would jive with his current contribution pattern. However, I also see some votes that oppose him for this very reason (knowing what he doesn't want to do) and WP:RFA needs a lot less of that stuff (WP:NONEED covers why, in more detail.) Airbornemihir (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  26. Per Zawl (who is in the oppose section; no idea why they cite two things that are good about the candidate (high edit count and experience with deletion nominations) as oppose reasons). —Kusma (t·c) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  27. Support I see no concerns regarding this candidate. And so far I'm not impressed by the quality of the opposing editors' rationales. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  28. Support. An editor already contributing to lots of unglamorous work wants to pick up even more unglamorous admin tasks -- sounds good to me. Answers to questions are all reasonable, no red flags spotted in edit history, and nothing in the opposes is even remotely convincing. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  29. Support I was initially underwhelmed with the answer to Q3 about the premise of having to avoid “conflict when possible” as “preferred method of conflict resolution”. For an editor that spent considerable time (10.24% of total Wikipedia space edits) at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, the statement struck me as being incredulous. But after seeing the details in the examples given in the answer and having searched for other recent examples, I cannot seem to find anything but positivity. Many of the comments may be brief, but they are firm when necessary, gets to the point, are long and streamlined with the situation calls for, generally helping to advance the discussion. Alex ShihTalk 19:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  30. Support - Obviously I'm open to changing my !vote if someone finds something seriously objectionable, but the opposes right now are just weak sauce. I don't take very seriously someone opposing on FA/GA grounds when they've got eight edits to FAC in their entire career, and they've never so much as breathed a word at GAN (which seems a bit out of order anyway). I don't take very seriously someone complaining that 12k edits isn't enough (seriously?), because their 30k, half of which is automated, feels big in comparison. And if these edits are indicative of their pattern of contributing, it matters even less, since on a lazy day, I could probably take a half dozen to do the same thing. I also don't take much seriously opposes based apparently on the fact that people don't see AfD as a legitimate administrative task. I'm willing to bet there's one or two admins trawling around there right now, who would probably rather be doing something else, if there was someone else willing to pick up the slack. RfA is not a place to ask what makes them so dang special, and it's not the place to criticize someone for not wanting to work in some particular area that you'd prefer them to for no apparent reason other than personal disposition; it's a place to see if someone can take the buttons and push them in a way that is beneficial. I don't see anything yet that calls that into any serious question, at least not yet. TJWtalk 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  31. Support Everything looks pretty good here. Not a huge content creator, but the three short articles this user has created are fairly polished, so I think they understand the process, which is the important thing for an admin. Their AfD stats look pretty good, and that is the stated reason for needing the tools. Though I am disheartened by comments saying that NPP is 'boring' and 'unfulfilling', I won't let this personal niggle bias my !vote. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  32. Support - Per recent conversations on WT:RFA, I'll forgo my usual blanket support and give a detailed explanation. I've examined the candidate's contributions for the last two months, and found that they have a good understanding of notability, a good understanding of policies surrounding blocking, and that they maintain civility during discussions. The candidate is active in admin-related areas, and they demonstrate an understanding of the policies surrounding the use of sysop tools in those areas. Given the general impression of competence that I get from examining the candidate's contributions, I also get the sense that they'll be able to adapt to using the tools properly in other situations. My one point of concern is that the candidate seems overly focused on the drama boards, but looking at their edits on ANI shows primarily outcome-focused comments that try to resolve situations, and no instances of inflaming a situation or trying to punish users for the sake of punishment. Overall, a good candidate. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  33. Support I have decided that based on the (disgusting) irrelevance of content creation to whether this user should be admin, and because I can't think of a convincing reason to suspect this user of doing anything but close clear cut AfD's, and because (for some incomprehensible reason) granting page deletion rights requires giving full admin rights, I am supporting the nomination (and stuck my previous oppose. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  34. Support. Good level-headed contributors make good admins. A history of content creation, or lack thereof, has little bearing on that so I don't share the opposers' concerns in this regard. Deli nk (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  35. Support Content creation is fine; they've shown they can write a decent article and add references to it and that's good enough for me. Not convinced by the "no need for the tools" arguments as they have a clear desire to work in AFD where there are restrictions on closes a non-admin can make. I admire their honesty in stating clearly which areas they have no interest to work in– we are all volunteers after all. Clear NETPOSITIVE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  36. Support, I have seen the candidate around, and I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  37. Support'. In my experience, Ansh666 has sound judgment and a good understanding of policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  38. Support - qualified and a definite net positive. I have no qualms about Ansh666; the opposes are highly unconvincing. 12,000 edits is now not enough? Come on! 65HCA7 21:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  39. Support because screw the people who say 12,000 edits isn't enough. Adminship shouldn't be about article creation or edit counts anyway. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  40. Support as a definite net positive. Opposes are unconvincing. Miniapolis 22:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  41. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  42. Support - normally not thrilled about lack of content editing, however given the length of time without anything else detrimental suggests that a net positive is likely. Hence worth a shot. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  43. Support A few months ago, I was experimenting with my watchlist page after finishing this, when I found a notice that someone had requested me to vote in one of these elections. I did some research and voted, and expected not to receive another notice. But it happened several more times, and it has happened to me again just now. I have two things to say. (1) I support the candidate because his work will probably not interfere with my own, because even if it does I do not believe it will be in a negative way, and because the same probably goes for others. I rather admire people who want to serve others the way he does. (2) Who is sending me these requests for participation at the top of my watchlist, and how can I make them stop coming? My vote here stands, but this is a side of the project I am not ready for, and after witnessing how bad failure here can hurt people, I do not feel I ever will be. Inatan (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Inatan: those notices are automatically displayed to all users when an RfA is ongoing. You are free to ignore the notices, or just dismiss them when they appear. In general about ~40 such requests happen per year, at various times. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Replied on talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Beat you to it ;) ansh666 23:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you so much! I am relieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inatan (talkcontribs) 09:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Inatan (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  44. Support seems to get it, and I don't have any reason to think he'll abuse the tools. VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  45. Support. Pretty obvious. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 00:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  46. Support, per the candidate's excellent answers to the questions, particularly the AfD hypothetical which absurdly presumes that the proposed deletion of a highly visible topic will be met with only low-analysis responses. It's like asking, "how would you defend yourself from an attack by an elephant-sized duck?" You wouldn't have to, because an animal with the physiology of a duck and the mass of an elephant would immediately collapse and die under its own weight. I would add to that the fact that, as an administrator, it is often the better part of valor to allow another administrator with more experience in a particular topic area to engage in controversial discussion closures relating to that area. That is effectively the answer that its candidate gave, and it is absolutely correct. bd2412 T 00:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Not every elephant-sized duck would immediately collapse, though. ;) ansh666 22:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  47. Support. I've seen Ansh around the place and I never have issues with his temperament and understanding of policies and guidelines. Will be a net positive. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Support. Even temperament, reasonable understanding of policies, and willingness to own and learn from mistakes; altogether I see Ansh666 as unlikely to torch the joint if given the tools. ♠PMC(talk) 01:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC) (Moved to Neutral)
  48. Support, why not? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  49. Support Perfectly happy to support this candidate. I've been impressed with his/her responses both within this RfA as well as on talk pages and AfD, and I have no concerns whatsoever that the tools will be abused. I absolutely have no issue with any supposed lack of content creation or lack of edits in general (really?). Definitely a refreshing dose of WP:CLUE! Cthomas3 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  50. Support Experienced and levelheaded. I think I can trust him with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  51. Support, reasonable answers to the questions. -- King of ♠ 02:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  52. Support -- no concerns; will be a value to the community. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  53. Support User's been around long enough to reasonably conclude that nothing's going to explode. Stikkyy t/c 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  54. Support as per TJW and bd2412. Excellent answers to the questions so far. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  55. Support Wide experience; demeanor is an example for others to follow. Is he going to misuse the tools or end up making wrong admin decisions? Highly improbable. Lourdes 08:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  56. Support. When I look at Ansh666 I see calmness, civility and competence by the bucket load. I also see sufficient content experience to satisfy me of proper understanding there - I really don't understand the modern insistence on the creation of new articles, when what we need far more urgently is the cleaning up and improvement of millions of existing ones. I also see nothing wrong with only wanting to do admin work in selected areas - we don't need every admin to do everything, and every little bit done anywhere is someone else's workload reduced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  57. Support as net positive, per TonyBallioni. While some of the oppose statements are serious and worthy of consideration, i do not find any of them convincing: Adminship isn't about content creation, nor is it a reward for said creation; whether the candidate has immediate "need" of the mop is irrelevant, considering how unlikely he is to abuse its possession; suggesting a good article creation and then waiting a year seems rather random; and using a length of time between account creation and the actual start of editing just appears petty. The candidate clearly, through all his actions, has the benefit of the project at heart, the promotion and protection of good content as purpose, and is very unlikely to delete the Main Page. Happy days, LindsayHello 08:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  58. Support Probably saner than I am. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  59. Support per RL0919 and Boing! said Zebedee, - no reason to ask someone who doesn't want to go into user conduct areas my "Talk before you block" question, and assuming this candidate would talk first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  60. Support Experienced, rational, willing and helpful. No concerns whatsoever. Candidate will be a fine admin. -- Begoon 12:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  61. Support An experienced, helpful editor which makes constructive edits. Redgro (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  62. Support - WP:NETPOSITIVE. GiantSnowman 14:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  63. Support. Afd stats that hint at issues are fine after looking into the details. Participation in discussions is civil and reasonable. Reacts appropriately to new information and differing viewpoints. No concerns that they will wander into other admin areas prematurely. Gab4gab (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  64. Support, no major concerns. GABgab 15:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  65. Support I thought both answers to Q8 were highly clueful (I would've been fine even without elaboration, but addition was very perceptive too.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  66. Support - we need good AfD closers, and Ansh indicates a healthy attitude for closes and redirects. Atsme📞📧 16:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  67. Support good work at AFD, not seeing any problems Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  68. Support Pleased to support Qaei 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  69. Support Why not? -FASTILY 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  70. Support. More than enough experience. Ansh666's comments and writing demonstrate intelligence and clear thinking that will make for an intelligent administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  71. Support per bd2412. Has clue, no red flags. --Joshualouie711talk 18:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  72. Support. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  73. Support. Courteous and thoughtful in responding to others, understands his own limitations, not power-hungry, and not inclined to overreach. And enough experience navigating disputes to satisfy any concerns about experience with content work. Consequently, I trust the candidate to use the tools correctly, and even if he does not end up using them extensively, any proper use is a net positive. I have a quibble: April 1 is not a headache for everyone, and those who do get headaches should avail themselves of some ibuprofen. And frankly, that quibble of mine is about as substantive as most of the oppose arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  74. Support no convincing reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  75. Support. FFS, when are people going to get real about RFA? The candidate has been around a while, appears capable, level headed and trustworthy. It doesn’t matter he isn’t the most prolific content creator in wiki history One of the opposers said his “editing seems to be as good as an average Wikipedian but what makes them so qualified to be admin?” Let me say it again. He “appears capable, level headed and trustworthy.” That’s what good admins are. RFA is the epitome of silliness and pettiness on wiki, but there are many laughs elsewhere as well. I notice on Ansh666’s talk page where an editor said his name contained the number of the beast and he might wish to change it. You couldn’t make this stuff up.Moriori (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  76. Support. I thought of opposing based on '666' in the the username (dude, really, get rid of that) but I read the arguments and the opposes convinced me. Not what they intended, perhaps. – Athaenara 00:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    Err, no. Non-negotiable. ansh666 00:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't !care what you !say, I'm !not changing my !vote. – Athaenara 01:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    Look at me, badgering the supports. Who says RfA can't learn a few new tricks? ansh666 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  77. Support I don't know much about the editor but the answers to the questions are well crafted in a "I know what I know and I know what I don't know" style and clearly demonstrate that he/she won't go off the rails and block Boing! or Gerda or delete Donald Trump - the page, not the person. The oppose !votes are particularly unconvincing and if someone is good enough for Ahanenara, they're good enough for me.--regentspark (comment) 01:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  78. Support, how absurd is it that a multi year tenure and five digit edit count are "insufficient experience" for RFA? Answers demonstrate someone who is thoughtful and intelligent, but not a pushover. You'll do well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
  79. Support Awesome editor! Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  80. Support. Wikipedia [should not be] an oligarchy. —Guanaco 05:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  81. Support per Cas Liber. Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  82. Support - I have not come across this editor before but I liked his answers to the questions and consider he will make a level-headed, sensible admin, just the sort we need. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  83. Support, the more janitors the better.Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  84. support, the user won't abuse the tools. An understanding of their own knowledge and capabilities is demonstrated so they are unlikely to cause any harm. The content creation doesn't really bother me. The more trusted administrators the better --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  85. Support. I was holding off of !voting because I knew there had been some drama about non-admin-closures of AfDs, and I needed to find the time to research this. Now that SoftLavender has done the hard work, I am not concerned by the findings. Old stuff is old stuff; I screwed up my first NAC big time, I haven't really heard complaints since, whether admin closures or otherwise. Besides the things that happened three years ago, I'm seeing an occasional closure that's slightly hasty, an occasional stupid mistake such as we all make; I'm not seeing fundamental misunderstandings. Besides, occasional mistakes are okay, as long as an admin is willing to acknowledge and learn from them, and as long as they are occasional. I've seen no evidence to the contrary so far. I'd like to have seen more content work, and I'd perhaps advise them to be a little more careful with AfD closure (maybe leave a summary more often?) but overall, the candidate seems a definite net positive. Vanamonde (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  86. Support. Trusted user with good experience. I understand the content creation concerns raised by the 'oppose' voters, but we must remember that Wikipedia is an extensive project, and not everyone can be involved in everything. Ansh666 excels in certain areas, and seems like someone who can make good use of the tools. utcursch | talk 13:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  87. Support: although I've never come across the candidate before, all of the stats look fine. AfD nominations are above 70% which is good, AfD votes are almost 90% with substantial contributions to the discussion and no recent tail-ending. I see the "he lacks content creation" argument as flimsy because admins, in my opinion, don't need to be autopatrolled or have featured articles. They need to have made a good few articles that show knowledge of key content policies (although the candidate hasn't made a BLP but that alone is not something that would make me vote oppose. He's got a clean block log and from what I can see he has the temperament necessary for adminship. No issues with CSD and the like. I see automated tool statistics as a great way to assess candidates' suitability for adminship because it can reveal the need for the tools. This candidate is clearly active in anti-vandalism and maintenance areas which is essentially what administrators do. All in all, ansh666 looks like a suitable candidate to me and I see little reason to oppose. We need more admins and I don't think he'll "go rogue". DrStrauss talk 13:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  88. Support The project needs administrators and this editor is willing and able. Poltair (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  89. Support Oppose because I hate it when people file a RFA 4 hours after I do my weekly watchlist check. :p Opposes are lame, self invented rules regarding DYK-length, article creation, activity levels, etc etc. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    fixed L3X1 (distænt write) 16:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  90. Support I see not issue with the candidate - the opposes are the usual poor editcountitis items - not everybody wants to work in all areas, even after getting the mop, admins will settle in a region of work where they are most comfortable. The key question is - "can the candidate be trusted not to abuse the tools?" - and I see no issues here. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  91. Support Ansh666 is a clueful, level-headed editor. I see nothing in his editing history that gives me reason to oppose. Mduvekot (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  92. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  93. Support - After spending 2 days reviewing this candidates work I have concluded they would be a WP:NETPOSITIVE. So heres my support vote :-). -- Dane talk 23:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  94. Support  When Ansh666 gets involved, he understands.  Given his style, low edit counts probably just means they were quality edits, instead of finding ways to make two edits when one would do.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  95. Support Conscientious contributor with good demeanor. I agree with statements in support by RileyBugz, 78.26, Ajraddatz, Ritchie333, DrStrauss, Boing! said Zebedee, and Ronhjones, in particular. They cover the main points well and I see no reason for me to repeat them. The candidate has established a trustworthy record and should be a definite net positive as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  96. Support. Abundant positives already listed above, but a critical thing for RFA is an absence of significant negatives. The weak oppose rationales below just firm up my support. Alsee (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  97. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  98. Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  99. Support – I've had completely positive interactions with Ansh666 in the past, and trust their judgement. No concerns at all. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  100. Support. No obvious red flags; 10 years and 12k edits is enough experience. Deryck C. 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  101. Support, plenty of experience, no significant issues worth opposing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  102. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The opposes below raise some valid points, if there were only a handful of admins on the site, and it was important we got best value out of them all. But that isn't true. I believe that this user can user the tools sensibly and rationally, and most importantly, knows their own limitations for when not to use them. Harrias talk 19:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  103. Support experienced, trustworthy and clueful enough. Will make significantly net positive contributions with the admin tools. Overdue. Gizza (t)(c) 22:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  104. Support no indication user will harm project or dive into areas of uncertainty. Understands areas of likely work. ClubOranjeT 23:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  105. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user user is a net positive. kennethaw88talk 01:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  106. Support I would trust this user to close AfDs as "delete" wisely and correctly. He has already done many non-admin closures. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  107. Support Level-headed, polite, thoughtful, not afraid to admit when he doesn't know something. Definite admin material. Yunshui  12:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  108. Support. Ansh666 has the experience and wits to functionally utilize the administrative toolset, and it comes across that potential misuse of the toolset would be very unlikely. North America1000 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  109. Support. Positive AfD contributions and a long record. That's enough for me. agtx 15:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  110. Support – Should be a net positive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  111. Seems qualified; has put some thought into their answers; perhaps overcautious, but that's not a bad thing per se. All in all, would be a net benefit to Wikipedia to give them the mop. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  112. Support – Ditto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehotel (talkcontribs) 18:06, September 19, 2017 (UTC)
  113. Support by DEFAULT because most of the opposes are criticizing the candidate's lack of "content contribution", which has nothing to do with being an administrator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  114. Support as fully qualified. Tenure and experience are more than adequate, demeanor is reasonable. Highly unlikely to cause a problem with the tools. Dennis Brown - 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  115. Support under the idea that they will provide a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  116. Support seems good. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  117. Support. This editor has a long history of contributing to the non-glamorous side of Wikipedia, not as much in content creation. However, the admin bit is not a trophy for content creation, it is a sign that we trust the editor to to use rational level-headed thinking when using some of the more powerful functions of the software. Therefore, it seems to me that Ansh666 would likely be a net positive as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 19:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  118. Support I see no red flags here. Dennis Brown's succinct comment says it all. Irondome (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  119. Support, mostly motivated by the fact that we need more admins these days, I don't believe we can be too picky, and people who do routine work at places like XfD are good for the project. The oppose concerns about lack of mainspace experience are, IMHO, valid, and I trust that if given the tools Ansh will stick to the areas where his knowledge and experience lie. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 20:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  120. Support. Contra Yintan, I think ansh666's unwillingness to answer hypothetical questions where they don't believe that there is sufficient information to make an informed decision, especially at Q.12 and 14, is a good sign. Though I have some reservations about some of the AfD closes brought up by SoftLavender, I still think that ansh would be a net positive as an admin. I hope that if they pass, they will take on board the worries about some of their AfD closures and be cautious with the delete button. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  121. Support 'Net positive' is all I need to know - I'm happy to support somebody clearly dedicated to the encyclopedia and furthering its continual improvement. Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  122. Support. Liked the answers to the questions. -- œ 02:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  123. Support - no reservations. seems to show good judgment, but yeah, use edit summaries :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  124. Support seen him around, interactions are generally positive. feminist 10:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  125. Support - I see no reason not to. Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  126. Support - I am very disappointed that there is opposition to this nomination based on lower contributions to article content. By that reasoning, the editor who has the most experience must be the best admin ever and I don't buy that. I see an eager editor who is well-qualified and willing to take on certain limited tasks now as an admin and desires to learn more about being an admin. We need the help, this editor is willing to pitch in, and I see no reason to believe that this editor will not ask for help when needed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  127. Support. I hadn't come across Ansh666 before, but I am really impressed by their honest and competent answers to the questions above. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  128. Weak support - I was waiting for the answer to Q13, which I tried to craft to avoid hinting at the answer - its only point was to check that the candidate knew that delete-then-redirect removes the page history.
