Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Open for discussion

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
CASSIOPEIA	84	37	3	69	12:09, 18 February 2020	5 days, 8 hours	no	report
Money emoji	82	8	4	91	12:07, 18 February 2020	5 days, 7 hours	no	report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

Last updated by ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} at 04:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Shortcuts

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA and its process

Recently closed RfAs (update)
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	S	O	N	%
Ergo Sum	RfA	Successful	26 Jan 2020	178	56	10	76
Wugapodes	RfA	Successful	25 Jan 2020	158	1	2	99
QEDK	RfA	Successful	24 Jan 2020	137	9	3	94
Nick Moyes	RfA	Successful	23 Jan 2020	180	3	3	98
1997kB	RfA	Withdrawn	22 Jan 2020	38	23	8	62
Rosguill	RfA	Successful	23 Dec 2019	161	1	0	99
Newslinger	RfA	Successful	23 Dec 2019	135	4	2	97

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

Nomination standards: The only prerequisites for adminship are having an account and being extended confirmed (having both 30 days' tenure and 500 edits) so that you can file your own nomination.^[1] However, 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.
Nominations: 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}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.
Expressing opinions: All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".; There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what he or she would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.; To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate 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 may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.; The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or 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 feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. 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 active 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). However, it must be noted that a request for adminship is first and foremost, a consensus-building process.^[2] 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".^[3]; 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 at WP:Bureaucrats.; 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.

Notes

^ Editors who are not extended confirmed may be nominated by somebody else; though in practice this does not happen.
^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
^ 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 04:07:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

CASSIOPEIA

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (84/37/3); Scheduled to end 12:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

CASSIOPEIA (talk · contribs) – Let me present CASSIOPEIA for adminship. This user has achieved incredible statistics over the two and a half years they have been here. Firstly, they have made close to 150,000 edits with a majority in the mainspace. Secondly, they have a majority of AFD votes matching consensus. Thirdly, they have trained many people to fight vandalism (WP:CVUA) and patrol new pages (WP:NPPSCHOOL). CASSIOPEIA has trained me to be a better new page reviewer and AFC reviewer. I feel that having CASSIOPEIA as an administrator would be a net positive for Wikipedia and for the community. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Cassiopeia has been one of the best contributors to New Page Patrol (including their contributions to the NPP school, training new reviewers) and the Article for creation help desk. New pages are always a tricky balance between making new users welcome and upholding the quality of the encyclopedia, and Cassiopeia has contributed thoughtfully to discussions, giving polite and helpful regular advice. They're also a regular to the Teahouse, where again I've seen them give thoughtful comments to editors getting started. Content wise, their specialist subject is mixed martial arts, where they are the primary contributor to List of current UFC fighters, ensuring the article is continually up to date and well written and sourced. They have also created a range of biographies on this topic, such as Ariane Lipski, again making sure that our coverage is up to date but of a sufficient standard. I am impressed enough by their overall contributions to enthusiastically support their request for the admin toolset now, I and I hope you will endorse this view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank both Interstellarity and Ritchie333 for their time, their trust, and for their kindness through this process, and I respectfully accept their nomination. As per sock puppetry policy, I would like to declare I have an alternative account User:Semper liber. As a new editor back then, I created this current account due to I wanted to separate "mixed martial arts" edits from other edits but I found I always had to log in/out the account to separate the nature of the edits I set out for. I found it was unsustainable in long run, thus I have retired from User talk:Semper liber account after two months of editing with no block or any issues- see here. I also confirm that I have never edited for pay.

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: Since I am one of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and Vandalism Unit Academy trainers, I could contribute at WP:AFD, but my main focus would be counter-vandalism, which is an area that I have extensively worked in. I would monitor WP:AIV and WP:RPP, to investigate the reports promptly and thoroughly, and take necessary actions to stop disruption.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia (apart from patrolling for vandalism and reviewing new and draft articles and occasionally helping answering questions at WP:TH and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk) are that I am a trainer for the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy programs, to ensure the participants understand the required info / guidelines and how to apply them. I also spend a considerable amount of time creating mixed martial articles and maintaining the info of 600+/- MMA fighters on the List of current UFC fighters page for the last 2.5 years.

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: Of course, as a reviewer and counter vandalism fighter it is common to encounter instances where conflicts have caused me a little stress where editors were not happy to know their drafts were declined or they have received a warning message at their talk pages. At times they would send unpleasant, trolling or physical threat messages - see example here. I have dealt and will deal with the situation by assuming good faith and keeping my cool, replying/discussing the matter with civility, neutrality, cite appropriate policy where needed and explaining what was missing or inappropriate to the editor - See example - message from user Soniaang at WP:AFCHD ( content: 1.1, 1.6, 1.7, 1.10) after multiple reviewers tried to help and provide explanations and failed to calm the editor and my reply on "content 1.13". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Optional question from Reaper Eternal

4. You gave a list of articles in your answer to question #2. Excluding the massive list page, which article do you think best exemplifies your skills as a writer or editor? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A: This-1 was the list article before I started editing in September 2017 (total 7 sources) and This-2 is the current stage of the article where I have made close to 5K edits / 68% total text added (added 580 sources). Besides, the list article, I created over 100 BLP mostly all in start class except Chris Gruetzemacher rated as class C.

Additional question from Dolotta

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

A: I am not technical and have difficultly to understand script/software languages or helping in areas which require such skills.

Additional question from Taewangkorea

6. If someone requested you for help in an area of Wikipedia that you are unfamiliar with, how would you deal with this situation?

A: I would refer them to appropriate help desks/WikiProject/talk page where they could seek help and if no such help desk is available then I would point them to an experience editor/admin who has such knowledge or know where the editor could seek assistance.

Additional question from Taewangkorea

7. In your opinion, what is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and why?

A:Verifiability. Content of an notable subject should be supported and verify by published independent, reliable/reputable sources, instead of original research or sources from their website/associated sites, particularly for WP:BLP, where any readers could check the sources. I do moved new pages to draft space if no or only dependent/unreliable sources are provided in the article as per WP:NPPDRAFT guidelines such as Draft:2020 Tarleton State Texans football team and Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020 which mentioned by TonyBallioni below, so the creator could add appropriate sources as per content claimed - after all Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Additional question from User:Djm-leighpark

8. In your opinion, do you find any of the standard templates used in NPP tools and possibly AFC condescending or patronizing, perhaps in particular: Hello, $someuser$", — Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username $nppguy$ and it's nice to meet you :-) — I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, $yourarticle$ for deletion, because .... I must admit I personally find that message pretty obnoxious and unlikely to generate the correct atmosphere. Do you have any comments or opinion?

A: Automated messages are designed to inform the creator the status of the their article. The above example does show the sender greeting the creator and stated the reason of the action. It seems to me it is not an offensive or a put down message; however, I would understand it might appear not friendly to some editors as we could not hear the tone or the pitch as since it is in written text.

Additional question from User:Djm-leighpark

9: I recall this interaction (warning contains uncivil language nearby) in August 2019 where you objected to my removal of a CSD tag on an article that was not mine. Can you confirm your advice and response was correct ?

