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
ONUnicorn 149 3 2 98 14:37, 30 May 2017 3 days, 20 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 17:37, 26 May 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 impact 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 %
Vin09 RfA Withdrawn 15 May 2017 2 10 0 17
Cwmhiraeth RfA Withdrawn 10 May 2017 20 41 7 33
Clpo132 RfA Successful 10 May 2017 174 1 3 99
CookieMonster755 RfA WP:SNOW 8 May 2017 0 11 2 0
Pvmoutside RfA Withdrawn 8 May 2017 63 68 20 48
Dane RfA Withdrawn 13 Apr 2017 74 56 13 57
GoldenRing RfA Successful 9 Apr 2017 178 88 14 67

The community grants administrator status 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. There is, however, 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 (eg 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. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
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 17:39:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (149/3/2); Scheduled to end 14:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


ONUnicorn (talk · contribs) – I've been on a bit of a break from the Wikipedia namespace lately, but I can't think of a better reason to interrupt that break than to nominate ONUnicorn for adminship. Two months ago, I'd seen ONUnicorn around but hers was not a name I knew well until she took an ORCP and I'm thrilled that after some more discussion she's decided to take the plunge at RfA itself.

ONUnicorn has been around since 2006 and after a spurt of activity that year became less active until the beginning of 2015, during which time she has accumulated nine DYKs and some 12,000 edits. But what impressed me is her dedication to the encylcopaedia, especially to the articles we already have—many of which are badly neglected. She reviews new articles, particularly from the back of the queue after the obviously helpless articles have been caught by other editors. This and her other areas of interest frequently bring her into conflict with new editors, many of whom are confused or in need of guidance. Far from getting frustrated at being asked the same question again and again, her talk page and its archives show that she is consistently calm, polite, and friendly.

Overall, I believe ONUnicorn is a sensible, level-headed editor who knows her way around and is always happy to help. And I believe those are exactly the qualities we need in our admin corps, so it's my great pleasure to recommend that we make ONUnicorn an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you HJ Mitchell for your kind words. I graciously accept your nomination. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:30, 22 May 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: Right now, as an editor I tend to do a little bit of everything, and as an admin I would probably continue to do a little bit of everything.
I'm accustomed to working in backlogged areas, and as an administrator I'd keep an eye out to see if there were backlogs that needed attention. Some of the backlogs I currently spend time working on include: the horribly and increasingly backlogged new pages feed, the nearly 1/4 of a million articles that do not cite a single source, Requested Articles, and edit requests from COI editors. I'm not sure any of the administrative areas are as backlogged as those are, but many of the administrative backlogs involve more urgent matters like copyright infringement, and it is important to keep them under control.
The thing I've had to request administrator help with the most lately is history merges. I've noticed Anthony Appleyard does virtually all of them, and I'm sure he'd appreciate some help with them. However, I understand those can be complicated, so I would hesitate to jump right into that area before I knew what I was doing.
I think DYK would appreciate a couple more active admins to move preps to queue, and help out with errors and I might try my hand at that.
I enjoy dispute resolution, and I have been involved in that in terms of offering 3rd opinions. As an admin I would seek to broaden my involvement in dispute resolution processes.
Some newer editors often want help from admins, and seem to distrust non-admins. I enjoy helping newer editors, and would be patient and helpful with those people.
I might also help close some AFDs and other discussions, but I'd probably go slow in that area.
Basically, just as I currently edit in a broad range of areas depending on my mood, the need, and how much time I have, as an admin I would continue to be involved in many different areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud of a lot of my content work. I have 9 DYKS, of which my favorite are Wyandotte Caves, Hammerton Killick, Holland's Magazine, and Children's Village (New York). I'm also proud of the work I did writing the lead for Burial as part of the lead writing contest and the work I did on Souk Okaz.
I'm proud of the articles that I have helped to rescue from deletion. An early one was Critical Mass (Canadian band). I've also helped rescue Toxic Girl and Pasilalinic-sympathetic compass (that one was fun). Children's Village was also one I rescued from deletion.
I'm proud of the times I've been able to help new users out. I helped Kirk Leonard with his first article, which was then featured on DYK. Someone recently gave me a barnstar for this edit to the help desk. I enjoy helping people.
Ultimately I feel my best contributions are still to come. I don't yet have any GAs or FAs, though I'm working on Der Ruf (newspaper), and I feel when I'm done with it it could rise to that level of quality. It just takes a lot of time and effort to get it there.
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: Conflicts? A couple minor ones. Stress? Not really. Wikipedia isn't really worth getting stressed out over, and real life can be quite stressful enough. However, I do get a little upset when I feel I have been misunderstood, especially if the misunderstanding seems to have hurt the other person.
For example, I was trying to explain to Spongebob1944 why I felt an edit of his was inappropriate and why I had reverted it, and ended my comment by asking if what I had just said made sense. I often end explanations this way as I want to make sure that the other person understood me, and if what I said doesn't make sense I will rephrase it to try to clarify any misunderstandings. He took offense to that, saying I was insinuating that he was stupid. It saddened me to think I had been misunderstood, especially when the phrase that was misunderstood was intended to promote understanding.
Probably the biggest conflict I've been in, as well as the stupidest and most pointless, is also the first Wikipedia conflict I was involved in. It involved whether or not the article Fork in the road should have a picture, and what sort of picture it should have. I don't think I handled that badly per se, (though I did get frustrated) but the whole thing was a little stupid. You can find that discussion here.
Another minor conflict was with QuackGuru, regarding Paleolithic diet. He and several other editors were involved in a conflict regarding whether the article should use the term "fad diet" in the lead. I wandered into the midst of it and made a copyedit to a poorly worded sentence. I was unaware at the time I made the edit that there was a dispute regarding the article. He then accused me of introducing original research, things that were unsupported by the sources, etc. I tried to get him to take it up with the people who originally wrote what I rephrased. Eventually he went to go talk with them. That discussion was on my talk page, archived here.
As for how to deal with it; sometimes the best way to deal with it is to put some space between yourself and the issue. Go do something else, get off the computer, get a good night's sleep, come back to it when you are fresh and less interested/emotional. That's how I'd continue to deal with it.

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 Tornado chaser
4. Have you ever had to deal with POV issues, such as being accused of POV or removing a POV and ending up in a dispute as a result? Especially if the POV in question was in medicine or other sciences.
A:Not that I'm aware of... but this question seems rather oddly specific, so I'm wondering if there is a specific incident you have in mind?
Additional question from Smartyllama
5. I'll get in on the fun this time and ask a WP:UAA question. You come across the following usernames, all with no edits. What do you do for each?
  • Donald Trump Is A Horse's Rump
  • Dodo Gogo
  • Hello I Am Rouo
  • I Like Socks
  • 7 County Complex Court Woodbridge VA 22192
  • Fartwiches
  • Chompers The Goat
  • Supreme Ayatollah of Wikipedia
  • 489dsfojhslkjdhf90384908fs870489w84r0u0sadfuh90347u0we8-r0sdauf0safdshit9085409usjdf08u3490usfj03409wr0uf0asufd043
  • Obstructive Bureaucrat
A:You said they all have no edits, so per the instructions at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions, I would probably not take any action unless and until they edit.
Answering the question you didn't ask...