    I find (as customary for me) no merit to the opposes based on lack of content creation (the janitor who dusts off the carpet does not have to know embroidery, that sort of thing); Softlavender's oppose (#5) is a bit better, but I do not buy the premise that it's very difficult to truly understand the actual ins and outs of article creation, citation, notability, and notability requirements, without having done significant content creation of one's own. I also find little merit to people complaining that the candidate is unfamiliar with task X when they asked to do Y; nor to "no need for the tools" - closing AfD may not be a big deal, but it is a need for the tools.
    What does make me pause is the lack of edit summaries; I would say that leaving ES when editing in mainspace is quasi-mandatory (not so on talk pages, where one is 99% of the time only adding signed and timestamped material); no dealbreaker, but enough to make me a weak support. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  129. Support - Net positive. I think he will be helpful in the areas he volunteered and from the answers I gather that the buttons will only be used for the tasks in which he has enough experience, that is why I think that in this case the shortcomings in other areas are not a major concern. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. Minuscule content contribution, very small edit count despite being here since 2007, no Featured or even Good articles on record, very little experience with image and copyright, can't tell the difference between dispute and trolling, little experience in social interactions. Seriously, I feel I am more eligible than him. And if, as he said in the answer to the first question, he is only interested in doing what he is doing right now, he can do it without the mop. The only thing that surprises me is the support of figures such as Rob13 and Sam Walton. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @FleetCommand: I've tried to move away from responding to opposes recently, but since my name was invoked, I'd like to respond to your points. Adminship is somewhat of a big deal, no matter what people say, but we don't require perfection. You cite me as a noteworthy "figure", but even I wouldn't meet the standards you've listed; I haven't been here anywhere near since 2007, nor do I have any featured articles. The mop has nothing to do with content creation, although it requires an understanding of content creation. I feel his multiple solid articles that comply with all core content policies show that he understands content creation. Note that GA is a backlogged community process to improve an article a bit more than its current state. We shouldn't require that rubber stamp to look at an article and say, "Hey, you've done a good job!". The number of total editors on the project with genuine expertise in copyright is surely less than 100 (perhaps less than a dozen, depending on how you judge expertise), and the vast majority of admins will never handle copyright-related issues beyond blatant violations. He's cited closing AfDs, so the argument that he can do that without the mop is not correct; he needs the mop to close AfDs as delete. I would frankly be worried if an admin candidate came to RfA with the "checklist" set of experiences and then said they wanted to start suddenly doing something else. The fact that the candidate is seeking the mop because he needs it to better do things he's already doing rather than to break into new areas he knows nothing about makes me confident he'll use it well and cautiously. You'll have to fill me in on why you think he has little experience with social interactions, because I did not get that sense when reviewing him a couple months ago. (As a side note, if you feel you're more qualified, see WP:ORCP. We desperately need more qualified candidates.) ~ Rob13Talk 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Please put aside the politeness-mandated false modesty, Rob. While you are not exactly Mark Arsten, your average edit per annum is much higher than the nominee and there are 118 articles in your name. Not to mention that you are well-mannered and ... I could go on, believe me. I've also seen my fair share of bad admins; some were discharged by ArbCom, some lost their adminship (and are now Template Editors! Ouch!) and some are still undeservedly holding their mop, harassing normal editors. An admin must know the difference between content dispute and vandalism. Imagine a situation where someone writes "Sun is blue and comes up at night", four other editors revert it and instead write "Sun is yellow (it is an example, remember) and comes up during the day". One admin must not brand it as content dispute, call them edit warriors, throw WP:DV in their faces, block them without warning, reject the article protection request, and interpret the stark 180° change in the meaning as evidence of COI. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
        • If we require my level of activity for adminship (or rather, my previous level of activity - I am quite busy these days), we'd have maybe a dozen admins. Quality, not quantity, etc. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your last point, because I still haven't seen evidence that Ansh would do that sort of thing. ~ Rob13Talk 13:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
          • No. I do not require your level of activity for adminship; what I wrote wasn't eight separate reasons as to why Ansh shouldn't become an admin, even though in case of a certain editor that I stalk, one of those reasons was enough to shoot her down in ORCP. So, maybe I should. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • There are countless editors more qualified and accomplished than I who have not sought adminship. You could say the same in just about every RFA. GABgab 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That's an overgeneralization. IMHO, generalizations are bad. Wait... isn't that your username? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • How many FAs and GAs have you got, FleetCommand? I can see you picking a fight with Malleus Eric Corbett on Microsoft Security Essentials' FAC, but not a lot else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - The candidate seems alright in deletion areas but I'm concerned with the low edit count and over 1,000 deleted edits out of 12,000+. There's also the lack of content creation. I'd expect an adminship candidate to do more of that. Their editing seems to be as good as an average Wikipedian but what makes them so qualified to be admin? The decade-old account? I don't think this candidate is ready for adminship. — Zawl 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Because they've done nothing to suggest they would make a boneheaded mistake or abuse the tools. Your rationale actually was what pushed me from neutral to supporting. Its the perfect explanation of the type of user we should trust to be an admin if we want to get away from this trophy mentality. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I welcome another administrator backing up my assessment, but I just wanted to clarify the 1,000 deleted edits. From a scan through Ansh666's deleted contribs, the deleted edits appear to consist almost entirely of CSD and AFD tagging on articles which were subsequently deleted. Sam Walton (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I can confirm that Ansh666's now-deleted contributions to such articles as When persons convicted of murder can be sentenced to probation in the United States (with one notable exception), Killing of a police dog laws in the United States and Legal Facts About All 50 States, the military, the federal government, and the District of Columbia are all Afd nomination tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    You realize that according to Special:Contribs/Ks0stm I didn't hit 12,000 live edits until 2014, three years after I became an admin? Personally, I can't attach any credibility to your oppose given that. Ks0stm (TCGE) 17:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry to pile on here @Zawl: edit count doesn't necessarily correlate with being a good admin. If you have the time, I recommend that you go through the candidate's contributions and look for things like a) good judgement when interpreting policies, b) activity in admin-related areas, c) examples of using non-sysop tools according to policy or doing non-admin closures. Edit count can be an OK proxy for experience, but the best way to determine a candidate's suitability for adminship is going through their contributions to see how they behave. Adminship may seem like a big deal given how exclusively it's handed out these days, but it's just another set of buttons to click. If a candidate can be trusted to not mess up big time pressing those buttons, then they'll probably make a fine admin. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose - This candidate has never worked in a controversial area of Wikipedia, I see no actual evidence that they have ever encountered a conflict, so comments on their record of never having had a dispute is irrelevant in my humble opinion. For example I have only had a few 'issues' when editing and all were related to areas this user has not engaged in, I can close or relist an infinite amount of AfD's and the worst I will get is someone asking me to undo and relist. Yet when creating articles, I have had major disagreements over the precise definition of WP:N and trawled records in miniscule detail to argue about whether an article I created is worthy of inclusion. This candidate has never had that, which in my opinion impacts their overall experience. Α Guy into Books § (Message)
    Not all editors are drama-seekers, Some like to keep their head down, avoid the shit slinging and focus their energy on contributing and helping with the site. –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose This is my first oppose vote in an RfA. I was leaning towards "neutral" first, but the candidate basically doesnt need the toolbox.