A: I believe you refer to Draft:St Antony's Church Machad. If you are not the creator, as I can't view the article since it is deleted, then you could remove the CSD tag. Mistake was mine alone. However, my understanding as mentioned to you before the closing admin would always check the article talk page before making the CSD action.

Additional question from John M Wolfson

10. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: If the copied and pasted content is not copyrighted/free use under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL or it is not a public domain site then WP:G12 applies. Depending on the content to decide the applicable of G11.

Additional question from Minecrafter0271

11. No human being is perfect. We all make mistakes sometimes. However, some mistakes may cost more than others. I would like to know, and I want you to be honest: What, in your opinion, is the worst mistake you've ever made on the English Wikipedia?

A: Agreed - No human being is perfect. We all make mistakes sometimes - let who without making a mistake casts the first stone. I do not know which one is the worst mistake I have made but here are 2 edits I made that were costly to the involved editors and myself - (1) as per User:Djm-leighpark's question above and (2) approved an article of a banned editor. Even I have successful CSDed countless promotional and copyvio articles, but one mistake caused some oppositions of my RfA below. All in all, if any mistakes are made by me, then I alone is responsible; I stand corrected and apologies. I appreciate those editors who informed me of my mistakes for I shall learnt from them and try my best not to do the same mistakes again.

Additional question from Mz7

12. Hi CASSIOPEIA, thanks for offering to volunteer. Do you think you could talk about what happened in this July 2018 discussion, in which someone claimed that you were submitting controversial edits without consensus? If you could, how (if at all) would you approach that situation differently?

A: The editor had mistaken. The guidelines had been there before I joined Wikipedia and I have not changed any WP:MMA guidelines before. The involved editor did not open and read the "weight syntax boxes" 8.2 Infobox martial artist:In the weightclass field, try to include the name of the division and the ranges. Example: and claimed if no one opened to read them, then the guidelines are not applicable. I informed the editor to set up a proposal and get consensus agreement for guidelines change for I was indifferent to the changes/proposal ("ranges of weight classes in ibs" to be removed the weight categories). The involved editor proposed the changes and got the consensus.

Discussion

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

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

Support

Support as co-nom Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - a clear plus for the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Really long time coming. Will make use of the bit accurately. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - looks like they're not a jerk and have a clue, and decent content creation. I'm happy to go with Ritchie's recommendation on this unless something I haven't seen comes out of the woodwork! Good luck to you — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Good candidate. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I had thought they'd never run. I am so happy to be wrong. An editor of the highest skill and ability. Will be a huge plus to the project as an admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Excellent candidate and will be a positive for the wiki. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support great candidate. Tolly 4 bolly 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Should be a great admin. Cbl62 (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - no reason not to. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I thought the candidate already was an admin, TBH. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Clear understanding of policies and solid record, not a jerk, has a clue. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Definite yes, been waiting for this one for a while. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - I have seen CASSIOPEIA around the project, especially with counter-vandalism work, and I think he will be a net positive with the tools. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Can be trusted with tool. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 14:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - knows multiple admin fields well, nice person, trains people up which is a massive plus to me and ticks all the other various boxes. They're much more deletionist than I'd like, but they've always been civil and certainly a greater benefit to the project than I am. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As a follow-up with all the opposes coming in, I feel that as a rare eparture (my brisk check showed some potential disagreement points but no clear issues). If an editor wants to add 8 sources to something, that's a sufficient change to not necessitate removing it purely on UPE grounds in my view - we ultimately seek content. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've seen CASSIOPEIA around a fair bit, and have never had any concerns; after taking a quick look at their contributions I continue to have no concerns, and indeed, think they'll probably do rather well as an admin. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support- No concerns here, good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Nice candidate, seems a good addition. Redalert2fan (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've worked with CASSIOPEIA for a while now on CVUA training, and have always found them to be approachable, collegiate, professional and knowledgeable whenever we've interacted - that strikes me as all the things we want in an admin. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Brilliant editor and has helped me become a better one also. Gilbert.JW (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Is a good editor, seems kind with a good heart and spirit for adminship. Give 'em the mop! :) Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 15:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
~~Net positive — Wug·a·po·des 15:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)~~
Support, always see them with draftspace moves, and seems to understand notability very well. Admin tools can help immensely. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Does great work over at NPP. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support one of those editors you see frequently, who understands policies and guidelines and works for the good of the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I thought they were already an admin. I have only seen them doing good work.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support as co-nom. Interstellarity (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support has plenty of clue, as evidenced by their great work setting up and running NPP and anti-vandalism training programs. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support as I'm surprised this user wasn't an administrator. Really? No concerns. Doug Mehus T·C 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support as a student at the NPP School, I can say CASIOPEIA has been a pleasure to work with. They are very thorough, punctual and have a very good understanding of policy. I wish you all the best, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per Amakuru. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
~~I have seen their work first handedly through NPP/R. Good temperament, all the good qualities, and no red flags.~~ —usernamekiran (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