  • Donald Trump Is A Horse's Rump - could be considered a BLP violation or disruptive trolling. On the other hand, it could be considered mildly biting humor. I'd wait for them to edit, and if they appeared to be trolling I'd probably block them. If they appeared to be editing in good faith I would likely drop a polite note on their talkpage suggesting they change the name.
  • Dodo Gogo - I don't see anything immediately wrong with this user name. However, there is an existing user (an admin) named Gogo Dodo. There's also an account blocked for sock puppetry called "User:Sock of Gogo Dodo". Googling it I see there is an app in the playstore by that name. I'd wait for them to edit. If they appeared to be targeting Gogo Dodo, I'd likely block them. If they appeared to be following the patterns of the sock master I'd likely either block them or request a check user. If they appeared to be attempting to promote the game I would point out our COI policies and suggest a name change. If they appeared to be editing in good faith I'd still be concerned that they could be confused with Gogo Dodo, so I might suggest they change it.
  • Hello I Am Rouo - This is a similar username to some of the blocked accounts in the sockpuppet investigation mentioned above. I'd wait for them to edit, and if they appeared to be following the patterns of the sock master I'd likely either block them or request a check user.
  • I Like Socks - I'd wait for them to edit. If they appeared to be editing constructively, I'd probably say hi on their talk page, and attempt to strike up a conversation about how socks are much more comfortable than shoes, and how many fun patterns of socks there are, because I really like socks too. Somewhere in this conversation I might mention that the username could cause them problems and they might want to change it. On the other hand, if their edits appeared to be problematic, I'd look around to see if they could be part of any long term abuse investigations, and take appropriate action.
  • 7 County Complex Court Woodbridge VA 22192 - That's the address for a baseball stadium. I'd wait for them to edit, and if they were editing the stadium's article I'd point them to our COI policies and inform them that it's a bad idea to use an address as a username. If they were editing other articles, I'd still point out that a physical address is just generally a bad idea for a user name.
  • Fartwiches - I'd wait for them to edit. If they were editing constructively, this is not blatantly offensive enough for me to worry about. I do see that most usernames beginning with Fart are blocked, but most of them were only used for vandalism. Though there are a couple username blocks there. It's highly likely someone who thinks the username "Fartwiches" is funny wouldn't be constructive, but I'd wait to see.
  • I AM NOT A SOCK I AM A SHOE - This, more so than I Like Socks, screams to me that the person is probably a sock. I'd wait for them to edit, and then look to see if they match any known sockmasters or long term abuse things.
  • Chompers The Goat - Apparently that's a baseball team's mascot. I'd wait to see what their editing was like, but generally speaking I'd consider it similar to naming yourself after a cartoon character - not problematic.
  • Supreme Ayatollah of Wikipedia - Wait for them to edit. They'll likely end up blocked because the user name could be considered misleading, in that it implies some special authority. If their editing isn't disruptive, suggest they change it.
  • 489dsfojhslkjdhf90384908fs870489w84r0u0sadfuh90347u0we8-r0sdauf0safdshit9085409usjdf08u3490usfj03409wr0uf0asufd043 - Wait for them to edit, and then suggest they change it as it's way confusing because it's long, difficult to remember, and could be mistaken for an IP address.
  • Obstructive Bureaucrat - Wait for them to edit. If they appeared to be editing constructively, suggest they change it as it could be interpreted as implying special authority.
Additional question from Dan D. Ric
6. You and I started editing Wikipedia the same year and have roughly the same number of edits. We both made a significant number of edits in the first couple of years, then we both dropped out for a few years. We both returned at roughly the same time and have both made a significant number of edits since. My question is this: I wonder if I am going to stay around for more than a couple of years this time, or will I get bored/distracted/disgusted/tired and leave again. Do you feel like you are committed to staying around, and why?
A: I was expecting this question or a question like it. I'm not going to make any promises I can't keep. I can't predict the future. I have a life offline (as most of us do), and other interests online. I will say that one of the reasons I stopped editing back then was that I didn't have internet at home, and I switched jobs from one where I had a lot of down-time to one where I was busy. One of the reasons I started editing again was that I was doing a lot of research online for classes I was taking, and realizing that Wikipedia still needed me and that I could make time to contribute. Unlike in 2007, internet access is no longer optional, and unlike back then I always have a smartphone on me. I don't foresee myself becoming as inactive as I was any time soon, but I do foresee that there will be times when I'll be more active or less active depending on what is going on in my offline life and career.
Additional question from Forceradical
7.What would you do if a IP adress removes 'Best known for for' from before a word citing POV as its cause?
A: Some people have mentioned that my answers to the username questions seemed "indecisive". In law school we had a joke that the right answer to just about every question is, "it depends." These questions (the username question and the two Forceradical asked) are like law school hypotheticals - they resemble things you are likely to encounter in practice but they are unmoored from their real-world context and the "right" answer will vary based on facts that are not in evidence.
In this particular question, the answer is "it depends." I'll tell you what I would not do - I would not use roll back or blindly revert to the prior version. Why? Because of the repetition of the word "for". That is clearly a typo or error, and even if I thought "Best known for" was appropriate, "Best known for for" is not.
Assuming that removing "Best known for for" is all they did, I probably would make some additional change to the sentence in question, as I find it doubtful that removing "Best known for for" and making no other changes would leave a grammatically correct sentence. Assuming I knew or could quickly learn enough about the topic, I would probably try to reword the sentence in such a way that "best known for" is unnecessary, as that can represent an improper POV (although it doesn't always).

Sorry for the mistake the extra word for was not supposed to be part of the Question.I was notified about it bylourdes but meatspace priorities prevented me from correcting it earlier.My badFORCE RADICAL@ 04:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

8. What would you do if a editor of a long standing good reputation suddenly changes every instance of the word 'Sheffield' in a article to Shitfield'?
A: Again, that depends. I'm assuming Sheffield is the name of either a person or a place. Changing it to "Shitfield" is most likely vandalism, but if it was a long standing editor of good reputation, I'd double check Google just to make sure there isn't actually a place or person by that name. Assuming I decided it was vandalism I'd change it back, and then visit the editor's talk page and ask them why they made the change. It's entirely possible they left a public computer logged-in or that their account is compromised in some way and they should change their password. If they have e-mail enabled I'd probably also e-mail them to advise them that there has been odd activity on their account and they should change their password. I'd definitely also check their other recent contributions to see if there was more odd activity. If they didn't respond and kept vandalizing, then a block would be necessary. If they lived in or near a place called Sheffield, or had interactions with a person named Sheffield, it could be a sign that they are letting some sort of real world stress or anger out via Wikipedia and they may need someone to talk to, in which case I'd try to be a listening ear and be sympathetic while encouraging them to find some real world help and not take their stress and anger out on Wikipedia.

FYI this diff is idea from were the question originatedFORCE RADICAL@ 04:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Exceptionally optional questions from Newyorkbrad
9. I usually dislike law-school-exam type questions on RfA, but since you mention above that you actually went to law school, please answer any one of my questions from here.
A:Groan I thought I was done with exams! Ok Professor, I'm choosing question 2.