    • In most of the RfAs opposing votes say "not much activity in admin area". Here, in first question the candidate has excluded almost all the areas where admins are required. He also stated that he is likely to participate in those in a non-administrator capacity every so often, and block the users only if it is an obvious emergency.
    • The candidate in answer to Q10 stated that he wouldn't be much active in NPP. He hasn't mentioned WP:COIN. Based on his lack of will to participate in projects like WP:ANI, I think it would be safe to assume he doesnt want to contribute there either.
    • Based on answer of Q9, it seems like the editor would be closing debates only when there is a clear-cut consensus.
    So the question arises, what would he actually do as an admin? Only close AfDs, protect pages, and process "more uncontroversial types of speedy deletion"? On the basis of his lack for will to participate in admin area, and to do the "easy-peasy" activity I have to say no.
    His areas of most interest, and most activity seems to be AfDs. He can continue this without being an admin, and he has stated that thats what he is going to do after becoming an admin. So I see no need for the admin flag/toolbox.
    usernamekiran(talk) 18:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
     Update After reading the comments of other editors (on this entire RfA), I thought about the overall process (and future), and my vote as well. I realised I should not vote for an oppose. I will update my vote shortly again.
    @Ritchie, Tony, M, RileyBugz, and Atsme: Thanks for your feedback guys, it is very much appreciated. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, forgot to add BU Rob13. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    But do you see a likelihood he will abuse it? Often when I'm head's down in 2-3 book sources doing serious work on an article, I've got no need for the tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'll address the NPP point: yes, they don't want to deal with it, and its totally understandable. I have the exact same feelings towards NPP's sister project WP:WPAFC. I force myself to help AfC out every now and again because I think its important to know how it feels on the other side of a two-sided coin, but I really don't like working there for any number of reasons. There are plenty of editors who don't do NPP, and it shouldn't be a pre-req for adminship. Ansh see's plenty of what NPP sends his way at AfD anyway. He helps with reviewing and curating content as well, just at a later stage in the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I do not have any concern about tools being misused. And he is definitely a good and calm editor. Thats why I was going to go with neutral first. But then there is the fact that he is not willing to use the tools much outside AfD, where he still works finely. I also do not have any issue about his activity in NPP, or content creation. But I dont see much of a difference here, with or without the tools. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    But a positive difference is better than no difference, right (that is assuming that it is a small difference, which I would disagree with)? So, we should give him the tools. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Usernamekiran, can I appeal for you to reconsider? As I'm reading Ansh666's response to Q1, I'm gathering that he wants to stick to administrative areas with which he is familiar, rather than jumping straight into some of the more complex or stressful areas. I think this is wise. I am much more comfortable giving the toolset to someone with this mindset than to someone who feels they are ready to jump straight into the most difficult parts of the job. I'm sure that, as Ansh666 gains more experience with the toolset, his comfort zone will slowly expand, and he'll start working in more administrative areas. (And don't tell anyone, but most of the administrative backlog does actually consist of that "easy-peasy" work – it's just that there's so much of it that it starts to pile up; having more administrators at hand to do the work is a net positive for the encyclopedia.) Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    The project actually does have a need for "specialty admins". Having a customary Jack of all trades admin is clearly a plus but I look at it this way...would you want your GP performing a colonoscopy on you or would you prefer an experienced gastroenterologist?[FBDB] Atsme📞📧 19:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. The Banner talk 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry, just not convincing. The Banner talk 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    TJWtalk 21:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Why? TJWtalk 21:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Davey2010Talk 21:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Could you explain why they're not convincing perhaps ?.... –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I could do that, but I will not do that. As far as I know it is not mandatory. And why should no-voters explain their votes, when yes-voters are not asked for an explanation? The Banner talk 22:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    From WP:RFA: "Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers."Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yep, that's true. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Hasn't this question been asked and answered at these discussions plenty of times already? By now it should be clear why opposers are asked to explain themselves. Lepricavark (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Because the candidate and nominator have already explained why the candidate should be an admin. The supporters need only agree with the arguments that have already been presented. If you are saying that the nominator and candidate are wrong in their arguments, then it's generally both nice and also helpful to explain why. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Did it ever occur that this practise is discouraging for no-voters as they have to explain themselves while yes-voters can just echo? Both yes and no-voters should have the same obligations, no need to stack more demands on no-voters. The Banner talk 23:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I would say that it's more discouraging for a candidate, who is volunteering to take on extra responsibility, to be told no by people without them even giving a reason. Imagine if you were at a meeting of your local community association and volunteered to help rake leaves, and were told no without any reason being given. In this hypothetical parallel, there would be no expectation for those supporting your volunteering effort to justify their support, but there would certainly be an expectation that those opposing justify it. Same sort of deal here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Of course you are allowed to !vote "oppose" without backing up your claims. But keep in mind that !voting "oppose" without stating your reasons for doing so isn't going to carry much weight with closing bureaucrat; I assume you want your !vote to count, so why not make your case? If someone else has already made your argument you can reference theirs easily enough, but if you have a genuine concern about the candidate that no one else seems to have, you should really consider sharing it. It's not about putting you on the spot, it's about making sure that everyone (including the candidate) is made fully aware of the issues. You may convince others to !vote the same way you do if your argument is sound. Cthomas3 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    I absolutely support The Banner (or any editor) having the right to give an abbreviated opinion on the matter. It is the purview of the closing bureaucrat, not other participants, to decide what weight to give to the reasoning offered. bd2412 T 01:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My apologies, I did not mean to imply that I was assigning any weight whatsoever to The Banner's vote. You are absolutely correct that it is entirely up to the closing bureaucrat. I was merely pointing out that providing no rationale offers the closing bureaucrat very little to go on. Cthomas3 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    When the closing bureaucrat has to weigh the content of the no and yes-votes, there is definitely already something wrong with the level of support of the candidate. But to disclose something about my discomfort with this candidate, it are edits like this that give my itchy feelings. The Banner talk 11:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    I usually stay out of the crosstalk, but what exactly disturbed you about ansh judging his own brief post superfluous and removing it? – Athaenara 11:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    I guess I should also ask: what bothers you about bureaucrats weighing the content of no and yes votes? – Athaenara 12:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose insufficient content creation for an editor who plans to involve themselves in the content deletion sphere. Understanding the dynamics of content editing and the hoops that have to be jumped through is in my mind imperative if someone wants to hold the bit. Sounds like a great editor who deserves the bit in the future but I would really like to see some more involvement in DYKs or GA or some editing process that requires review and negotiation with editors from an editing perspective to gain insight into the other side of WP activity. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. While ansh666 generally presents a neutral tone and demeanor, I'm very hesitant to give admin tools (deletion, block) and authority (admin closures of contentious AfDs) to someone who works so heavily in AfD, and who has made non-admin closures at several AfDs that have been, or have had to have been, questioned or overturned, even recently. In addition, as we know, it's very difficult to truly understand the actual ins and outs of article creation, citation, notability, and notability requirements, without having done significant content creation of one's own. The three articles that ansh666 has created (Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Starfinder Roleplaying Game) are all on the exact same very niche subject (D&D/scifi-playing platforms), all of borderline notability (in my opinion), and all created only within the past 7 months (specifically in prep for this RfA, as the nominator notes). I don't personally think this is sufficient timeframe or variety of article content creation for an admin candidate who wants to focus on AfD. I'd also like to point out that although ansh666 registered his account in 2007, he has only been active since April 2013 [4]. I would like to see ansh666 create (or completely re-write) an article of genuine significance and notability, outside of the game universe, and then wait a year before applying to RfA. That would allow him to experience having his work mucked about with by others, and give him a clearer understanding of the area he wants to focus on as an administrator. Otherwise, I don't personally believe he needs the tools. In addition, his apparent lack of understanding of some of the CSD criteria (see General Discussion below), and his lack of objectivity in his current remarks on WT:RFA, lead me to oppose. I think he needs more time, more significant content creation, and more maturing. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Softlavender: Could you point out some examples of bad NACs for us to review? Regards SoWhy 11:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Check talkpage archive. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    I've found one example, at User_talk:Ansh666/Archive_6#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Records; but most of the others I'm seeing on the user talk page appear to be people questioning the decision, but it was not overturned. Which is to be expected where there's a discussion closed with disagreement, and ansh seems to have answered those queries satisfactorily. @Softlavender: sorry to be a pain, but please could you point to some more specific examples, so we can properly evaluate this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    @SoWhy and Amakuru: I've gathered what I had been looking at, and to prevent clutter I've placed the list on the talk page of this RfA: WT:Requests for adminship/Ansh666#Reply re: Softlavender.27s .21vote. Alternatively, it could be moved here and hatted. Softlavender (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    After reviewing the NACs that were listed, I found I was coming to roughly the same conclusion as Ansh666. I think some of the NACs may have been slightly hasty (though my personal view is that NACs should generally be procedural closes or those that have dragged on without admin attention, as opposed to declaring [especially early] consensus), but I couldn't disagree with the logic in the large majority of cases. Everyone is going to make mistakes from time to time, so I definitely do not expect perfection; better still is that Ansh666 appears to be open to discussion, and seems be perfectly willing to rectify any errors. I do not think there is any compelling reason to doubt that this behavior will continue if the RfA is ultimately successful. Cthomas3 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose. The candidate's answer to Question 10 makes me slightly uncomfortable. Additionally, I cannot definitively say that they meet my simple RfA criteria. I always search through talkpage archives and noticeboard discussions in a candidates history, and I've yet to find an instance of the editor meeting hostility with kindness, which I feel is integral to dispute resolution. Such an example has never been difficult to find for any candidate I have supported in the past. Furthermore, the candidate has not (yet?) demonstrated that giving them the tools will be a net positive to the project. AfD is just as well served by active users as it is by active admins. Reading the answer to Question 1 makes me concerned that the candidate may use the bit as a WP:SUPERVOTE or perform out of process deletions. I may yet change my !vote, but I am not prepared to even present myself as neutral on this candidacy at this time. AlexEng(TALK) 03:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Could I ask you to elaborate on what about Q10 makes you uncomfortable? I am not trying to put you on the spot, but it would help me (and I am sure others) to understand the red flag that you see in his answer. It looked fairly innocuous to me (to paraphrase: "I don't have a deep understanding of the tool and would either recuse myself or seek advice before using it"), but I admit I don't have a deep understanding of the tool either. What kind of answer were you looking for? Cthomas3 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the question, Cthomas3. I prefer editors who both have a solid understanding of WP:REVDEL and an inclination to use it very conservatively. I am part of the strong community consensus that the tool's potential for abuse should be prevented by the community. My RfA !vote(s) are one such vehicle for that prevention. That being said, the answer to Q10 was far from the only factor in my decision. AlexEng(TALK) 20:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Understood and thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated, and what you said makes sense. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not seeing the breadth and depth of experience I'd expect for controversial tasks like "cleaning up BLP vios on current events articles". Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Next to no experience in the field of content creation.--Catlemur (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    He's got more content experience than an existing admin (who I will not name here) who had (and still has) absolutely none, and subsequently blocked my local library's IP for two years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Ritchie seems to be talking about Widr but that's not quite right as Widr has created 270 articles. Ritchie's !vote at Widr's RfA ended up as Neutral. Ritchie now seems disatisfied so, with hindsight, perhaps he should have opposed? Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    (I must be going RfA-senile then... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC))
  9. Oppose Candidate not only fails my criteria, they successfully talked me out of supporting them. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per this ridiculous super vote close - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyrille_Bara. Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes Spartaz. Ansh has pointed out this interaction in Que. 3. Mistakes do happen. Lourdes 15:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    It also strikes me that this one-time mistake, as said by Spartaz himself, is probably a result of not having the delete button (see WP:Relist bias for a similar phenomenon). That wouldn't happen again if he had the mop. ~ Rob13Talk 16:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Spartaz: Oh, come on. Consensus was for "delete and redirect", they closed it as "redirect". While the close was technically incorrect, it's a frustratingly trifling rationale to oppose someone's RfA over. It's ridiculous to label that a "supervote". A supervote is a very serious, willful and malicious subversion of consensus. This, on the other hand, was an exceptionally minor, inconsequential technical error that didn't even require the closing statement to be modified. Maybe just a friendly reminder on their talk page not to close discussions that require admin permissions. Instead you made it a point to strike their harmless close, with an unnecessarily condescending statement completely devoid of any recognition of the closer's good faith. But you didn't stop there, you actually held onto this completely harmless and inconsequential scenario in your memory, digging it back up as some sort of evidence for misbehavior or poor judgment or something. You're acting as if that close was actually problematic, but I'd say it's a stretch to even call this a "mistake". One could arguably stand behind that close if they really wanted to. You know, I came here completely neutral, but if this is really the worst that can be dug up on this user, consider me a strong supporter. Swarm 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose Large areas of administration essentially are untouched leaving me with no way to see how they will handle such situations. I wish there was a user right that permitted just deletions as I would support that, but I cannot reasonably support someone who lacks even general experience in the areas of AIV, UAA, and SPI, despite them not having an interest in it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC) See below. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Nihlus Kryik: I'm a bit confused. How do you propose a non-admin get experience at SPI? We do not need non-admins patrolling SPI (beyond clerks, which is a highly specialized role). You either come across a sockpuppet in the course of your normal editing or you do not; it's not really something one can set out to gain experience in. ~ Rob13Talk 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    In general it would be submissions. However the majority of the concern lies with AIV and UAA. You can come across SPIs when fighting vandalism, and I normally expect some form of anti-vandal editing from potential administrators. I just normally group those three together, but I do agree SPI is more uncommon/specialized. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    They literally said that they have no interest in getting involved in those areas. Besides, those are pretty easy; if you are inexperienced, then just go off the policy. And the editor said that they are going to take it slow even if, by some remote chance, they do get involved in those areas. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't like the idea of giving someone access to 50 tools so that they can just use 2 of them. I also don't think on the job training is appropriate either. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    That is an odd perspective. How can admins learn how to be admins before they become admins; and why should admins be forced to use all the admin tools they get just because they got them? Nevertheless, you have the right to put your perspective across... Warmly, Lourdes 02:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, rather odd. And not realistic. And also devoid of how admin rights are given out - you either get the lot, or you don't get anything. I would go as far as saying that there isn't a single admin who covers all possible areas of administrative tasks. Schwede66 06:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    I do have some concerns about Ansh666. I would feel better handing over the mop if they had already sat on ArbCom, and at least had some experience doing Bureaucrat tasks. Here they is opening an RfA when he's never closed an RfA not even once his entire career! TJWtalk 17:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Nihlus Kryik: I don't wish to badger you, but I'd like to offer an alternative perspective. Would you require a prospective admin to be able to work edit filters? How about be knowledgeable of how to edit MediaWiki: namespace pages? Would you expect them to know the intricacies of copyright law? The answer to all of these questions is presumably "No", and probably because those things are so niche that you assume the candidate will have no interest in getting involved in them even though the admin tools allow them to do all three. I can understand generally expecting to see some experience at "basic" areas like counter-vandalism because it's much higher probability that candidates will want to get involved there, but if they explicitly say they do not, isn't that an even stronger indicator they shouldn't need that ability than something being highly specialized? Perhaps I'm being conceited, but I think I'm probably closest out of the very active admins to knowing at least a little bit about all the highly specialized areas admin tools can be used. Still, I'm nowhere close to knowing them all. If the standard is that we expect admins to be able to use the tools with high degrees of accuracy in all areas they can be used before granting them, we'll never have another admin again. That standard is far too high to prove sustainable. ~ Rob13Talk 03:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    To add a bit to what BU Rob13 said, the core skill of an admin is being able to find and properly interpret policies when using their access. That skill is transferable between the different types of access that admins are given. If you see the candidate competently finding policies and implementing them in a couple of areas, then you can expect similar behaviour elsewhere. Expecting all candidates to have experience in even half of the areas where admins can be involved is an unsustainable standard, and honestly not necessary for selecting good admins. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    A factual correction: I may not list SPI in my Q2 but I have more experience than many typical editors there. See these two SPI archives for some significant activity dating back to 2013, though I make appearances in many more archives. I may not have experience at UAA but I participated at WP:RFCUN (UAA's gentler little brother) for a while a few years ago, after my own username was questioned (see supports in the mid-70s). ansh666 07:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Ansh666: Thank you for a response that actually addresses my concerns. Schwede66, RileyBugz, Lourdes, BU Rob13, Ajraddatz, and especially Timothyjosephwood would be well off to take lessons from you. I would say that's enough to move me out of oppose, but in order for me to support I would want to see more at AIV/UAA. The edit summaries also leave a lot to be desired but aren't nearly as critical. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Inadequate answer to 2; insufficient content creation. ECarlisle (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I thought about this long and hard but after a lot of consideration, I am not able to support this request. I requested the candidate to change their approach to leaving edit summaries in Q7, they agreed they should change it - and then does not use them either on the very comment they made to promise to change this behavior or on 8 of the next 12 edits. I understand that the community has (regrettably) not made using edit summaries mandatory but I personally think it's a dealbraker. We have far too many admins already not using them and it's a pain to review their edits, especially on mobile, where popups can't be used to see diffs. That alone would have prevented me from supporting but the diffs provided by Softlavender on the talk page pushed me into this column. Let me explain: The candidate was challenged for this AFD close which was a WP:BADNAC and their only comment was "Same result, eh?". Yes, it might have been closed later with the same outcome but that was not the point. It was a controversial discussion that should not have been closed by a non-admin. That the candidate apparently does not understand that the problem is not the result itself but that they closed the discussion, worries me. Same goes for the example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Johnson (2nd nomination). Yes, the close is defensible but that does not make it less of a WP:BADNAC and when the candidate had the chance to demonstrate that they understand the problem with such closes, they defended them instead of admitting that they should not have made them. While those examples are one year old, the response to being called out for them is recent and those comments are the main problem. Again, to avoid misunderstandings, my problem is not the candidate making mistakes last year, it's them defending those mistakes now. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per SoWhy. I find the bad BADNACS troubling but the candidate's reply to some of them more worrying. Just noting- I've been expressing concerns about BADNACs for a year or two at least....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Owning up to mistakes (everyone makes them!) and taking constructive criticism to heart is a very important trait for administrators and non-administrators alike. The candidate's response to Q7 and the bad non-admin closures leads me to believe he or she does not have the right temperament for adminship. Especially the response on the RFA talkpage to the BADNACs completely misses the mark for me. Sorry. decltype (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Evasive and/or unsatisfying answers to questions 3, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 15. Sorry. I expect clearer answers to questions, hypothetical or not. Yintan  09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  16. Oppose – no confidence. -- 1989 19:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - I am not at all impressed with the answer to Q15. Nobody asked you to get sucked into draft disputes, you were asked to give your thoughts on the arguments presented at one specific MfD. The response given is a copout and most certainly not of any use. I don't want an admin who will evade questions they don't like, that's a firm no go for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    The question was not particularly good though. Nobody has ever put a question like that on my talk page, and if they did, I'd probably answer something like "I don't do much work at MfD, you're probably better going off to the Village Pump" or something like that. Just because he doesn't answer that question, doesn't mean he wouldn't tackle something more concrete like "why did u delete my article on the ANGRY YOUNG POPES you NAZI!!!!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Presumably you've also never been asked what you intend to do as an administrator, what your best contributions are or had some random editor pop by and ask you if you've ever been involved in a dispute and then to show how you handled it (except at RfA). These three staple RfA questions are rather niche to their subject. Personally, I'd have preferred that the candidate say they weren't interested in MfD and say that they would direct the editor elsewhere as you suggest you would. What ticks me off is that they bollocksed their way through it by inventing up a totally unnecessary excuse to not answer the question and then fauxpologized for it. I'm not opposing simply because he didn't answer the question (or even answered it poorly) so the quality of the question is a non-issue. As Yintan above pointed out, it's not just one question where he's being evasive or unclear, it's several. The answer to the last question just leaves me with a distrust of the editor with tools. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Frankly, I would be more distrustful of someone that went ahead and gave their opinion of a deletion discussion without being able to actually see the article in question. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - generally speaking, I'm uncomfortable with an admin candidate who states they simply won't use the block button, but it's an oppose from me because of the stated intention to work in areas like BLP vio cleanup and revision deletion where not blocking a disruptive user (or not knowing why you should) can lead to damage in other areas. Blocking is not something to be taken lightly, but it is a powerful tool trusted to admins, and understanding when to block and when not to is a very fundamental part of admin discretion. Being unfamiliar with it and taking the time to learn is normal for new admins; saying you just won't use it I think is naive, and shows that you're not ready for what will be expected of you as an administrator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Ivanvector: I am not sure I understand the same way as you that part of Q1's answer (What I'm not interested in doing: (...) any situation that could possibly have to do with user conduct and/or the block button, unless it's an obvious emergency situation and I'm somehow the only one around to deal with it). The way I parse it is that the candidate will not go outside their way to investigate conduct issues, sockpuppets etc. and stay within their intended area, but I do not think they would have the least trouble blocking on sight BLP vandals. (Maybe that thinking or the way it was phrased still shows they ain't tough enough for the job, sure.) TigraanClick here to contact me 16:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    What Tigraan says is more or less how I intended it, yes. What would probably happen in that sort of situation: if I feel it's truly necessary I would block, but then take it to AN for review to make sure I've done the right thing. ansh666 17:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I see the response to Q11 as suggesting otherwise. I think it's fine to say you'll stay out of conduct issues, but it's not often that any dispute is purely either a conduct issue or a content dispute. Especially when dealing with controversial topics there's usually a bit of both. I find it unlikely that an admin working with revision deletion will never encounter a situation where a block is warranted. And, maybe this is a bit harsh: it's fine (and recommended!) to ask for help from time to time, but an admin who could act in a situation but persistently gets other admins to do the work for them is more of a burden for the admin corps than an asset. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. Neutral barely. Person has almost zero actual BLP editing experience, though nominating many for deletion. AfD vote ratio, excluding the huge preponderance of nominations, is within reason, but many of the noms were poorly chosen in my opinion, which I am not using as a rationale here. Basically, I find too much concern about deleting articles, too little in editing or discussing articles, and, all in all, not sufficiently balanced in experience for me to support. Person created 3 game pages, 2 disambiguation pages, and a single redirect. This is not an "active editor" by deed. Sorry - but close to an "oppose", alas. Collect (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I was originally not going to respond to any (!)votes, but...I've actually created over 100 redirects, not just one (though I can't attest to their quality, especially the oldest ones), and most of my AfD nominations apart from obscure firearms nowadays are procedural completions for IPs and new users who are either techically unable or not familiar enough to do it themselves, as long as they're requested in good faith. Unfortunately this leaves me as the "nominator" in the AfD vote counter thing. ansh666 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I was using the "articles created" tool result - which lists 6 articles, of which the results were as I stated. And if an IP asked me to list any article for deletion, and I saw it as not a reasonable deletion, I would not automatically place it up for deletion. Collect (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, that link has redirects disabled, it only shows those that have been converted to a non-redirect. In regards to the AfDs, that's a perfectly legitimate view and honestly most people do it that way, but I prefer to get more eyes on it rather than unilaterally act as a gatekeeper. ansh666 21:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Per and I just think he needs more experience. Also no experience with rights such as reviewer and rollback. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 14:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral. While ansh666 generally presents a neutral tone and demeanor, I'm very hesitant to give admin tools (deletion, block) and authority (admin closures of contentious AfDs) to someone who works so heavily in AfD, and who has made non-admin closures at several AfDs that have been, or have had to have been, questioned or overturned, even recently. In addition, as we know, it's very difficult to truly understand the actual ins and outs of article creation, citation, notability, and notability requirements, without having done significant content creation of one's own. The three articles that ansh666 has created (Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Starfinder Roleplaying Game) are all on the exact same very niche subject (D&D/scifi-playing platforms), all of borderline notability (in my opinion), and all created only within the past 7 months (specifically in prep for this RfA, as the nominator notes). I don't personally think this is sufficient timeframe or variety of article content creation for an admin candidate who wants to focus on AfD. I'd also like to point out that although ansh666 registered his account in 2007, he has only been active since April 2013 [5]. I would like to see ansh666 create (or completely re-write) an article of genuine significance and notability, outside of the game universe, and then wait a year before applying to RfA. That would allow him to experience having his work mucked about with by others, and give him a clearer understanding of the area he wants to focus on as an administrator. Otherwise, I don't personally believe he needs the tools. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC) (moved to Oppose)