striking out my vote for a while in light of #1 oppose. I will be back. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I don't see any red flags. —BeyWHEELZ • T • C 18:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Thought they were one already...I've always been very impressed by Cass, and believe they will use the tools well. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
SUpport I like seeing the amount of NPP members we've had run thus far. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've seen them doing great work at AIV and NPP. They clearly show the tools will be put to good use and they have a clue. Agent00x (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I know it sounds cliche but I honestly thought they were an admin already. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Only three years and 150,000 edits? I'd want to see at least 200,000 edits in that time! No, fantastic editor who would work wonders with the mop. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, incredible dedicatation and hard work, definite positive. Oh yes, and has the temperament and skill level too. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support A familiar beast, and a further check at their Xtools edit count brings no concerns. --Pudeo (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support An editor I seem to see around a lot and who always comes across as knowledgeable, patient and helpful. Just the kind of editor who ought to be an admin. Neiltonks (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Honestly, I seriously thought they were already an admin. Will be good with the tools. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support experienced user and my interactions with them are all positive. The areas of work checks out well. Good luck.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Thought you already were one! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I like admins who are content creators. I think amount of Delete !vote at AfDs is very high, but since the candidate is a content creator I will overlook. Lightburst (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've come across them before. Never had a problem with their edits and I think they'd be excellent with the mop and bucket. Good luck!-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
~~Good amount of experience, last 10,000 contributions seem fine, and [very minor point] I love the username. King of Scorpions (my talk) 22:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)~~Obviously I didn't look closely enough. Withdrawing my support... King of Scorpions (my talk) 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Though I don't think I have interacted much with CASSIOPEIA, I checked their history and they seem to be well suited for the tools, being involved in anti-vandalism and patrolling. They have some content creation as well, so that's a plus. epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Have made thousands of edits, and have had lots of time to prove themselves. --TFFfan (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support The criteria for accepting a draft is just that it would probably pass AfD. This is a matter of judgment., and nobody's judgement is perfect. Even for what may sem perfectly obvious later should not be accepted, might be judged differently initially--it's much more impressionistic than in judging speedies at NPP. I and everyone else working in this area have made bloopers. I estimate I've made about 5% errors (in each direction), and probably 5 or 10 in the past 5 years of them have been bloopers, even if they might not have been noticed. What would disqualify a AfC reviewer from Adminship is not making even bad errors a few times, but taking the approach that anything they do could not possibly be an error. I see no signs of any such attitude, and the help given to newcomers by the candidate is exemplary. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
And even for speedies, that a speedy nomination was declined doesn't mean it was wrong --anyone except the author can decline a speedy for any reason, good or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I strongly disagree with the opposes - while I don't think anyone has a 100% record at NPP or AfC I don't see those mistakes as being anywhere near egregious enough to deny someone the mop. I think CASSIOPEIA will continue to be an asset to the project. SportingFlyer T·C 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong Support Look, EVERYONE makes mistakes, one should not be censored for one mistake out of the what, hundreds of articles that this editor has reviewed! Even if it was a large mistake, it's very important that we put it in perspective and see that this is tiny in comparison with all the good this user does for the project. We don't de-sysop users for one tiny mistake they make out of lots of good, we just slap them with a trout. So let it be with our admin candidates please. Thank you CASSIOPEIA for volunteering! Puddleglum ^2.0 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support With the number of articles that this user patrols on a regular basis, it is inevitable that some articles are going to fall through the cracks. I don't think these mistakes are as bad as the opposers make out to be. Overall the candidate is a clear net positive with sufficient experience in admin areas. b uidhe 03:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Throughout all of my interactions with this user, I can only say positive things about them. Cassiopeia already engages in admin-like, gnomish work, and I do trust their judgement and am willing to write off the mistakes made as just that; mistakes. The positives far outweigh the negatives in my eyes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. No concerns. BD2412 T 05:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Everyone agrees. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 07:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I am surprised that they are not an admin yet. robertsky (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Net positive. Csgir (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support, not convinced at all that draftifying an article with no secondary sources on a future lower division football season is evidence that Cassiopeia is incapable of using the mop. Fish+Karate 10:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Only have positive things to say about this editor, well deserved of adminship. Ym2X (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Would be great as an admin. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 11:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. I haven't interacted with the candidate before, but I think one of the main reasons for opposing this candidate in the discussion below is that the candidate has a propensity to accept premature drafts (some would call them "spam") at AfC. I have reviewed the diffs presented and see the opposite argument to be true: AfC has been an overloaded and often toxic environment for a few years. We now have a prolific editor who is willing to take drafts that are substandard but has reasonable potential, move them to mainspace, and improve upon them to make them conform to standard. I would be surprised if anybody would've batted an eye if an admin created Korapaak in the state it was in after CASSIOPEIA has finished brushing it up, so by the same standard I see no fault in the candidate and a large dose of hope that he'll be a friendly admin. Deryck C. 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak support, been seing CASSIOPEIA's name here-and-there. Only worry is the lack of question answers. BEANS X3 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Per DGG and Deryck Chan. Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Rather narrow support per DGG and others, but they should take on board the reasonable comments in the Oppose section. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Appears to have the skills, enthusiasm and energy for the role. Rosser Gruffydd 16:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - A couple of red flags, but no human being is perfect. Should be good to go. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom statement. Per other supports. 'bout time.-- Deep fried okra 18:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Excellent candidate. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support This was admittedly a little more difficult than I expected it to be. I have worked closely with CASSIOPEIA in the past while RC patrolling, which they clearly excel at, and has been consistently helpful and cordial to new editors who might've simply made a mistake while editing. I don't expect editors to be perfect by any means, and I certainly don't expect administrators to be perfect either. We all make mistakes, especially early on as an editor. I was surprised to see one editor oppose over the fact that CASSIOPEIA didn't answer questions in a timely manner, which I consider to be a spurious reason to oppose at best. There is no deadline, and editors have lives outside of Wikipedia as well. More importantly, I don't see an ongoing negative trend with CASSIOPEIA's conduct, I believe them to be a clear net-positive with a mop than without, there's a demonstrable need for the tools, and I have every confidence that they will be an excellent sysop. So, I find myself supporting this candidate, and I hope that others consider the fact that we shouldn't expect perfection from editors. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Working at AfC is extremely difficult, and I understand some errors will happen. Better that than a 4,000 draft backlog. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. The opposes raise some very valid concerns, but I see no reason to think that this candidate would have any more problems than the median admin (and every reason to think they would be considerably more productive). -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support the main "screw-up" causing a good number of the opposes, the moving of a probable spam article to mainspace, is not something that admin powers would excerbate, nor does there appear to be a pattern of such behaviour. We all screw up sometimes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support No issues with me. The4lines (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines
Support as a candidate I believe is a net positive. I suggest, though, that they slow down a bit; 150K edits in 2 ¹⁄₂ years doesn't leave as much time to learn the ropes. However, I see basic clue; the rest can be learned. Miniapolis 00:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Was skeptical but after talking with cass I wholly support him. Flalf (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I'm not entirely swayed by the weight of the oppose votes and the AFC error rate and CSD log. I think overall the candidate would do fine as an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Kindness is always important, and NPP is a thankless task. feminist (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've seen enough of CASSIOPEIA's work to think that the editor is competent enough to be an admin. Frankly, as someone who is sometimes involved in NPP, I don't see what he or she was said to have done to be particularly concerning - huge number of new articles are of marginal notability and often tough to judge, and I'm glad someone actually takes the trouble to help sort them out (believe me, it can be very time-consuming checking the articles, one reason why I don't do much NPP recently), and draftifying articles may be the best way to resolve difficult cases in many instances. Hzh (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

strong oppose Accepting blatant spam concerns me. I am also unsatisfied with their response to my inquiry about it and expect a far better understanding of sourcing, particularly reliable sources from an admin or an admin hopeful. Praxidicae (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I've updated my !vote also based on this. I expect an editor with such a lengthy tenure to know better. Praxidicae (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae please could you direct me to this inquiry you made and the response? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Willbb234: sorry for jumping in, but I happened to find it myself a few minutes ago while looking at Praxidicae's oppose, which I take seriously. It's User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 39#AFC, I believe. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the Korapaak accept. It was created by the film company (see name of the article) and was obviously not ready for mainspace when accepted at AfC. There's also this publication of a draft deleted previously as promotion by a sock, which was also created by said sockfarm. The account who created this was an obvious SPA. These are both recent examples of an RfA candidate moving content that was intended to be promotional and they had reason to know was intended to be promotional into mainspace without checking context or log entries.
The issue isn't only with acceptances of spam content, however, they're also dratifying, and then declining, content that is obviously notable. Draft:2020 Tarleton State Texans football team is an example of this: as this appears to be the first year the team is in NCAA division I sports, the article at the time linked to their website, and all it would take to source it would be to click on the link. What's worse, they declined a draft they had previously draftified themselves even after the writer of the article had provided the citation to verify the content.
A quick look through their move log shows a bunch of moves of easily sourceable lists about years that would have grown in mainspace, but are now stuck in draftspace, probably to be ignored or just have their article creator create them anew. Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020 is probably the most glarring of these, as it's an obviously notable topic that the article creator was building that was properly formatted, and where no additional work was needed to prove the topic was notable. I don't have the time to go through the rest of the draftifications one-by-one, but just a click scan doesn't look promising.
Sorry, but I don't trust CASSIOPEIA to be an administrator, especially with a focus on NPP and AfC. They welcome stuff that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and turn down stuff that obviously should be in the project. If the area they want to focus in is NPP/AfC, these are major issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk (t 桜 c) 10:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Reluctant Oppose - I was close to supporting, but I unfortunately have to agree with Praxidicae and TonyBallioni. I'd likely not care about this stuff it is was like a year ago, but this is stuff from less than a month ago! Foxnpichu (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I’m afraid I have to very reluctantly oppose, I don’t believe the Korapaak draft to main space decision was a good one. I am also a little concerned about understanding of CSD policy, leading me to wonder if the nominated party has a good enough grasp of policy. I have been concerned about this topic for some time having seen and experienced first hand what happens when an admin makes a blocking decision citing a policy they have not read and/or understood. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, switching from neutral; the discovery by other other editors of poor sourcing accepted within the last month is exactly the sort of fear one has with editors who haven't spent enough time seriously building content. Since AFC is what CASSIOPEIA does, they should do it well. If CASSIOPEIA works up an FA, I'd support. (Just mentioning, also, that I find typing a username in all caps to be a pain.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Also switching from neutral. Besides my prior concerns that I mentioned, TonyBallioni makes some other good points here that have swayed my viewpoint sufficiently. I'm really not excited about voting oppose here, but I just don't think it's time yet. I would advise CASSIOPEIA to please not be disheartened, but to take the concerns offered here and use them to grow, even if they do pass this RfA. Waggie (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: per Tony B. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose with some regrets per Tony and Praxidicae. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, per Tony and Praxidicae. Everyone makes mistakes, but being unable to distinguish spam from good-faith content is pretty serious for someone who wants to work in AfC/draftspace. And their response to Praxidicae's message is concerning - they knew the article creator was banned for UPE but accepted the draft anyway? It's not a great look. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose at this time per most of the above, though I would say I don't yet "trust CASSIOPEIA to be an administrator, especially with a focus on NPP and AfC." While it is true that if the editor is going to focus on such stuff "they should do it well" (i.e., better), this is a reparable issue, and I look forward to supporting after more of the relevant experience is gained. Everything surrounding deletion and notability is complicated (especially since it interacts with so many other WP:P&G factors), and it just takes time fully absorb it all. I don't see other issues that concern me. There's a strong focus on content (53% of edits are to mainspace, and the next largest block are to user talk pages which suggests collaboration and dispute resolution [1]). However, there's very little participation in "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:", which to me is a strong indicator of insufficient involvement in policy matters for an admin candidate. Anyway, around 27,000 non-automated edits in a bit over 2.5 years [2] is a solid contribution level, and the user seems to possess community "social clue", just not yet sufficient policy clue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Generally, my low bar is easily met by an experienced editor and I still cling to no big deal. But, I do keep an eye on the opposes and when something very recent is discovered I have to pause. It seems like Tony found not one but two sides of poor judgement at AfC. I cannot support at this time. Ifnord (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Mainly per the unnecessary draftifications raised by Tony and noticeable to anyone who tries to patrol G13-eligible drafts with an eye to snatching them out of the abyss. Also noting Praxidae's second example on Draft:St Antony's Church Machad. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per the concerns raised by Tony. Lepricavark (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per spam link additions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The Korapaak example identified by Prax and expounded upon by Tony is pretty egregious. It goes beyond a lapse in judgement, which would be excusable and expected of any human editor, and into what I'd characterize as evidence of poor judgement. Promotional editing continues to be a dire problem on Wikipedia, and our admins need to be able to readily identify it—certainly not actively enable its incursion. Sorry. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose too many concerns as to the candidate's recognition of either promotionalism or notability. ——SN 54129 08:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per the concerns with both the AFC acceptance and the use of draftify followed by decline as a way of very nearly deleting an article whilst (no doubt unintentionally) circumventing most of the usual checks and balances. Just because something isn't strictly banned doesn't mean it's a good idea, and I would like to think that a user with better judgement would not have done this. The pretty recent conversation referenced in Q9 also bothers me as it suggests either a misunderstanding of a fairly fundamental part of CSD policy or, which would be even worse, a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the rules to convince a user not to remove a CSD tag which they were perfectly entitled to remove. Obviously I'm willing to reassess once that question is answered, but going to land here for now. Hug^syrup 08:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose "It is remarkable that Wikipedia is claiming not to be a site for advertising and promotion, but on the other hand it is extremely difficult to remove articles that are plain advertising or promotional. This is due to the many editors who claim that normal editing should do the trick but fail to improve these articles they say can be improved. This seriously undermines Wikipedia's stance against advertising and promotion." The Banner talk 09:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This is an editor who does a lot of good maintenance work, but a bit too often there's the impression that they might be over-relying on the abridged wikirulebook. I believe they have the potential to be a good administrator in the future, but only if they slow down, take greater care, and start appreciating that in some cases the best action to take might not be available from Twinkle's buttons. – Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - I recognize CASSIOPEIA's dedication to building and improving the encyclopedia, but I'm not convinced that they should become an administrator. In addition the concerns raised above, I am somewhat put off by the lack of prompt response to the questions. My largest concern is with CASSIOPEIA's communication skills. I believe admins need to have solid language skills, and that they must communicate clearly. I would also prefer that admins have diverse content creation experience. CASSIOPEIA seems to primarily edit MMA articles, and many of their edits seem to be WP:ROUTINE information.[3] - Mr X 🖋 13:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Tony and MrX. shoy (reactions) 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Quantity over quality, which is not what we want in an administrator. This editor made over 10,000 mainspace edits in May 2019 alone. Assuming that they're treating Wikipedia as a full time job, that's approximately 1 edit per minute for 40 hours per week. There's no way that this editor is putting the proper care into each one. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree with Tony on this one. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose in agreement with Tony. PJvanMill (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In November 2017 through January 2018, I worked extensively with CASSIOPEIA on counter-vandalism as their mentor in WP:CVUA; you can read their work with me at User:Mz7/CVUA/CASSIOPEIA. On a few occasions after the mentorship program was over, CASSIOPEIA came to me for advice. Because of this, I feel that I've gotten to know this candidate fairly well, and it is also for this reason that I feel extremely regretful to find myself in this section. I would feel similarly uncomfortable, however, to keep silent about my concerns.
In Q12, I mentioned a memorable interaction I had with CASSIOPEIA on the talk page of WikiProject Mixed martial arts in June 2018. This is admittedly a long time ago (a successful RfA candidate today could have plausibly created their account in June 2018), but I wanted to hear whether CASSIOPEIA had any reflections on the incident and how their perspective on the discussion might have changed with time. During the dispute, the discussion eventually became very heated. At one point, the objecting editor said to CASSIOPEIA, "What the fuck are you doing?" [4], and later at another point, CASSIOPEIA told the other editor, Open your eyes and READ!. You are still auguring and cant even give a sourced claiming 146-156 as you stated - that is more than lame! Reasoning with you like talking to a child - prove to be washing my time and it just feed your troll. [5] While I do think CASSIOPEIA was unfairly provoked, I think that an administrator looking at this dispute should have made efforts to defuse the situation. CASSIOPEIA's reaction was understandable for being a new-ish editor at the time, but in hindsight I was hoping that they would reflect on the behavioral aspect of the dispute in their response to Q12.
I am also in agreement with the concerns expressed by other editors above, particularly this recent conversation highlighted by Djm-leighpark and Praxidicae. When I used to be a CVUA mentor, one of the things I really tried to drill into my mentees was the distinction between "vandalism" and "disruptive editing", and how intention plays a key role in this distinction. It is disheartening to see CASSIOPEIA state that Removing CSD, AfD would considered a vandalism edit. I know what CASSIOPEIA meant, but I think an administrator should be more precise in their language here. Vandalism implies an intent to harm Wikipedia, which was not necessarily the case in that particular incident. Again, with extreme regret, I must respectfully oppose. Mz7 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I originally supported under the belief that my experience with CASSIOPEIA was not representative of their abilities. The recent opposes have made me question that, and I agree with Uanfala that they might be over-relying on the abridged wikirulebook. You can see an example at User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 8#Jordan Hall (Stanford University) moved to draftspace. A stub I created was moved to draft space. I challenged the move and requested it be listed at AFD. Against the advice at WP:DRAFTIFY, CASSIOPEIA repeated the controversial draftification, and when I explained that and asked that they self-revert their move per Wikipedia:Page mover#Conduct expectations they refused to do so. Everyone makes mistakes and wants to save face, so I assumed this interaction was such a situation. The anecdotes brought up by the previous opposers has made me believe that assumption was incorrect, and convinced me that the tools would not be used reliably. — Wug·a·po·des 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't see deleted versions, but let me know if I can help (I helped out at the FA on MemChu, but did not promote it per excess of COI caution). How odd that we have an article on Statue of Louis Agassiz, but not the associated building! Some of the sources there may be useful, or [6] or [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The article, as moved to draft, read: "Jordan Hall is a building on the Stanford University Main Quad. It is building number 420, located between Margaret Jacks Hall and the Math Corner. Statues of Louis Agassiz and Alexander von Humboldt adorn its exterior." No sources. However, it was the location of the notorious Stanford Prison Experiment so we absolutely should have an article on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure if the building is notable which is why I wanted the AfD in the first place. My concern from that interaction is that CASSIOPEIA misunderstands the GNG and uses draftification in place of deletion. For example, take the first comment they left me, they say When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace.... Compare this to the text of WP:NEXIST The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. When I echo concerns about over-relying on the abridged wikirulebook, it's this that I find particularly troubling. From that interaction I got the sense that they were assessing GNG on the basis of sourcing in the article (rather than performing WP:BEFORE) and were draftifying (or re-draftifying) articles in violation of WP:DRAFTIFY. The place to test notability concerns is AfD. Prior to this interaction, I had raised similar concerns about this on their talk page at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law after another editor challenged CASSIOPEIA's userfication of an outline page. I and other editors pointed out essays such as WP:LISTVERIFY and Wikipedia:Inline citation#When you must use inline citations to ask what material on the outline page was not obviously fit for inclusion or needs specific citation rather than dismissing the whole outline out of hand. In response we were linked to "abridged wikirulebook" pages such as WP:GOLDENRULE and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Alone I would (and did) chalk these up to isolated lapses, but given my experience in combination with the experiences of others I am concerned that the knowledge of policies as well as their common sense application is not yet there. — Wug·a·po·des 22:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. TonyBallioni's comment put me on the fence (I was originally planning on not participating in this RfA), but then Mz7's comment pushed me over. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Unsatisfactory attention to detail. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose because of (1) TonyBallioni's evidence above, and (2) this editor's admitted mistakes in English spelling and grammar.[8] I can accept editors not being thorough when writing on talk pages, but IMHO an admin needs to be able to express herself more clearly when defending her own actions or explaining Wikipedia policies (e.g. the 2019 interaction with Djm-leighpark linked in Q9). Julietdeltalima (ec) sums it up well. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per my criteria, in conjunction with the oppose !votes. Basically, I don't feel I can trust this user with the tools currently (which what my criteria boil down to). I found Espresso Addict's and TonyBallioni's !votes informative, and Espresso Addict's vote and the reasons behind it are what made me move from neutral to oppose. The spelling and grammar issues also contribute to my oppose, although this is not a huge issue for me. An admin on enwiki should be able to reasonably write in English, so that other users can interact with the admin with ease. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Tony B and others. Giant Snowman 22:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Praxidicae and TonyBallioni. Nihlus 01:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Tony. I also see some problems with the user's CSD log. Bobherry Talk Edits 02:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – Content is very disappointing, especially the most-edited BLPs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:DRAFTIFY is very clear that the process is not a "backdoor route to deletion" (Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020), and not a single person who edits to the contrary has the appropriate judgment to become an administrator. Ə XPLICIT 03:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose While acknowledging the candidate's prolific and positive contributions, especially in the realm of vandalism-fighting, I am expressing my reservations due to some of the issues raised in this column. I would also point specifically to one Afd vote as an example, where the candidate quoted 2 policies from which to vote delete; one of those, WP:CRIME, seemed to me to be discussing a completely different type of article, namely a standalone about a crime victim or perpetrator, while the article was neither (it was about a notable death). The other, WP:NOTNEWS, was arguably more relevant, but still not applicable in that case in my estimation. I would consider this nomination again in the future when a clearer grasp of the criteria would be manifest. StonyBrook (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, oppose at this time per Wugapodes. Unilateral reuse of a tool to reinstate a preferred version after the change has been reverted is close to the definition of what administrators should not do, and I do not feel comfortable supporting a request that shows a recent instance of this. WP:WHEEL says "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it", but with permissions like Wikipedia:Page mover in play, we also need to consider "administrative action" more broadly. I don't like to oppose RFAs, so I hope that my qualms regarding this request will fade over time. Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Insufficient following of standard wiki guidelines and policies. Per Tony B. and Wugapodes. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

Normally, I would oppose any editor at RFA who hasn't contributed significantly to at least a B-class article, but (barring anything negative like civility issues or copyvio surfacing) ~~I'm going neutral on this one~~ in recognition that New Page Patrol is seriously one of the hardest places to work at Wikipedia, and AFC is pretty tough, too. Please don't burn out there, though, like we saw in a recent desysop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Switching to oppose based on acceptance of poor sources that is much too recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

:I see that CASSIOPEIA's work is pretty prolific across the project, and they do seem to be doing good work overall. I am seriously concerned about the Korapaak accept, though, this was an obviously extremely problematic draft in many ways. I'm also concerned about the question Djm-leighpark raises. I'd like to see some commentary from CASSIOPEIA regarding these before I decide to weigh in support or oppose. Waggie (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Cas was the first person to welcome me to Wikipedia and they initially followed my edits around, giving advice. This was sometimes useful (I didn't read the squillions of policy pages before jumping in), but one interaction wasn't great. I'd half translated a BLP from dewiki, half written it from scratch, and Cas accused me of plagurism. In hindsight, it's very clear that it was not plagurism and I'd acted appropriately, but at the time I was only mostly sure, and so danced around the issue for fear of upsetting what I assumed was an authority figure (noob talk page diff)(masochistics, see WP:Translation). It didn't help that Cas's English isn't great (Feb2020 example).
This was a frustrating early experience. It doesn't matter how courteous and polite you are if you give incorrect advice and sow confusion. It's especially offputting for newbies. It certainly put me off translations, but I was never great at them anyway, so no harm, no foul. Positive interactions with JarrahTree and Arxiloxos helped keep me interested in wikipedia.
One experience isn't enough to oppose on, and I doubt I'll do more research, but if this represents a pattern I don't want Cas in a position of perceived authority. --Spacepine (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Cas, if this passes, I wish you the best in your new role, and hope you take this as constructive criticism. --Spacepine (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I initially thought supporting was the best idea, but then I realized the opposers had a point, which I realized was validated when I looked at Cassiopeia's contributions. However, personally, I can't bring myself to vote one way or the other. So, I decided to cast a "neutral" vote. King of Scorpions (my talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I see what looks like really really fantastic work at NPP. And NPP do a fantastic job in general. And CASSIOPEIA's error rate is really low. High AfD nom. rate is to be expected for an NPP nom'ing non-curated pages will I'd expect the nom. success rate to be lower because some may need to raised in the unsure category. Q9 was a tough one to get. But looking at the answer the Q8 and Q9 I'm not sure I'm seeing ability to show empathy to the other one's viewpoint, perhaps putting oneself in the others shoes. To be clear I've never seen CASSIOPEIA use the template in Q8; though in a use-case I am aware of it possibly fueled dispute(s) round various noticeboards. In my opinion it is a "fake" welcome with a grin which when followed nomination to delete work would be seen by many as an attempt to demean. (Something like: Unfortunately this article seems unsuitable because ...) would be seen as more genunine, at least to me. Of course some of these are standard template issues and not CASSIOPEIA and I've not raised them myself. I'm remain of some concern with the interactions that an admin might face. The ~~Q12~~Q11 answer has edged me onto neutral at this point and I'm not sure which way I'll swing if any, I'll be watching a spread and arguements particularly of a few I like to track. In all events best wishes to the candidate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral currently neutral, per my criteria and support and oppose !votes. I am waiting for further oppose / support votes. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving to oppose. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

General comments

From the nomination statement: "Secondly, they have a majority of AFD votes matching consensus." I disagree that this is necessarily a good thing, since it would be trivial for a candidate to just vote in AFDs that are already SNOWing in one direction. Well-reasoned and policy-grounded votes in contentious discussions should have more weight than just groupthink. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I know atleast one other RfA which received opposes because of such a statement. Imo, it doesn't have to have a negative connotation (as is attached), but again it barely makes a difference if you'll be willing to peruse the votes and see for yourself. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If one is active in NPP, one inevitably nominates a lot of pages for deletion (at least if one is doing the job properly). A high proportion of CASS's 'votes' are in fact nominations - these aren't pile-ons, these are reasoned arguments for deletion. These are valuable indications that they have a good understanding in policy, and from my scan through the stats it looks like their 'hit rate' is improving over time, showing a good capacity to learn. Reviewing this closely strengthens my support. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the first few opposes, I decided to take a look at all of CASSIOPEIA's patrols for the past month. I didn't see any other gaffes on par with Korapaak (although it does seem that they're generally quicker to accept film articles on what appears to be an WP:NPOSSIBLE basis). I also think it's worth mentioning that CASSIOPEIA actually goes beyond what I would expect from an NPP reviewer, often collecting and adding sources to help along poorly-sourced articles in situations where I probably would have just left a tag and moved on. While I do agree with the oppose-voters that accepting Korapaak was the wrong call, and that the trivial coverage currently available does not meet GNG, I do want to note that the level of trivial coverage in major Indian publications prior to the film's release in my mind makes it extremely unlikely that the film will not instantly generate enough reviews to meet GNG once it releases. While I would not have accepted it myself, I don't think that the accept is totally unjustifiable. Given that it seems that this is the worst call that CASSIOPEIA has made in the last month and several dozen reviews, and that they have generally had good judgment at AfD and in NPP overall, I think that I'm going to stay in the support column at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think it's that bad of a gaffe. It's not overly promotional on its face, and if you have to make a choice between "accept" and "decline" on the basis that it would pass an AfD, it's pretty grey. Obviously the fact it was written by someone with a COI weighs it down heavily, but if a neutral user had written it, and Google translate came back okay on the non-English sources, I think it's pretty close to an accept. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am still going to stay on support too and I think I'm satisfied with the reply CASSIOPEIA gave when asked about the Korapaak article they accepted by Praxidicae. They have a clue and I think they'll still make a good sysop regardless. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that Rosguill. I also took a look and agree with you. With almost 150,000 edits, anybody is going to have some mistakes. A problem in Wikipedia (which we are not really speaking about), is a lack of high-productivity new admins (like yourself Rosguill), coming online. In comparison, we lost, BHG, RH and Onel5969 (who was like an admin) in the last few weeks. The posts at AN of unanswered queues at RPP, and lately AIV, are only getting worse. We can't have poor admins, but we need to make sure that we don't turn down solid cases – when you have 150,000 edits, you are going to have 10x the mistakes of an identical RfA with 15,000 edits. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Which was precisely the argument that was made in RH's favour; unfortunately, it is deemed not a good one. ——SN 54129 11:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue for RH, was this their own error-rate seemed to be way above the average - thus 10x activity x Much higher error-rate = Too many errors. From looking at their edits, I don't think that CASSIOPEIA's error-rate is above average (hence my point). Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then embrace clarity and consider these proceedings an exercise in precision. Thanks, ——SN 54129 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Too true SN. User:CASSIOPEIA/CSD log is a proxy of accuracy, and I could point to many good admins whose CSD log would look no better. If your error-rate is above average, and you are as productive as CASSIOPEIA, you will "light up" as a problem. While I don't see perfection, I don't see a problem. Britishfinance (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The error rate is a function of the difficulty of the items being worked on. Although speedys are supposed to be for the obvious cases, there is still a fuzzy line about what is in fact obvious. . Anyone can get a perfect record by not doing anything that might be at all difficult. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (82/8/4); Scheduled to end 12:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional question from MrX

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

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

Additional question from Cbl62

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

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

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

Additional question from Leaky caldron

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

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

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

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

Additional question from Feminist

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

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

Additional question from Girth Summit

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

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

Additional question from Dolotta

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

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

Additional question from Rhododendrites

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

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

Additional question from King of Scorpions

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

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

Additional questions from JC

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

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

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

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

Additional question from John M Wolfson

13. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

Support

Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support A very good and worthy candidate. The bit will surely fit them. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support 100%. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni are both nominating this candidate? You don't get much higher recommendation than that. Looks like they are not a jerk, have a clue, and have created good content, which are my three criteria, so happy to add a support. Good luck! — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Money emoji is level headed, mature, and interacts well with other editors. Just the kind of person we need in the admin corps. Thanks for volunteering. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've known Money emoji for two reasons: one being the atrocious use of brackets^[FBDB] and the second being utmost friendliness. I'm sure they will make a fine administrator, open to critique with all willingness to improve. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
QEDK, I Don't know what youre talking about 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
We (know) you do (sure you do!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There are far too many disambiguation links in that sentence. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support One of those "wait, why aren't they an admin yet" candidates. Highly recommneded. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - no issues at all, and all the best for the mop. Tolly 4 bolly 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support precious "I edit here when I have nothing else to do, just for fun." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As co-nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - no concerns. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per noms. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - clueful, respectful, and having the bit will certainly help with their work. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak Support - the more complicated aspects of copyright and CCI are seriously technical and a major pending risk to Wikipedia. Having another qualified admin would be a major addition. While total edit count doesn't worry me, since I'm aware a significant amount of effort can go into some copyright edits, I am significantly more concerned about his content creation, with 1 created and a couple more with major additions. So character clearly isn't an issue, nor is knowledge in the admin field. So while I would like more content creation, I don't think it's a necessity. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Given more detail on the pizzagate GA, I think a WS is a more reasonable description for my state of mind at this point. Nosebagbear (talk)
Support Money emoji seems to know what they are doing, and having admin tools is extremely useful in the field of copyright cleanup; they would be even more of an asset with a mop. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support No issues here, good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I see no issues and have seen this user around. Being a fellow trainee clerk and also dealing with copyright violations (I usually only deal with clear cut cases eligible for G12), I can attest that having the tools is both very useful (in some cases necessary) to ensure a job well done. Their answers to the questions helped me to see how they have good judgement and foresight, (see their answer to Q6). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
To add, I see them meeting my criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Support: I've seen CASSIOPIAs contributions to the Wikipedia especially coping with vandalism and being neutral and effective in solving disputes. As per co-nom by Ritchie333 ^(talk). I vote for them in support strongly believing they'll do their best being an administrator. — The Ultimate ^{Let's Talk} 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate, I think you put this in the wrong rfa.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate, I struck your comment for now, as it is obviously in he wrong RFA. Please revise accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I will always support editors who work in copyright problem cleanup. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
You have my unreserved Support. Good luck to you! Puddleglum ^2.0 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per answer above, which seems reasonable, and per support from trusted, experienced and respected sysops working in the same area. We need more people well-versed in copyvio, thanks for stepping up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support seems like a good fit. LanHikari64 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Always a good sign when I am surprised by an RfA, because I'd always assumed they already are an admin. Money Emoji demonstrates a clear understanding of policy and guidelines and will do a good job helping improve the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Very strong track record. Interstellarity (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Definitely. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
SupportHhkohh (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Money Money 2020 -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I've tried my hand at the CCI cleanup and it's hard. MoneyEmoji knows it well, and the tools will reduce the workload for other admins fulfilling their requests for revision deletion. Clear net positive. — Wug·a·po·des 18:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Absolutely!! I first ran into MoneyEmoji when I reviewed their Pizzagate GA, and was all around impressed. Since then I have watched as Money has comported themselves excellently and been an active Wikipedian all around. Their work at CCI is exceptional, and having the tools to work in CCI would be a great addition to Money's endeavors. I see no reason to expect abuse of the tools, and believe that Money would be exactly the kind of level-headed sysop we need more of. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I'm impressed on how Money deals with CCI. —BeyWHEELZ • T • C
Support. Copyrights shall be protected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support If Ritchie likes Money than so do I ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support I've seen plenty of good copyright work, and that's definitely an area where we need more admins. Hut 8.5 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support does a thankless task, but does it very well, and in an important area of the project. Demonstrates clear need for the tools. Would be happy to support, whether they stick to just copyright infringement, or if they want to branch out further. Agent00x (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Would love to have you on the admin team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Without a doubt --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support obviously. MER-C 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, has the temperament and the skill level. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support My experience with this user is positive and they are helpful. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support No red flags and we need more admins working in copyvio.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Seems to be a good candidate and their contributions are good. What more do you need in an admin? (I may be wrong as this is the first RFA I've participated in...) King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Can't think of anyone more qualified in 2020 to get access to the tools, and I say that without hyperbole. Wizardman 22:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be a good editor, and willing to listen to others. I don't feel it's a requirement for an administrator to have extensive content creation experience. I feel they must simply demonstrate a solid understanding of when to, and when not to, use the tools that the community is trusting them with, and the willingness to learn and listen when they might make a mistake (no one is perfect). I also feel very strongly about WP:V and respect their answer pointing that out as the most important policy. Excellent COPYVIO work. Waggie (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Though Money emoji has only been here for two years, it looks like he has more than proved his suitability for the admin tools, having worked in the CCI field. I think that the admin tools would help him out with the CCI backlog. And despite his username, he is not actually a money emoji, so I guess that's another plus ... shows maturity, I think epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As said in the questions above, they have had lots of experience in the copyright area. They said there were not that many copyright admins here. I think they will be a good new addition to the admin community. --TFFfan (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Candid answers to my admittedly nitpicky questions... no complaints there. As mentioned above, the candidate plays a crucial role in the mainspace regardless of what the "articles created" or "kilobytes added" stats tell us. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. Anyone willing to tackle the hellscape that is CCI deserves the mop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Well versed in CCI issues, clear net positive, and cordial with all they come across to boot. I wish I could clone Money emoji and have more admins like them. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support: While the editor isn't big on creating new articles, I lean WP:GNOME myself. I see a >40% mainspace contribution ratio [9], which is solid (much of the rest is in "Wikipedia:", which we'd expect for someone doing admin-ish stuff, plus lots of talk namespaces, a general indicator of collaborative and dispute-resolution behavior). Clearly an asset when it comes to copyvio patrolling, and I don't see any history of jackassery or boneheadedness. I'm not sure this candidate would exactly pass my criteria in a literal reading, but they're flexible. This editor is clearly clueful, WP:HERE, and would continue to be a net positive with the extra tools. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support good work in CCI clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Strong copyvio work is very important for the project, and it's clearly demonstrated here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Skimpy on content work, but their mainspace edits are not frighteningly negligible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
S - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Not as thoughtful an answer to my question as I would have liked, but OK. feminist (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per Diannaa. Enthusiastic editor, willing to work in a tough area. Miniapolis 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support solid work in copyvio area, where we need more admins to handle G12 and revdel. I don't think it's necessary for admins to be content creators. b uidhe 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. While I cannot recall any particular interaction I have had with this user, I am impressed with their Wikipedia "resume" and can only expect this candidate to be a net positive to the project. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support, almost exactly along the lines just expressed by Utopes. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Everybody likes this. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support – Some people got to have it, hey-ey-ey! Some people really need it - ahh, listen to me y'all! Kurtis ^(talk) 10:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 13:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Normally, I would be reluctant to promote an editor with so little content creation, but the need to effectively tackle the CCI backlog outweighs my slight reservation. Other than a WP:PERSONALATTACK edit summary, I see no reason not to support. - Mr X 🖋 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
MrX, I was making fun of myself for not realising that a site was a mirror.... unless you knew that already. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I know; I was injecting some humor. It was funnier in my own head. - Mr X 🖋 15:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support CCI area will benefit from having more people with the tools. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Shaking my head at voters demanding 10000 edits from admin candidates. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - Say the right things, does the right things. Makes mistakes, learns from them. Rosser Gruffydd 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support with pleasure; qualified and helpful in a very underserved area. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Will be a large benefit to the project with the tools, has my trust. Spencer^T•C 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. I'm very pleased to see this nomination. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
support seen 'm around. per nom statement. per other supports.-- Deep fried okra 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per nomination. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support The tax accountant in me was won over with the user name. In all seriousness, the candidate appears to be well qualified and has my trust. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per Diannaa and Hut 8.5, with thanks to the candidate for their hard work in a difficult area. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support - no concerns, and nothing valid in opposes. Giant Snowman 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support, seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Mkdw ^talk 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Support: no behavioural issues and a passion for copyright issues are more than enough reason for support. Giving the mop to an editor working in CCI is the least we can do to help them out. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak Support I see no problems however I would personally like to see more edits and more work with CSDs in the future. Bobherry Talk Edits 02:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Jianhui67^T★C 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose No content creation to speak of: one article. My belief is that an administrator needs to protect content and content creators - we are an encyclopedia. Experience creating content is important IMO. The candidate also has an 82% delete !voting record at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Just curious; do expansions from redirect count towards your articles created metric? 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose those can count. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, reluctantly, for failing my criteria - which is a really low bar, IMHO. On the discussion of content, I do not believe every administrator needs to be a scribe as we need techies and people willing to do tedious tasks. Delete vote % is generally meaningless to me, I assume good faith on the part of the majority of the nominations at AfD. But, while an edit count above 10K doesn't move me, I would like to see at least that. Maybe just a little too soon? Ifnord (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Although you did say that it will not move you, I have now hit 10k edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Insufficient content contributions; a few stubs on songs expanded from redirects is not enough to judge, and I feel the nomination has overegged the editor's experience in this area. Some of the recent archived talk-page discussions also make it clear that even in the area of copyright the editor is not yet 100%; eg the discussion on close paraphrasing in S. H. Ervin; where precisely to draw the close-paraphrasing line is an area that it helps to have experience from the article-creation side, in my opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering, what should I have done differently in the S. H. Ervin case? Archive for reference. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Nominating just barely a month after they have been named an ArbCom clerk is too soon. He should have been working longer to get more of a track record. The account has been registered for less than two years (I think the answers to Q4 & Q8 are a bit shoddy, but I will assume good faith, and the rules say you have to reveal your past accounts only to the ArbCom). Most edits have few bytes in them. There is the burnout episode referenced in Q10, which shouldn't be held against you because it happens to the best of us, but it makes the short-ish Wikipedia career somewhat volatile. Money emoji seems like a laid-back person, which I would be more than happy to see in an admin, but this is premature. --Pudeo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose lack of article creation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Pudeo and the numerous comments to opposers. Nihlus 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – Sorry, but this has to improve and only time can help in that cause. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

Normally I would strenuously oppose an editor at RFA with this content contribution profile (they actually had only 24 edits and 0.7% authorship at the GA Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so there is actually very negligible content creation here, in contrast to the nomination statement, to an extent that I find alarming at RFA). Nonetheless, for those with demonstrated work in the under-staffed area of copyvio, I'm willing to adjust my usual stance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the user's contribs, and they seem good, but I'm not going to lean one direction or the other in case there's something I don't know about... King of Scorpions 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Changed my mind. Re-reviewed contribs and decided to support. King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Voting neutral is not a waiting ground, it is for people who have performed a careful assessment and cannot lean either way. And in case there's something you think you don't know yet, assume good faith. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point from Sandy. I wouldn't blame a candidate because their nominator erred, but, really, @Ritchie333: do you stand by your suggestion that authoring 0.7% of an article is a major contribution. ——SN 54129 08:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Edits like this are not major heavy lifting, granted, but as the edit summary says, it was a good-faith attempt to improve the article to FAC, even though it was premature. Anyway, that wasn't really the point I was going to make, which was rather that Money emoji isn't simply a one trick pony who can do copyright investigations and nothing else. I would focus on the CCI cleanup work he has done, Dr Blofeld's is one such example, and the conversation that started me thinking "might be a good admin candidate" was this one regarding a cleanup of Elisa Rolle's work. Like TheGracefulSlick, the community seems to be divided on Elisa, but they did good content work and we should try and keep hold of that while managing the other difficulties they fell into, for the good of the project. And like Sandy, I am prepared to trade-off a track record of GAs / FAs against a specialist skill that not many admins have; in this case, copyright cleanup. I tried to have a go at Elisa's and flippin' heck, it was tedious. But somebody has to do it - as the message says at the top of the edit window, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral. I understand the candidate and nominators' case for needing the tools ("revdel ... while removing copyvios" is definitely a sentence that shows the candidate knows what he's asking for) but "I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance" worries me that the candidate will burn himself out before he begins... Deryck C. 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't know too much about this editor, but now I'm concerned that they are going to respond to almost all votes in the "Oppose" section. I'll just park it here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

About RfB

Shortcut

WP:RFB

{Request for bureaucratship/Recent/Top}}

|- style="background-color: #e0ffe0" ! scope="row" | Worm That Turned | style="text-align: center;" | RfB | style="text-align: left;" | Successful | 27 Jan 2014 | style="text-align: center;" | 150 | style="text-align: center;" | 15 | style="text-align: center;" | 1 | style="text-align: right;" | 91 |} 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 candidate. ~~~~}} 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

Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.

[1] Editors who are not extended confirmed may be nominated by somebody else; though in practice this does not happen.

[2] The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.

[3] 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search)
Administrators	Requests for adminship edit watch RfA talk new post Archives RfA nominations Request a nom Optional RfA candidate poll Advice for RfA candidates Guide Miniguide Advice for voters Arguments to avoid
RfA analysis	Requests for adminship by year Successful RfAs By month Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfAs Alphabetical Chronological
Bureaucrats	Noticeboard Successful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Bureaucrat discussion Bureaucrat activity
Useful pages	RFA reform RfX Report Inactive administrators Former administrators Desysoppings by month Logs User rights log Old log Meta log Meta old log
Current admin count: 1,144 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 17 (list all)

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Contents

About administrators

About RfA and its process

Notes

Current nominations for adminship

CASSIOPEIA

Nomination

Co-nomination

Questions for the candidate

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

General comments

Money emoji

Nomination

Questions for the candidate

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

General comments

About RfB

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Related pages

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Tools

In other projects

Print/export

Languages