(A) This question concerns the appropriateness of a court citing Wikipedia for the colloquial meaning of the term Jet Ski. The case was on appeal from a grant of summary judgement in a lower court. At issue was the clarity or lack thereof of a provision in an insurance contract excluding injuries resulting from ownership, maintenance, use (etc) of jet skis and jet sleds. Where there is ambiguity in an insurance contract, U.S. courts to construe it against the drafter. Here, it was fairly obvious that the term "jet ski" was not intended by the drafter to refer exclusively to the Kawasaki brand jet skis, however it was unclear if the specific craft at issue would fall under the term "jet ski". It was also completely unclear what was meant by "jet sled". Although the openness of Wikipedia editing makes it an unreliable source for most applications, there has been recognition in the legal community that it can be useful for sourcing popular usage of terms. In this case, the court used it in a fairly innocuous manner, and fully explained their reasoning, which appears sound. They also appropriately included the date of the revision they were citing to, although they should have used the permanent URL ( instead of Personally, if I were writing for the court I would not have cited to Wikipedia, but rather to the sources Wikipedia cites. However, I think the court in footnote one and the concurring opinion by Judge Voros were an accurate assessment of Wikipedia's reliability, acknowledging its strengths and weaknesses, and adequately defending the court's decision to use Wikipedia.
(B) (C) I have to leave right now, but I'll come back to this.
(Actually, feel free to skip (B) and (C). But you do have to answer #10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
Oh, good, because the opinion in B was long. I'll skip B and C and go on to 10 then. :)
10. I also usually dislike RfA questions about usernames, but I'll make an exception for yours. If your RfA is successful, in which category should you be listed on this page?
A:Why, Magical/Paranormal, of course! Although Equine is also a possibility, but not all unicorns are horselike, whereas they are all magical. I'm surprised Dragons flight isn't listed anywhere on that page, and would expect him to also be in the magical/paranormal category.
Additional question from Exemplo347
11. If, during a Request for Admin discussion, you saw a "here's 10 user names, blah blah blah?" question and the candidate responded "This question is pointless busy-work and I'm not going to answer it," how would that response affect your vote?
A:It wouldn't. I'd give them credit for having the guts to come right out and say it, but on those occasions when I've !voted on an RFA, I put very little stock in their answers to generic questions like that. I put more stock in what I've seen of the person and their work around the project and how they interact with others. I pay attention to who is supporting and opposing and on what basis, and how the candidate responds to questions that have a basis in that candidate's experience.
Additional question from Marvellous Spider-Man
12. A good long-standing editor gets harassed by a disruptive new editor; the new editor's editing pattern and knowledge show that they are not a newbie, but administrators support the newbie with the excuse of assume good faith and warn the long-standing editor don't bite newcomers: after few days the newbie is indeffed as a sockpuppet. Should AGF be extended to help disruptive editors?
A: I'm not sure the question "Should AGF be extended to help disruptive editors?" is necessarily related to the fact pattern that proceeded it.
I think I personally tend to take AGF a little farther than most people, and keep assuming good faith when most people would think it's unreasonable to continue in the assumption. I also think AGF as a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia is intended specifically to help "disruptive editors". Not those that are being intentionally or maliciously disruptive mind - but those who are blundering around clumsily breaking things without meaning to, and those who are trying to do the right thing but disagree on what that right thing is.
The fact pattern you have presented in the question is quite vague. How do the new editor's editing pattern and knowledge show they aren't a newbie? What sort of harassment of the good long-standing editor are they engaging in? Harassment should not be tolerated, but it's sometimes hard to definitively say something is harassment, especially if you are looking at it from the outside.
If the editor approached administrators for help, and they supported a disruptive and harassing editor and were later proven wrong, they owe the other editor an apology.
Additional question from Linguist111
13. A new user, "Ida", in her first edit, changes the photograph in Donald Trump's infobox to File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg (which was used in the article until consensus was reached to have the current photo there) with no edit summary. Another editor, "Marie" - who has been editing Wikipedia since 2005, has written 25 featured and 50 good articles, and is planning on running for adminship soon, having attained an average score of 8 out of 10 at WP:OCRP, rollbacks the edit, placing {{Uw-image1}} on Ida's talk page. Without replying, Ida puts the 2015 back with no edit summary, and Marie rollbacks again, giving Ida a {{Uw-image2}} warning. Ida repeats the edit again; Marie reverts with an edit summary of "For fuck's sake, stop it! We all fought over that ugly photo, we all think it's hideous and came to the decision to use the official one and now you want this one back? Stop your image vandalism or I'll have you blocked!", giving Ida a {{Uw-image3}} warning. Ida inserts the image a fourth time, receiving a {{Uw-image4}} from Marie after being reverted again. After this, Ida stops editing for a week, before returning to re-insert the image. After five weeks, Marie leaves this message on your talk page: "Hi, could you please block Ida? User keeps adding the unencyclopedic photo of Donald Trump after all the fighting and edit warring over it. Appears to be WP:NOTHERE". Upon further investigation into this, you find that Ida and Marie have been repeating their edits weekly - Ida with the Trump photo (with no edit summaries; also she has made no edits to any other page) and Marie with the rollback reverts - and Ida has now received five {{Uw-image4im}} warnings from Marie, who reported her after she re-inserted the 2015 image immediately after her latest warning. No other editors have discussed the matter with Ida or Marie, nor have they ever discussed it with each other, apart from the warnings, to which Ida has never responded. What actions do you take?
A:I don't think {{Uw-image1}} is an appropriate response to the first image-changing edit. I'd be more inclined to use the Uw-image line of templates for clear vandalism - like ceiling cat, or replacing his photo with one of poop or genitalia. I also, if I were Marie, wouldn't have used rollback. I would have reverted manually and left a descriptive edit summary, something like, "Revert. Official portrait is more appropriate now that he is president. See consensus on talk." I also would have left {{welcome-t}} on Ida's talk page and under it I would have written something like, "Hi. I saw you changed the picture on Donald Trump to an older picture instead of his official presidential portrait. The official portrait was decided on after a lot of conversation on the talk page, see for example Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 45#Info box could use a better photograph of Donald Trump. Please don't change it again, and if you really think it should be changed, try discussing it on the talk page."
As for what I would do as an admin in this situation, I would tell Marie pretty much what I said in the first paragraph, that I think she handled this badly from the start. I would visit Ida's talk page and make one last try to communicate with her, not with templates, but by apologizing that she got off to a rocky start and inviting her to discuss the matter with Marie and other editors on the talk page. I would warn them both that if the edit warring continues, the next one to change the picture would be blocked, and I would keep an eye on the page so I could follow through on that. Assuming the page wasn't already under any protection, (it's currently under extended-confirmed protection, meaning this exact scenario (involving Ida having no other edits) is impossible) I would seriously consider protecting it.
Additional question from L3X1
14. How will you treat foully uncivil comments from established users who know better: Drop a block if no sign of repentance, wait to try and discuss their behavior with them, or offer them the choice of apologising or being blocked? Thanks
A: How "foully uncivil"? I mean - there's uncivil, and then there's uncivil. I would try to discuss their behavior and strongly suggest they apologize. I'd try to figure out what the heart of the dispute was and why they were so emotionally invested in it. I'd try to mediate. Try being the operative word, it might not work.
Enforcing civility is one of the hardest things on Wikipedia. Blocking people for uncivil behavior is counter-productive, especially if they are editing productively in other areas. Topic bans and interaction bans work somewhat better, but can only be enforced with blocks or the threat of blocks, and they can prevent people from working in the areas where they have the most interest and expertise. We don't want to chase away good editors; we need them, but allowing bad behavior to continue chases away good editors. Human nature means we're going to have conflicts, we're going to have people who strongly care about something and disagree with one another and they're going to blow up at each other. The nature of the internet emboldens people to be rude to each other where they might not be as rude in a more traditional, physical work place. I don't have the answers to these systemic problems, all I would be able to do is the best I could in that particular situation.


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

  1. Support Seems to know what she's doing. Lots of experience and good at answering questions. We need people like that as admins. WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Jianhui67 TC 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Reasonably extensive and constructive experience. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Per nominator, a safe bet on the admin front. Has a wide experience; I expect her to be dependable, stable and sensible in admin areas. Lourdes 14:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support I've seen the candidate do some good work in regards to the Third Opinion dispute resolution process recently which assures me that they will do a good job with the tools. -=Troop=- (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support After 11 years as a user here, I think this candidate can be trusted not to wreck the place. Skemcraig (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Reasonably extensive and constructive very experience. - Prinsipe Ybarro (Talk to me | Contributions) 15:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support mainly for three reasons 1:good answers to questions; 2: Have seen her around, and been favorably impressed; 3: I took a look at several AfDs where her !vote did not match the outcome. This is only a concern when said !votes lack CLUE. I found her arguments to be well-reasoned and policy-based. I found a couple of instances where she helped find sources for an articles she had nominated, and therefore the article was kept. I found her to be communicative, collaborative, and ready to consider the viewpoints of others. I believe we're in good hands here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support seen her around. Fine temperament to be a sysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support. Temperament, length of time as editor.--Jpbrenna (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  11. Support I've seen Unicorn around a lot in areas where I used to provide most of the initiative. We didn't always see eye to eye but what I always appreciated was her ability to both be objective and think outside the box. Unicorn has more than what is needed just for adminship - I'm seeing potential leadership qualities (and I mean leadership, not power wielding). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  12. Support. No concerns. bd2412 T 15:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  13. Support. Can't say that I have seen her around but contributions look solid and clueful. Minor older speedy mistakes aside, I couldn't find any troubling edits doing a spot check of a random sample of her contributions. Only concern is that she is a self-declared lawyer (a JD even!) (j/k Face-wink.svg) Regards SoWhy 16:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose has this really really annoying box on their user page. No, wait, support per my comments at the ORCP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  15. Support. Clueful, civil to all, and uses edit summaries assiduously. An hour's worth of concerted searching turned up no concerns at all. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  16. Very pleased to support. Thanks for standing, you'll be a wonderful addition to the corps. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  17. Support Excellent temperament, and highly civil to all. WOuld be a net positive to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  18. Support. Easy support. Has the appropriate temperament and experience for an administrator. ~ Rob13Talk 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  19. Support More then 11 years experience and a trusted editor. FITINDIA  17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  20. Support – Obviously a net positive for the community. J947(c) 18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  21. Support per nom. --Joshualouie711talk 18:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  22. Support per nom. User has shown they are capable of taking on work in many different areas. Smartyllama (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  23. Support I am glad candidate anticipated the question, as it's a question I have asked of myself. Answer satisfies me. Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  24. Support We are all volunteers, and real life makes its demands sometimes, so I have no worries about the period of decreased activity. I looked at some random AFDs over the span of participation as well as general contributions and the record looked good. Seems to have a pleasant temperament and intelligence, and will be a great addition to the admin corps. Edison (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  25. Support Well qualified to have the extra buttons, doesn't strike me as the type who would do anything deliberately bad with the buttons, and shows enough clue to know when not to use the buttons -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  26. Support - I have some reservations regarding the low AfD accuracy even following the ORCP but nothing that rises to a level of concern to go neutral or oppose. Clearly a net positive for the community. -- Dane talk 19:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  27. Support - Looks to be an exceptional candidate. Swarm 19:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  28. Support - I think the AfD "accuracy" is a plus. I took a look at some of the AfDs where the !vote wasn't the same as the outcome, and thought her reasoning was well thought out, well expressed, and reflected policy. We need more admins like that. The wiki-break doesn't bother me, but I'm biased, having taken a multi-year break myself after getting the bit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  29. Support - No immediate problems that I can see, and nominator is a respected long-time admin. Edit count is not fabulous, but the 7 1/2 years of minimal editing accounts for much of that. Article edits are a bit over 50%, and I would like to see more than that, but it's acceptable; the rest of nominee's edits are spread over different spaces in a quite reasonable way. Given the candidate's previous "away time", I'd be happier if their current year-by-year totals weren't heading downward, but I trust that becoming an admin would arrest that development. Article pages created are almost all redirects and DAB pages, but the small number of actual articles created (less than 20) seem fine. In short, unless something blows up, I'm supporting H. J. Mitchell's nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  30. Support. Looking through the AfD contributions, they are always thoughtful and often contain quite a bit of research. No problem there at all. "AfD accuracy" in the last 50 AfDs is 80%, a bit high for my taste but no reason not to support. —Kusma (t·c) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  31. Support: This candidate's humility is quite refreshing and their track record shows an honest road of improvement that has led them here, deservedly seeking adminship. With a slew of positive interactions, ONUnicorn looks to be in an ideal position for mediating and administrating here on Wikipedia. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  32. Support Looks good Aiken D 19:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  33. Support: No issues overall. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  34. Easy Support. Exactly the kind of calm, considerate and collegial person we want as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  35. Support: No red flags. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  36. Support: Answers seem ok. No concerns about this person at all. Seems like he will do a good job being a adm. Nhajivandi (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    (Seems like she will do a good job being an admin... Lourdes 16:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC))
  37. Support: Answers look good. Spot-checks on AfDs turn up nothing of concern – even when the candidate disagreed with the final outcome, their reasoning seems well-thought through. Spot-checks on recent contributions don't turn up anything obviously concerning, and nor is there any evidence on their talkpage of recent issues that I can see. Likely to be a net positive to the project as an admin. Not concerned about their lack of activity c.2007–2015; they are active enough now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  38. Support - ONUnicorn seems like a calm administrator with a pretty good knowledge of policy. I do want to point out, though, that I'm pretty sure that the username "Obstructive Bureaucrat" is a blatant violation of WP:MISLEADNAME, but that doesn't matter if you aren't going to work in that area. And besides, even if you do, I have confidence that you will go into that area slowly. Really, there is no reason to oppose, except for that really annoying pastel box :P RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  39. Anyone surviving running the gauntlet of UAA questions gets my support. All the good reasons were already taken, so I'll just say "ditto".20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talkcontribs)
  40. Great candidate. Very clear communication in edit summaries. Deleted edits look pretty good too. As for Pasilalinic-sympathetic compass, there must be a way to upgrade RFA using that technology. ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  41. Very good content, no blocks, no problems Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  42. That the candidate has some breaks in activity over the course of 11 years is not the least bit concerning. Their response to the detestable UAA question is very good (basically, "wait until they edit" will almost always be the right answer). Solid nomination statement and strong credentials. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  43. Support ten years overdue. Gizza (t)(c) 22:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  44. As nominator. Noting that the opposition at the time of writing exemplifies everything that is wrong with RfA in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    Amen!Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Yep, I have to say I think we're seeing some of the dumbest oppose reasons we've had for a while - but we'll always get them as long as there are people actively seeking reasons to oppose, however weak, rather than trying to assess a candidate's overall trustworthiness as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  45. The oppose votes are right. Was largely inactive from 2007 to 2015. Makes only a couple hundred edits a month. Has barely hit the low five figures in edit count. Couldn't possibly have enough experience to be an admin. Oh wait, whoops, I was looking at the wrong user's edit count... ;) OK, then support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. The candidate is unable to commit to editing for at least 18 hours a day. Worse still, they probably even use mouthwash. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    O-oh... my... god... T-they don't dedicate enough time to Wikipedia that they have time to use... mouthwash?! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 04:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  47. Support candidate will be a net positive as an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  48. Support: A review of contributions shows no problems. Discussions on AfD, DYK etc. are polite and clueful. Kingsindian   22:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  49. Support No concerns! --I am One of Many (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  50. Support No issue with having !votes against concensus at AFD as long as the arguments are reasoned and they accept the result (which appears to be the case here). Noe at all concerned about the editing spread. We are all volunteers here and can come and go as we please. I am not even sure how this is a concern for anyone as they have more than enough experience and edits in the last two and a half years. Some great little edits in there too. I like that they created Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States/Sourced but not notable to keep the information available while improving the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  51. Support Seems experienced enough. Incorrect AFD votes aren't exactly bad, and easing your way into adminny stuff isn't exactly hard. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  52. Support Lots of experience, good answers and contributions, no concerns. Opposes are silly. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  53. Support, has the right attitude and temperament to be an admin. The few, super nitpicky opposes are not a concern. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  54. Support this very well qualified candidate that comes well-recommended. Andrevan@ 00:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  55. Support - no solid reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  56. Support based on answers to questions 5 and 6. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  57. Support Sensible candidate with good communication skills (and who has a life outside WP), trustworthy nom. What's not to like? Miniapolis 01:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  58. Support No issues. Not convinced by any of the opposes.Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  59. Support Clear net positive. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  60. Support Looked this over thoroughly, and saw no issues. Surprised some think their activity is too sparse. Full-hearted support here!Scriblerian1 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  61. Support mainly to protest agains't how ridiculous some of the rationals behind the oppose votes are. The AfC % statistic in itself means nothing and requiring admins to not have a life is a terrible idea. KarlPoppery (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  62. Support: While I would like to see more content contributions and a bit more willingness to take a firm stand on issues, the evidence of patience, good will, and a sense of fundamental fairness speak well to this editors potential to handle problems with a clue. I suspect that they will come up to speed on any deficiencies. Montanabw(talk) 03:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  63. Support - no compelling reason to oppose; good answers, especially with regards to UAA. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 03:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  64. Support Trusted nominator just to start. Oppose reasons so far seem minor to me. Good recent participation. No problems with "a little bit of everything." Has clue, is civil, writes well and is not likely to get in over her head. Well qualified. Also, per 78.26 and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, among others. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  65. Support - looking over her contribs I see no red flags or other substantive reasons she would not make a fine admin. I have no problems with her wanting to be a generalist admin, nor with her past interactions with other users. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  66. Support as per nomination. Sounds like a great candidate...(you had me at "her")... Face-wink.svg Daphne Lantier 04:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  67. Support, seems trustworthy and experienced enough. Kaldari (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  68. Support experienced enough. No red flags and opposes not convincing. Even if there's no great need, on balance they will do good with the mop and we are not short on mops.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  69. Support even sporadic involvement at some admin backlogs is a net positive. Has been here for a long time without a major incident. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  70. Support. This candidate is civil, elaborates their points well, and has seemingly navigated the maze of roadblocks that is RfA well. Any more admins would be a fine thing as Wikipedia continues to grow - the backlogs are alarming and, simply put, we need more mops and she is a fine candidate. My only opposition is per User:Mkativerata - they seem to have enough free time from Wikipedia to sleep, which is frankly unacceptable! Keira1996 06:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  71. Support - Opposing based on future concerns that might be raised here seems a bit off. This looks like a qualified and competent candidate, who would not abuse the tools. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  72. Support - no real concerns. GiantSnowman 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  73. Support - appears to be a great candidate with no temperament issues. Best luck! ♠PMC(talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  74. Support - From my own experience at and my observations of other requests for adminship, I know that stating one wants to do "a little bit of everything" as an administrator is simply unwise (and already has resulted in one oppose). However, too much weight is given to the ability of candidates to answer questions here in what is perceived to be the appropriate way by many, rather than whether they are being reasonable and honest. I personally liked that they said "I might also help close some AFDs and other discussions, but I'd probably go slow in that area" given the amount of experience they have there. I also personally found two of the usernames in the UAA question (which has been a subject of debate as of late) a bit more egregious than they did, but I disregard that question as long as the answers are reasonable. After reviewing the overview of their contributions, and some more thorough investigation in the areas that I'm most familiar with, I happily find myself able to land in this column. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  75. Support – no concerns. Comes across as unusually honest and open. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  76. Happy to support. El_C 08:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  77. Support -- long-standing, constructive editor who brings a concern for civility that WP could really use Clean Copytalk 09:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  78. Support Widespread interests and participation, fine content work, calm and civil manner, no alarm signs. Get scrubbing :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  79. Support - Good candidate here, no issues at all. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  80. Support - Seems like a level-headed, sensible person who can be trusted with the tools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  81. Support. My interactions with the candidate at the Help Desk give me confidence that (1) they are a low-drama editor (by the way, I would count Msnicki's only 11 ANI edits as a positive), (2) they handle newbies with care, and (3) they know what they don't know. I also like the answers so far, though no "tough" question has been asked. I thus have little concern about tool abuse or screw-up, and support even if there is not as strong a need for tools as for other candidates. (FWIW, I can vouch for the A1 assertion that some newer editors often want help from admins, and seem to distrust non-admins, so it is not a fig leaf for hat collection.) Except for the "tool need" argument, I think the opposition case is fairly weak, based on various forms of numeriphilia (minority AfD !votes can be well-reasoned, edit count is not a big factor in my book). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  82. Have seen her around, no concerns. feminist 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  83. Support - good length of service, strong evidence of commitment to the project, and with four of the weakest opposes I've yet to see, I see absolutely nothing to suggest this candidate will be anything but a plus to the admin corps. You want to do a little bit of everything? That's great. Please do!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  84. Support definitely would be a net positive for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  85. Support. Saying you'll do "a little bit of everything" and then giving several well-thought examples is not the same as an unspecified "little bit of everything" and we need more generalist admins. This editor appears qualified. Jonathunder (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  86. I don't usually bother commenting on RFA's that appear to be foregone cnclusions, but I want to do my part to emphasize that excessive years-of-high-activity/number-of-edits-per-month requirements, and opposes due to people volunteering to be generalists, are counter-productive. ONUnicorn appears to be calm, clueful, grownup, here for the right reasons, willing to listen to advice, and willing to help other people. That's really all we need; no other criterion is important. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  87. Support. Good experienced editor. - TheMagnificentist 15:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  88. Support - longtime editors tend to be safe calls. I'll take her excuse that she was busy with law school and the bar exam. I'm a bit concerned that, at 18 % variance from the consensus at WP:AfD, I don't see how this user can close difficult discussions without getting into controversies. Please use the mop wisely and judiciously. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  89. Support - looks like a great candidate and all the oppose reasons seem very weak. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  90. Support No concerns from me. ONUnicorn appears level-headed and clueful and will make a fine admin.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  91. Support has a clue and the right temperament. I actually like the idea of "doing a bit of everything". Pichpich (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  92. Support -- A review of ONUnicorn's comments and edits shows a reasonable, thoughtful and even-tempered contributor throughout a long tenure. I have no concerns. CactusWriter (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  93. Support A level headed, helpful content creator. I am especially impressed with efforts to save articles at AfD. I am completely confident that this editor will use the administrative tools responsibly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  94. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 17:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  95. Support - I see no problem to support this user to become an admin. No block logs, no problem. Best of luck. Regards.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 18:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  96. Support per answers, nom, Floquenbeam, BsZ, Daphne Lantier, and others. I'll leave to more experienced editors the argument of whether AfD "correctness" is a valid predictor of admin quality, but I will note that if you discount AfDs the candidate participated in from 2006 and 2007, ten-plus years ago at time of this edit, then her AfD "accuracy" increases to around 77%, and "variance" decreases to around 11%, with the remainder NC closes and rounding error. This still does not take into account the strength of her at-variance arguments, which other editors attest are cogent. (N.b.: the AfD stat tool does not respect the enddate variable, so this link will not work as intended: the math must be done manually.) Finally, I add my voice to the chorus at WT:RFA calling for the UAA question to be torn up into teeny pieces and cast resolutely into the sea. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  97. Support -- looks like ONUnicorn would be a net benefit to the project as an admin. I would advise her to stick to her plan to go slow with closing AfDs until she has more experience !voting in those discussions, but I have seen nothing that would make me doubt her judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talkcontribs) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  98. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  99. Support: great nomination rationale, better answers. True net positive for the community. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  100. I was swayed to Support by the tempered response to one of the opposes. Not bitey or overly defensive... pointing to the type of level-headedness an admin needs. Buster Seven Talk 20:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  101. Seems trustworthy and sane. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) (Chris Cornell 1964–2017) 20:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  102. Support. Oh wait, now others notice that an "admin's admin" is something desirable, rather than hat collectors who drop the mop for EW (not a personal attack, jst a comment, don't block). d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  103. Support Per nominator, supporters, and my own personal experience with the candidate, who empowered and encouraged when I created my first article. Several supporters mentioned ONUnicorn's even temperament, and I agree wholeheartedly. Like others, I find the oppose votes very unconvincing. Good luck! I know you'll do a great job. Kirk Leonard (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  104. Support - established editor with sufficient experience. Answers to questions are very good. Having only 82% AfD match rate is not a dealbreaker; that's still a C+ and I thought a C was average. The fact she doesn't have 104572682016932 edits isn't a negative to me either. Personally, I see no issues. 65HCA7 21:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  105. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  106. Support Qualified candidate Bwoii (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  107. Support Clearly qualified. As a grammar freak she must have got the giggles when she noted an opposer had written "....AFD stats is very weak." Moriori (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  108. Support. Well-rounded editing experience, courteous and articulate, good answers to questions, and nothing that persuades me in the oppose section. As for doing "a little bit of everything" as a reason to oppose: WTF? I would think that doing even a little bit of anything useful with the tools is more of a positive to the project than not having done anything at all. They haven't started paying admins to punch a time clock, have they? Strong support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  109. Support Their answer to Question#8 above is exceptional enough that it deserves adminship all on its own but their answer to Question#9 shows exactly the type of attitude I think is sorely needed in the project in general. None of the reasons adduced below are persuasive that one that can put those two responses together shouldn't have the mop. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  110. Support-Overwhelmed!!!!!! Stats are good enough . And answer to question seven and eight shows that the user has some serious wiki-funda with regards to vandalism fighting which is one of the premier areas were admins are most active. All above that the candidates wiki-coolness after getting such butting comments as opposition shows his ability to sort out disputes .FORCE RADICAL@ 04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  111. Support, the counselor's objection to oppose #3 is sustained. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  112. Support per nom. Rzuwig 05:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  113. Support, I think that this candidate has answered the questions asked of them well and would be of great benefit to the project as an administrator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  114. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88talk 08:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  115. Support. The nominator summed it up perfectly: "ONUnicorn is a sensible, level-headed editor who knows her way around and is always happy to help". I see no reason not to give her a mop and I'm sure she won't carelessly dive into unfamiliar admin territory. Yintan  08:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  116. Support. No concerns. Bakilas (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  117. Support, based on review; although, I hope the editor will invest more time into content and they are a little weak in AfD. Nothing that cannot be worked on. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  118. Support I think the fact he is seems to be acutely aware of some of the structural problems within WP that need addressed, impresses me. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  119. Support – I find no issues with what I have seen of this candidate. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  120. Support Great, level-headed answers to questions. More than enough experience. I looked a little through her talk page archives, to see what the nom was talking about in the "helpful and calm with exasperating newcomers" category. I concur. Pretty confident she'll use the tools well, handle them responsibly and be a net positive for the project as an admin. David in DC (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  121. Support – Will be a net positive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  122. Support Rcsprinter123 (remark) 17:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  123. Support per nom, user looks like a good fit for an admin role. Elliot321 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  124. Support per nom. Harry doesn't make mistakes with these sort of assessments. Just as importantly: never mind the statistics; she's exactly the sort of person we ought to be begging to take on some of the admin duties. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  125. Support. Hmlarson (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  126. Support A wee-bit disappointed with the answer to Q1, but they appear to be a level-headed and competent user that's civil and patient and willing to learn with an open heart and mind. Indeed a net positive to the encyclopedia, and I trust them with the mop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  127. Support per nom. --John (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  128. Support - tossing gems to co-aligned unicorns is good luck! (Assuming from the colour in your sig that you are a gray unicorn, and this being a neutral project) We need more admins to toss gems to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  129. Support - how can you not vote for someone who loves unicorns? 🦄 Seriously, I did check her credentials and I have quite a bit of faith in HJ - so there you have it. Atsme📞📧 20:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  130. Support on basis of Harry's recommendation. Deb (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  131. Support Harry's recommendation carries a lot of weight with me too. I don't see the need for an editor to concentrate in one particular area. I'm also sceptical of the value of AfD stats. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  132. Support. Fully qualified; should be a net positive. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  133. Support. Reasonably qualified, not a ton of experience in all of the "little bit of everything" areas, but this person seems very level headed and very unlikely to wade into something she does not understand. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  134. Support - I don't think you're going to go nuts and redirect the main page to Fart or anything, so you're fine. Good luck! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  135. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  136. Support ONUnicorn seems to have the temperament that I want to see in administrators. ~Awilley (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  137. Support I think that what an admin does with their tools is more important than how frequently they use them. It looks to me like this editor is likely to use the tools wisely (I must add I think it would be great if the editor becomes more active as a result of this RfA). I was originally leaning Neutral because I'm not sure the editor needs the tools of an admin to accomplish the answers to question #1, but I relented and I think it's the right decision. Equineducklings (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  138. Support I see several reasons to support and haven't found any to oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  139. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  140. Support Yes, please! Minima© (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  141. Support user has enough experiance to be given a chance. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  142. Support Babymissfortune 08:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  143. Support After a spot check on a few interactions from the nom's history of the last six months, I think they have shown good judgement and balance. Do they specifically need the tools? Possibly not, but I think that when they are compelled to use them, they will do so appropriately. - The Bounder (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  144. Support because the opposition from Softlavender annoyed me. Amisom (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  145. Support I'm very happy when I see comeback contributors finally taking the steps to adminship. They often are be cold headed and able to defuse disputes. -- Luk talk 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  146. Support Happy to support - mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  147. S Happy to support, but only after the candidate answers my exam-like questions about my expertise in meteorology... Face-grin.svg--Jetstreamer Talk 14:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  148. Support Net positive level headed editor. Jupitus Smart 15:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  149. Support Plenty of experience, seems level headed. South Nashua (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. Participation is simply too low and scattered for my personal comfort: [1]. I would say come back in a year or so when you have shown solid participation and when the questionable areas that may be pointed up here in this RFA have been improved. That would show a steady interest in, and commitment to, Wikipedia, which is what admins need, both for community trust and for their own knowledge. Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    Recommending that the candidate not come back until they improve upon "questionable areas" yet to be identified? We've hit rock bottom, folks. ~ Rob13Talk 00:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Almost 13,000 edits, going back to 2006, never a month in which she didn't log in and make an edit. Half of the edits to the mainspace, involvement in a variety of WP and other namespaces, and other projects...but what this candidate needs is to "show a steady interest in, and commitment to, Wikipedia". 2.5 years of continuous activity is not enough, apparently. Nothing in the candidate's edit count is out of line with the general requirements for adminship, so one wonders what, if not community norms, Softlavender is basing that stance on. Given that this is her 27th consecutive oppose, I'm beginning to wonder if there's anyone who can win the support of Softlavender. Swarm 07:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Partly per Softlavendar, but mostly because the candidate indicates that they will "do a little bit of everything" as an admin. Fine and dandy, except that I'd expect see significant participation in various namespace areas. Unfortunately, they are sorely lacking. Sorry, but no.  Wisdom89 talk 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I don't like the "I'll do a little bit of everything" response either. It doesn't instill confidence that the potential candidate will do anything at all. Compounding my reservations is the lack of participation in any administrative task area (UAA, RfPP, CSD, ERRORS etc, etc) with the exception of AfD where this year they have participated in 13 closed AfD discussions (11M/1DM/1NC). I'm not confident that the candidate has a complete understanding of the various deletion policies either. From their talk page; If an article does not sufficiently demonstrate that the topic is notable, the article has no business being on Wikipedia.[2] I do not recall this ever being the case. Articles are deleted if notability cannot be demonstrated, not, if it just isn't. I do note that the discussion is about a copy-paste from one article into a redirect and no addition of new content, I'd support reverting to redirect status, however, I can't help but note the edit summary used on the redirect in question; Nothing here that isn't there; no sources; no indication of real world notabililty[3]. Pleased to note that in the logs I found this. Puts my CSD concern to rest. In Wikipedia space the editor spends most of their time at the help desk and village pump. While nice that they are helping out there, that doesn't require admin tools to do. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the answers to questions given so far. There's a demonstration of knowledge, but, an awkward combination of indecisiviness and lack of clarity; "I'd likely block", "I'd probably", "I might suggest", etc). I'd like to know that the candidate has a course of action, not numerous potential solutions that they might take. I'm all good with the "wait for them to edit and respond appropriately part", that's the correct action, however, that should be "If they're trolling, block. If they're good faith editing, notify to change username." The one thing going for the editor right now is the good temperament that many editors are attesting to the candidate having. My review of their contribs seems to support that being the case. Overall the candidate is obviously competent to edit, but, I'm not so sure about that being the case for administrate. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, "a little bit of everything" seems like a reasonable description of what I do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, that describes what a lot of us do. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Might I suggest that you change your mind and vote neutral or even support instead Mr rnddude? I have immense respect for what you do on Wikipedia based on what I have seen from your user page but I just wanted to bring a fresh perspective on your vote. As seen above, other admins have pointed out that they carry out a wide variety of tasks. For someone who is in good standing and has displayed more than sufficient intelligence as demonstrated with their edits so far, it is not so far to assume that they will be cautious when entering fields that they are new to and that they will exercise good understanding of relevant policies and guidelines before utilising their tools. As for your other point, this is fully understandable for any RfA candidate. I've been watching RfA for many years now (without directly contributing to them) and from what I can see, it's a nerve wracking experience for any candidate because people will oppose based on what is in or what is not in the answers to their questions. Thinking about the situation before taking action can only be a positive thing as it reduces the chance of error. Not really something to oppose in my opinion. Just thought I'd weigh in and I don't wish to badger you but I just feel as if the current opposes are verging on nitpicking and would be better represented as neutral votes (or even weak opposition) rather than out and out opposes. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, User:Trooper1005, this discussion would certainly be better off on the talk page. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose - The candidate's AFD stats is very weak. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    For those of us following along at home would you mind following the logic train to its conclusion and explaining why you think this means ONUnicorn isn't fit to be an admin so the rest of us can explain why you're wrong? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Do you also ask for reasons for the justavotes in the support column? No, you don't. Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    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. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Well no, I'm the nominator. It's my job to tell the coommunity why ONU would be a good admin, not to try to disprove my own nomination, which was made after careful research and appropriate consideration. I was actually rather hoping someone would join up the dots and explain why a low percentage of "winning" AfD votes would make somebody unfit to be an admin, (I know the answer, but I wonder if the people opposing on that basis do) because I would enjoy the exercise of explaining why the two have almost no relation to one another and why we shouldn't get fixated on meaningless statistics—and maybe even educating someone along the way, or at least making them think. They might still disagree with me afterwards, which would disappoint me, but at least we would know why they felt that statistic was so important. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    I would encourage this opposer to view the candidate as a whole rather than just their AfD stats. AfD means a lot to me as well but when I look at everything else the editor has done, I still think they're a net positive and will not abuse the tools. If ONUnicorn said they were only going to be focused on closing AfDs, then maybe AfD would weigh more in evaluation but that's not all they're looking to use the tools for. This is of course just a suggestion, you need to vote the way you feel would benefit the community best and I respect that. -- Dane talk 17:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, fair point. I've added to my own remarks above. Msnicki (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Oh dear, my AFD stats have been very weak too. Have I been that bad of an admin? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@K6ka: Hey, not like you to indulge in ridicule, particularly in so drive-by a fashion. Please? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Judging from the poor AFD stats, but everything else is good, that threw me into the neutral. — JJBers 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Neutral Slightly weak AfD results and no DRV experience. Very little WP: namespace activity outside of the Help desk and Village pump and only 11 edits at ANI. I also am unimpressed by the "little bit of everything" response; I don't think that's really an answer to what would you like to do as an admin. A lot of the job of an admin is dealing with bad behavior and hopefully finding ways to descalate conflict. I don't see a lot of interest from candidate in that part of the job or in how we develop our guidelines. Sorry, I just don't know why this editor needs the tools and I don't think they do either. Msnicki (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Updated Msnicki (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Moving to Neutral Msnicki (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    Msnicki I hope you don't take offense to this, you are certainly entitled to oppose me, but I just wanted to respond to your recent additions. You said that I had no DRV experience. Perhaps you didn't look very closely at the history behind Critical Mass (Canadian band) (which was mentioned in my answer to question 2). For some reason the deletion discussion history for that article wasn't on its talk page, but I have added it now. At any rate, I did take that article to DRV, and the new version of the article was accepted with at least one person wanting the decision overturned. Now, admittedly that's not a lot of experience with deletion review, but it's more than none at all.
    You also said you did not see a lot of interest from me in dealing with bad behavior or finding ways to deescalate conflict. However, you may have missed the portion of my response to question 1 where I mentioned an interest in dispute resolution and my involvement with the third opinion project. 3O is all about finding ways to deescalate conflict. Talk:Washington Policy Center is one where I feel I was able to provide a helpful opinion that appeared to deescalate the conflict. Talk:Klingon language/Archive 3, Talk:Canton of Bern/Archive 01, Talk:Kānekapōlei#Birthdate, and Talk:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)#Lead section are some additional examples.
    Lastly you said you saw little interest in "how we develop our guidelines", but I would point you to my involvement with the recent changes in the New Pages Patrol process, including my participation in Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications, and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right, for one example of where I was involved in developing guidelines and processes. I have also advocated for some change in the DYK rules/process, and I have commented on several guidelines/processes discussions at the village pumps.
    I understand if you still think my involvement in these areas is lacking for your tastes, and as I said, you are welcome to still oppose. However, I did want to take the opportunity to point at some things you may have missed, especially since they were mentioned in my responses to the questions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    I'm looking at you where you spend your time. You're not spending much time at time at DRVs or in discussions of the guidelines. Third opinion is not the same as ANI. Most of your interest as measured by what you do appears to be things ordinary editors do, not things that admins do. Just what it looks like to me. I don't know what you would do that requires admin tools because not much of what you've been doing seems to segue naturally into admin work. Just my opinion. And it doesn't appear that my opinion is anything to worry about, since it looks your candidacy will easily succeed. Good luck. Msnicki (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
General comments
  • A couple of things from the aforementioned ORCP make me pause- hopefully temporarilly. For instance, the AfD stats; they have marginally improved in the weeks since, but stil show a less than 70% accuracy rate. Ten articles cteated since their return. Th ORCP did raise a curious point, which never really got discusssed- 'I don't use Twinkle, and have no desire to do so, and it seems like too much work to keep a manual count of CSD pages' and 'Like I said, I have no interest in Twinkle.' I'm wondering if what necessites a disregard for automated processes, whether in general or twinkle in particular. Especially when taking into account the lack of experience in maintenance tasks. However the response to Q1 might explain that- although I might strike mentioning of AfD closures though. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • There is already a CSD log, it's called "User contributions". It used to be that we discouraged automated tools at RFA because it encouraged editcountitis. The sole purpose of a CSD log is because someone is gearing up to run at RfA. That seems like a wasteful use of space.--v/r - TP 15:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Then TParis, the venue to suggest that was probably the ORCP itself, as I am merely commenting on a previous dicsussion in the context of this one. But thank you for that. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the "bad" AfD !votes are from 2006. The recent ones (2015 onwards) seem fine to me. Kingsindian   22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted pages don't show up in "User contributions" (at least not when viewed by us lowly non-administrators). A CSD log is the only way to keep track of old CSD nominations so that they can be followed-up on, and when I started using a CSD log I had no intention of gearing up for a run at RFA. --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this candidate, but I've never understood the emphasis on AfD stats. Given the low participation at many AfDs, I suggest that they be taken with a grain of salt. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That makes two times in history we've agreed. AFD stats, CSD logs, and UAA questions are about the weakest areas to challenge a candidate because they come up at RfA so often that folks who intend to run at RfA deliberately engineer the results (no offense intended to candidate). I'm not interested in judging the candidate by the areas they have forewarning about. I want to know how the candidate acts when they think no one is looking. The only time username questions, CSD logs, and AFD stats will be legitimate is when a candidate runs spur of the moment with no previous idea they ever would - and honestly - I like those candidates best. They're genuine.--20:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My 2¢, which may have nothing to do with ONUnicorn's reasons: I'm an admin, and I've never made automated edits. Like ONUnicorn, I've no interest in Twinkle or other such tools. I have enough trouble with trying to keep my editing slow enough not to outstrip my thoughts; why would I want to edit faster than I can think? Deor (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand the idea of not wanting to speed up one's editing but Twinkle and other tools offer other advantages I think all admins should consider using. Clicking delete and then clicking "submit" on the next page works but doing so in a AJAX window is simply less of a hassle. Administrative tasks, unlike content creating, are often mundane and repetitive and where is the point in deliberately being slower without the benefit of it being more thorough? Not saying all admins should use as many scripts as I do (which is admittedly a lot) but some scripts have legitimate benefits. And yes, I, too, once eschewed the use of Twinkle. Regards SoWhy 16:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My fingers get tangled up when I type. Could not function w/o Twinkle. It certainly makes my work flow smoother.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the key points with Twinkle is the automatic notifications to the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, that's like saying Theresa May is a good orator for saying "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable" again and again and again and again .... I've already linked to WP:HNST too many times to repeat the other arguments against this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The actual templates are indeed pretty awful, though not as bad as they used to be. But the need for notifying users is absolutely essential, and not doing it is horrible unfair. I see that for at least some nomination the candidate did notify, using wording almost identical to the template--or perhaps applying them manually. We cannot forcr someone to write something manually, but the program can at least do some sort of notification. I consider not using it to be an unreasonable expectation of making no manual errors. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I am one of those who has never used an automated tool to edit, but as a result I don't work on backlogs too often, or have the high edit counts of some users. I support users' use of automated tools but I don't see them as a requirement. Andrevan@ 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
True, some tools promote edit-countitis but others, such as Twinkle, CSDHelper, easyBlock etc. just automate common tasks that one would have to do per hand anyway (such as creating an AfD page, listing it in the right log and notifying the creator). Requirement is a strong word but I do think that being philosophically opposed to using such tools leads to ineffective admining and editing. Because if you do things manually that a tool can do much quicker with the same results, you are not using your time efficiently and I have yet to hear a convincing reason why that should be a good thing. Regards SoWhy 07:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Some people are evoking "AfD results" to oppose... Does this % matter in any way? In some cases a low % could be a red flag, but can't it also mean that the user contributes to more difficult decisions, or simply that they often spot things that other users miss? For the oppose !votes to be meaningful, shouldn't the voters link to specific cases were the candidates afd !votes were clearly ill-advised? KarlPoppery (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Taking that argument further, the job of an administrator closing an AfD is to determine consensus, not judge the case on its merits. If an administrator comes across an AfD where they disagree with the consensus, they should remove their "admin cap" and !vote on the AfD as a run-of-the-mill editor, which is not something that has any bearing on an RfA since having admin tools doesn't impact the ability to place an ordinary !vote.
This leads to a bit of a paradox: if you are planning to run for RfA you would always want to vote with consensus to improve your stats, so your AfD stats might be an indication of your ability to judge consensus. However, someone who is voting against the merits probably isn't the sort of person we want as an administrator. However, if you're truly voting at AfD to improve the project, and are therefore the kind of person we want as an admin, you would be voting based on the merits and not on consensus, and the your AfD stats wouldn't have much correlation with your ability to judge consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The first thing I look at on possible RfA candidates is the entries in the AfD log where their view didn't match consensus. If I find them talking sense, and putting forward good points that simply got disagreed with, that's a pass from me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Very well said, Ahecht. Personally, I find any AfD log with a very high percentage suspicious because it indicates that the user might just !vote in "safe" AfDs to increase said percentage and is not willing to be seen disagreeing with consensus. While admins are tasked with assessing consensus, that does not mean they have to agree with said consensus as editors. In fact, the best admin is one who could !vote "keep" in a discussion and still be able to close it "delete" if that was consensus (not saying that they should, WP:UNINVOLVED and all but that they could). Regards SoWhy 14:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried to start a general discussion about this (not related to the candidate) at WT:RFA. —Kusma (t·c) 14:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: With due respect to the participants, this discussion about UAA questions was never actually about ONUnicorn and has been moved to the RFA talk. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 23 May 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