  3. Neutral I have very limited knowledge about what makes a user worthy of adminship, and I do agree that they have significant contributions and present a neutral viewpoint, but I tend to see a stronger argument on the opposition side, as there certainly is little article creation but quite a bit of AfD work. I would regret supporting or opposing without sufficient knowledge of how much contribution admins typically make and in what areas. Pagliaccious (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - At this present time, at least. For an editor, such as ashe has described himself, who seeks to administrate AfD, a content-driven area, I would expect that said editor would have experience writing...well, content! Of course, you could direct me to his three, hastily created stubs but I could argue ashe has not experienced the benefit of having his creations criticized by others in the community and the lessons attached with it. I find the majority of the oppose votes convincing and several of the support votes lacking in actual substance. However, if the community does not see an issue with the lack of content, I will not hold it against ashe for the time being. Hence, my neutral position.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I'm really sorry to land here. I'm sure Ansh is a good person and a good editor, but looking through his contributions here I am seeing a general lack of experience in the things I look for in a prospective administrator. Looking at his pie chart I was surprised to see 41% of his total edits are to Wikipedia space, and the two WP pages he has contributed to the most are AN (186 edits) and ANI (306 edits). That's 4% of all the edits he has ever made at Wikipedia - and yet he said he isn't interested in sorting out AN or ANI discussions. He also isn't interested in UAA or AIV, and that's good, because I don't see any experience at all - literally none - at UAA, and minimal at AIV. And yet he will have the blocking tool, and sometimes as an admin you come across a vandal or troll that needs to be blocked RIGHT NOW and you need some understanding of the criteria and traditions for blocking. IMO the primary way to get that understanding is to have participated in or followed the boards where such decisions are made. Same with RFPP; his contributions to that area are minimal so I don't have any confidence in his ability to make those judgment calls. That only leaves AfD, and his record there is mediocre - 80% accuracy in commenting, and only 67% in articles he nominated himself (he has explained that outcome adequately in his reply to Collect). Bottom line, I respect the comments in the Support section and I'm not impressed by the Opposes, but I am personally reluctant to endorse handing the tools to someone who seems to have so little background to know how to use them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - For now. The lack of content creations is concerning. I don't expect admin candidates to have written dozen of FAs from scratch, but having at least a couple dozen created articles, a few DYK blurbs, and maybe creating/expanding a few articles to GA status would go a long way. Ansh seems like a great guy and a great editor, but only four article creations (excluding redirects) is insufficient for me, but not enough so to make this an oppose !vote. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - It is absurd to call this a 10-year old account, virtually all the serious activity started in 2013. I HATE HATE HATE the colors on the pie chart, only 2400-some-odd edits to mainspace. Dunno, man, really dunno.......... Carrite (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    Where is this "pie chart" to which two of you have referred? (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - Also concerned about the lack of experience in content creation and low mainspace edits. Kierzek (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  9. Neutral: Although the user has a long AfD records, the lack of content creation concerns me, but not enough for me to oppose. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 00:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - moved from opposition. See above for details. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  11. Neutral largely per MelanieN. Ansh666 has done a lot of good work around here and I really appreciate their contributions to the project. Based on the math I think it is pretty likely they are going to pass their RfA and to be honest, I don't see them as a high risk candidate. That said, there are a few too many gaps in their resume for my comfort level. Content creation is a problem and their involvement in admin related activities outside of AfD is extremely weak. Add to that they have a fairly short list of things they are interested in doing as an admin and an unusually long list of areas they intend to avoid. None of these are by themselves a deal-breaker, but collectively they raise some concerns. I can totally understand not being interested in spending a lot of time on the drama boards. I don't spend much time there either. I can also understand an aversion to blocking people. As an admin I find it by far the most disagreeable part of the job. But the admin tool kit is a package deal. While it's perfectly OK to put some limits on things you would rather not handle I think that anyone who asks for the tools needs to be able and willing to deal with basic things. I can also attest from experience that sometimes things are going to land in your lap, and you are going to be expected to handle an article that just needs to go, or an editor behaving like a three year old with a keyboard. Their record and some of their answers to questions, especially #1, have not filled me with confidence in this respect. In the end I am not seeing any red flags that would cause me to oppose this nomination, but I am regrettably unable to support it either. See also my RfA criteria. (I am currently on an extended wikibreak. Comments directed to me may not receive a timely response.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for citing me, Ad Orientem, but I have to disagree with one comment of yours: I can totally understand not being interested in spending a lot of time on the drama boards. Actually the "drama boards" - AN and ANI - are the one part of WikiSpace where they HAVE spent a lot of time. Those two are by far the biggest entry in their "pages edited - Wikipedia" log, amounting to 4% of their entire total edits. I have no idea what they were doing there, whether it was helpful input or just fly-by commenting, but they do seem to have had an unusually high interest up to now in the "drama boards". Take that for whatever its worth. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Good point. I was mainly addressing their list of areas where they have little interest in participating which includes AN and ANI. All of which said, I don't really think Ansh is going to blow up the wiki. This is basically a very solid editor. It just seems they have such a restricted list of what they are willing to work on that I am seeing little need for the tools. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    That's also why I am at neutral. I have huge respect for the many Wikipedians who have !voted to support, and this RfA is almost certainly going to pass, but I just can't give my own personal endorsement for the reasons I have stated. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    @MelanieN: I was also drawn to the apparent disconnent between high participation in AN & ANI and lack of interest in "sorting [them] out", so I reveiwed all of the candidate's contributions to those two boards since last December. I didn't collect diffs, because my browser crashed, but by memory I would categorise the vast preponderance of edits as "helpful input": clarifications / interpretations of policies, guidelines, and essays; notifications of discussions elsewhere; suggestions on ways forward. Perhaps one out of ten or eleven contributions was the expression of a bolded opinion, mostly but not exclusively in discussions where the candidate was not previously involved (I presume this is what you mean by "fly-by commenting"). A similar proportion were uncontroversial formatting edits. The candidate also made (IIRC) three filings, one of which was related to user conduct. The percentage of edits to the drama boards where the candidate could be said to be participating in drama approaches zero: I saw one edit I considered borderline, but never saw the candidate escalate a dispute, comment on an editor rather than their contributions, tell a filer they're doing it wrong, nor warn of or propose a sanction. I say all this without prejudice towards your not-vote. I'm not sure where I stand on this RfA myself yet and may not participate beyond this informational comment. Apologies again for the lack of diffs; I can go back and get some if my analysis requires substantiation. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for your helpful review. --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  12. Neutral as well. It's the lack of content contributions as well as not having had to defend them very much if at all. I think having been in the trenches a bit is important for an admin, then they can understand the passions on either side a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  13. Neutral, moved from support. Some of the candidate's answers to questions strike me as oddly defensive/evasive. In particular, the downright refusal to answer Q15 bothers me, as does the immediate "I wouldn't have seen it first anyway so not my problem" response in Q11. I recognize that every admin has their niche and no one is comfortable working everywhere, but I wish there was at least some willingness to be flexible here. I don't think I can truly say I support, although I won't go so far as to oppose. ♠PMC(talk) 13:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
General comments
  • What are the articles worked on?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Wehwalt: I've added links in the nomination. Sam Walton (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah sorry, yeah, I should have linked those in my Q2 where I mentioned them. ansh666 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As time goes on, the importance of creating pages has got smaller and smaller as focus has turned to maintaining articles we already have. Indeed, we have just announced WP:ACTRIAL - the first major drive to prevent articles being created in over a decade. I don't think I've ever created an article that I'd consider vitally important. Even things like Tower blocks in Great Britain and Terraced houses in the United Kingdom are simply content forks of larger articles, and while I think Things May Come and Things May Go but the Art School Dance Goes on Forever deserves an article simply by being plugged on numerously more notable LPs' inner sleeves, we survived 14 years without it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ritchie, partially though. With time, importance of creating articles has got smaller. The two key points here are understanding/following of the policies, and ab/use of toolbox. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds of perfectly reasonable new article ideas at Wikipedia:Requested articles, I maintain a personal 'to-do' list of articles to create, there are still many article that need creating (250k+ by my estimate). If this was to grant a 'page deletion' or 'close AfD as delete' user right, I would support it, but Adminship is such an all round big deal that I am unsure about it when the candidate has such a lacklustre record in an important area of work. An admin has rights to work in all areas of wikipedia at the highest level, and this candidate has only limited experience in areas other than article improvements and deletion. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  14:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Just because you think it's important, doesn't follow everyone has to share your opinion. I worry about the 2,264 unreferenced BLPs or the 1,761 BLPs that still have citations to the Daily Mail. In any case, I don't understand what creating articles has to do with being an administrator, sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's fair enough, I must admit that I am measuring the candidate against my own experiences. But can you fill me in on the Daily Mail thing, is it an unreliable source or something? Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Start at and follow the links. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, we dont need an admin to add references to BLPs or remove dailymail from refs. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Creating an article and making the first edit on an article are not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with making 1,000 notable but otherwise mostly worthless stubs, but that don't show jack about knowing how to create an article. Since that's where this line of thought seems to be going, if you want to show someone doesn't know how to actually create an article, you're gonna need a heckuva lot more than a number. TJWtalk 16:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • How have we reached the stage where 12000 edits can be considered a "very low edit count"? That's just ridiculous. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    +1. I passed RfA with less than that. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I think 70% manual edits probably slowed it down, which might be why the opposes don't realize Ansh has done a lot of work. For what its worth I for one consider 0 AWB edits to be a major plus. I'd never vote against someone for using AWB, but since we're being silly and discussing whether 12K edits for a contributor that has never expressed any interest in doing vandal patrolling or your standard AWB fixes, I thought I would point it out as a positive. Oh and look, they have no Huggle or Stiki either. That probably explains why they don't have massive edit counts. Things to ponder. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    +1 also. I passed RFA with less than half that, back in the days when we edited with quill pens on parchment. If I and others with similarly "low" edit counts had been on a rampage since, deleting FAs and blocking anyone who didn't address me as "His Lord Adminship", while admins coming in with 50K+ edits (or whatever the insane new standard supposedly is) were all perfect, then we'd have good evidence that exceptionally high edit counts correlate to better admins. But I don't think that's the case. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    +1 from me too. If a user makes 5 edits per day (a reasonable average IMO, and one that takes on average 30-60 minutes of abuse log patrolling), it would take 2400 days, or about six and a half years, to reach 12000 edits. Besides, one can learn a lot about Wikipedia by just observing, reading the policy and noticeboards, and lurking around the admin areas. I'd actually be more concerned about the Kids With The Tools who joined 6 months ago and already have 20000 edits because then they're likely spending excessive time on Wikipedia and/or trying to hat collect, and they don't have much in the way of true experience other than having their bot revert vandalism for them. 65HCA7 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    +1 here. I passed my RfA at 7000 edits. This kind of inflation probably outpaces real world, economic inflation. I'm not a economist, but I think I'm safe to summarize the obvious OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    +Pi I don't often !vote at RFA, but the 12000 "low edit count" opposes added motivation to investigate the candidate and actually vote. At one point I was considering requesting AWB access for a cleanup project. The first thing that popped to mind was the editcountitis at RFA, and I was so turned off that I dropped the project and went to work on something else. Alsee (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I've removed Need for the tools from my personal RfA criteria, but I'm still curious. The user has said that they expect little change in their editing behavior after getting the mop. Could someone familiar with Ansh666 comment on why granting the bit is a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the project? AlexEng(TALK) 19:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    I assume that they would perform many of the deletions that they currently ask for themselves. Also, "cleaning up BLPs using revdel" is something that requires admin tools. —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Essentially, the toolset is a natural extension of the kind of work that Ansh666 has already been doing: behind-the-scenes maintenance. I think what Ansh666 means by little change is that he doen't expect to use the tools in completely unfamiliar areas of Wikipedia, or at least not right away. Instead he'll approach the same kind of maintenance work he's already been doing, but instead of having to hassle administrators for a task, he'll be able to do it himself – that's a net positive in my book. Mz7 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Mz7: Thanks for the response. That makes sense. Just for my own curiosity, do you happen to have an idea of how backlogged AfD is in terms of needed administrator attention? Is there a shortage? AlexEng(TALK) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @AlexEng: I think lately it's actually been pretty good in terms of backlog. We have a handful of administrators who are fairly active in closing AfDs, and they're all usually dealt with within a day or two after that 7-day mark. It fluctuates, of course; I remember days back in the summer where there would be dozens of discussions still open after 8 or 9 days. I wouldn't say there's a shortage of administrators at AfD at the moment, but don't mistake this to mean that additional help wouldn't be appreciated. Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    AfD is pretty active at the moment, with a couple of admins and perhaps 5–7 different editors active (me being one of them). J947(c) (m) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    @AlexEng: I think it's important to realize that having more admins for non-backlogged areas is still important. Right now, I close AfDs every once in a while to make sure the process moves swiftly. I do not like doing it; in fact, I expressly said I would not in my RfA, but I feel a few closes here and there are needed to pitch in and help. If more editors interested in AfD got the bit, I would stop doing that and instead do other things in more backlogged areas. Basically, even if certain basic areas are "covered" now, having more admins helping out would let others go do other things. So long as they're qualified, an additional admin is always a good thing. It will help some backlog, even if indirectly. ~ Rob13Talk 01:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13 and Mz7: Thank you both for your patience and answers! AlexEng(TALK) 03:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to vote because I'm unfamiliar with the candidate, don't sufficient time to investigate their edits, and voting based solely on statistics, answers to questions, and other people's votes is actively harmful at RFA, but... G4 and G5 are included in "the more uncontroversial types of speedy deletion"? Seriously? —Cryptic 21:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Meh. At least compared to like A7, those two have fairly clear-cut criteria. The biggest issue regarding G5 is when to use it, not whether it can be used. Is G4 controversial at all? It's the least accessible to non-admins. ansh666 21:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    G4 is a bit less clear-cut than you think (and I agree that it's probably the least accessible to non-admins because it involves comparing a page to a deleted version of the same page, which non-admins cannot do). The "not clear-cut" aspect comes from evaluating whether something (e.g. a new statement or source) is enough to make the page no longer "substantially identical" to the deleted version, and while I'd agree G4 isn't the most controversial of speedy deletion categories, different people could look at the same two pages and disagree on whether they are "substantially identical". Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind. ansh666 22:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan, Mr rnddude, and Premeditated Chaos: keep in mind that questions at RfA (beyond the first three) are optional. I'm not required to answer any of them, let alone in as much detail as I tried to, even with those that you believe I'm being "evasive" on. That is not my intention; I sincerely believe that I don't have enough information to answer them. With regards to Q15 specifically, I am aware that there is a large and raucous dispute about draft deletion which I haven't been following, so I don't believe that I should answer a question about that dispute with none of the background information, especially since the linked deletion debate has nothing to do with me (and since I can't see the deleted draft either, as Ahecht said). I don't think it follows from those questions that I won't be able to answer talk page inquiries or complaints about my actions - I've already done that in considerable detail as linked in Q3. The difference is that those are specific questions about specific actions, not broad hypotheticals with little to none of the information that is actually necessary to make a decision. ansh666 17:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm sincerely unsure as to how sharply to respond to this. So I'll try not to be too critical here. I am aware that there is a large and raucous dispute about draft deletion which I haven't been following, so I don't believe that I should answer a question about that dispute with none of the background information. So? that is not what the question was asking, the deletion of the draft was not controversial. I can only assume you didn't even bother to look at it if you're suggesting it is or is tied with draft disputes. You don't need to see the actual draft to be able to make certain judgements on the quality of the argumentation. The accuracy of it is another thing altogether. For example, "dreadful" is not an argument for deletion. It's an argument for improvement. You were asked to look at the level of argumentation used in the deletion discussion. Nowhere were you asked to say whether or not the closing admin made the correct decision either. keep in mind that questions at RfA ... are optional. Yeah... no. They are optional, but, no not really. Failing to answer questions is a common oppose rationale that you will find in recent RfA's. It's expected that you will answer questions. Your attempt to excuse yourself here just signals to me that you'll do the same as an admin. Furthermore, let alone in as much detail as I tried to, even with those that you believe I'm being "evasive" on. The level of detail you used doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't need to be longwinded explanations (like I write) and some questions, like Q9, well there's really not much more to say than that you don't intend to participate in that area. That said, "as much detail" is ... *sigh* you gave short two or three sentence responses to most questions and you were even asked to elaborate on your answer to Q8 because you didn't actually answer the question. You were presented with a specific question and specific arguments and your response was that it was unrealistic to find this many comments without a valid argument. I direct you to the MfD you so politely refused to even look at. That said, your elaboration was a stark improvement on the original. I don't think it follows from those questions that I won't be able to answer talk page inquiries or complaints about my actions. If you won't answer questions on your RfA clearly and directly then why should I expect that you will anywhere else. I expect you to be accountable, that started the moment you put your hand up for this RfA. If you aren't going to show it here, I have no reason to assume you will anywhere else. The difference is that those are specific questions about specific actions, not broad hypotheticals with little to none of the information that is actually necessary to make a decision. I'm sorry what? In what way are/were Q8 or Q15 broad hypotheticals. In the case of Q15, it's not even a hypothetical. I'm gonna call you to task here, because that statement is bullshit. Your elaboration to Q8 demonstrates this fact perfectly. Origianlly you dodge the task of dealing with the proposed AfD (arguments and all) by saying that there is no way to know if you'd close it or how. To quote you (from Q15); I don't believe any answer I could possibly give will be of any use - well that answer certainly wasn't. Then, at the request of your own nominator, you retry and suggest that you'd leave a !vote of your own or if you were forced to close then you'd go with no consensus. You even managed to note that not all the arguments were invalid. But, getting you to that point appears to have been like pulling teeth. Why? it's not that difficult a question. What are you going to respond with when you are presented a difficult question? Nothing in your comment here indicates to me that you'll be accountable for your actions. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it follows from those questions that I won't be able to answer talk page inquiries or complaints about my actions. Never said (nor implied) that, that's not the point. Point is that in my humble opinion you're giving vague or evasive answers. I don't know if that's because you're trying to please everybody or that you have trouble with questions that aren't clear-cut 'true or false' problems, or whatever else, but I do know it doesn't convince me that you'll be a good admin. Questions may be optional, yes, but the answers can show how somebody deals with incorrect/incomplete/misleading information. You may not always get all the information that is actually necessary to make a decision. Not here, not as an admin. Everybody can learn to play sheetmusic but a true musician can improvise. You don't even try. Yintan  19:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

About RfB

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

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

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages