Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Modussiccandi

Modussiccandi

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (9/0/0); Scheduled to end 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Modussiccandi (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to present to you Modussiccandi as a candidate for adminship. The common theme among the wide range of work Modussiccandi is a commitment to helping facilitate content. He has 2 featured articles, 10 good articles, and over 30 did you know hooks. You can also find this same level of attention in his work in other areas, most prominently at New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation. In all places you'll see his skill in applying appropriate policies and guidelines while also doing his best to find and support good content. I think you will find him a thoughtful and knowledgeable editor and hope you will join me in supporting his RfA. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

It was just recently when I saw the great work of Modussiccandi, but they've made a strong impression. Apart from his large amount of high quality work outlined by Barkeep I've been especially impressed with how they deal with difficult situations. In his many thoughtful comments I've seen lots of positive qualities I find valuable for admins. He takes the opportunity to learn and improve where he can, reevaluate his position when questioned and reflect on situations where they could have acted better. Because of this, I'm convinced they will make an excellent admin and it's my pleasure to co-nominate them. --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, Barkeep49 and Trialpears. I accept your nomination. I have never edited for pay and I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than this. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: We have a shortage of new sysops and I believe that editors who have some of the right attributes and an appropriate level of experience should consider serving the community in this role. I want to help remedy the current situation by contributing to the areas that I’m already working in. For the time being, I would like to help out where I can, definitely in deletion, perhaps DYK in the future. I can see myself moving into other admin areas that interest me, but I would do so cautiously, one step at a time. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

A: What made me stick around and become a long-term editor was the prospect of adding high-quality content about my own discipline. So naturally I’d say the contributions I’m proudest of are my articles on classical literature. I’d probably point you to the biographies of classical scholars which I’ve brought to a high standard (particularly my two FAs on R. A. B. Mynors and L. D. Reynolds). I had a long-standing plan to expand Eduard Fraenkel, one of the most impactful, but also controversial Latinists of the 20th century. The article was recently made a GA and I plan to bring it to FA soon. My work there was particularly rewarding since Frankel’s life and work are more complex than those of any scholar I had tackled before. When I started editing, there was hardly any detailed article on people in this field – it’s a great feeling to have improved the project in an area that used to be a bit neglected. Outside of Classics, I’m fondest of my small collection of articles on topics in German history. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

A: Fortunately, I have been able to avoid sustained conflicts since most articles that I have strong feelings about lie in a niche that very few editors beside me work in. Of course, I have had disagreements with other editors in the context of NPP, WP:AfC, and WP:AfD. I’ve been able to keep a cool head in these situations and have managed to keep things in perspective, which I think is important to avoid Wikipedia-related issues stressing you off-wiki. Besides, I typically have a decent feel for when it’s time to disengage and/or involve a third party. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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

Optional question from Serial Number 54129

4. Hi Modussiccandi, and thanks for standing! Just a quickie from me; could you briefly explain how you see an appointment to adminship as changing your future editing patterns—if at all of course—e.g., by workspace?

A: Thank you for your question, Serial Number. I don't suspect that my overall editing patterns would change much if I were to become a sysop. The only thing that I can say for sure at this point is that I would keep a similar division between maintenance tasks and content. Like many Wikipedians, I tend to add new articles to my list of content projects all the time and so I don't foresee my maintenance work taking over completely only because of the additional tools. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

5. With an (albeit brief) passage of time, would you like to expand on your !vote to keep a poorly-sourced BLP last December?

A: Thank you for this very valid question. My approach to AfDs is normally to do a BEFORE search to see if the existing sources may count towards GNG or if they at least verify an aspect of one or more SNG. In the case of José Miguel Sagüillo, I was able to verify that he held the position of Catedratico, the highest academic rank in a Spanish university. I took this to mean that the subject met Criterion No. 5 of WP:NPROF, which calls for the subject to hold a named-chair or equivalent in countries where those are uncommon (Spain being one of them). Now, the AfD later reached the consensus that the Catedratico position is in this case not equivalent to a named-chair, a decision with which I can live well because it shows that reasonable editors may still disagree over the interpretation of our notability guidelines. Your question mentions the fact that the page was a poorly sourced BLP; this is correct, but my !vote at the AfD was, in the first place, a statement on the subject's notability, not the current sourcing of the article. It is absolutely clear that we don't want to have poorly sourced content in our BLPs, which is why I would have recommended reducing the article to a stub containing only the verifiable bits. I hope this answer sheds some light on why I !voted the way I did. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from اِفلاق

6. Under what circumstances should an admin indefinitely block an IP address?

A: Thank you for your question. It is generally not advisable to block a newly-offending IP for a very long time. This is because different people may use one a IP address or the IP may be reassigned, which means that an indefinite block will often overshoot the target. So I would only block indefinitely if an IP proves to be a consistent offender over an extended period and after being blocked for shorter amounts of time. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

7. What is your opinion on WP:AOR? Will you be a part of it ?

A: Personally, I would not want to stick around as a sysop if the community feels that I've ceased to be a net positive. This means that I would join AOR and detail my criteria for recall in my userspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from theleekycauldron

8. Thank you for running, Modussiccandi! My question is: what area or areas of Wikipedia do you find yourself weakest in?

A:

Optional question from Panini!

9. I've already supported, but this would be good information to refer to in the future. I often see users who have been blocked who request an unblock appeal, only to receive a snarky decline or a magic 8-ball "ask again later" message. While it's certain that admins have their reasons that run well into the background, what are your personal opinions on giving second chances?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support As co-nom. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support as unrelated. Panini!^🥪 12:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. An excellent nomination. I mostly know Modussiccandi through their nominations for featured article status, where they handled having their first one picked over by reviewers and ultimately bounced (by me, as a FAC coordinator) with grace and a determination to bring it back better. Which they did, gaining their first well deserved and hard earned bronze star. I note that their second nomination ran through more smoothly, with minimal suggestions for improvement, which suggests an encouraging ability to take on board feedback. I only hope that reaching the exulted heights of adminhood will not prevent a third nomination in the near future. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support. Modussiccandi clearly shows the right temperament for an admin. A 90% matching consensus record on AfD is a good sign for an editor continuing work there. All discussions I have seen at AfD and on talk pages have been very polite and civil (see this talk page discussion). Modussiccandi's work on article nominations is very commendable, and shows generally good editing choices. I wish my fellow Cambridge-ite well should this nomination succeed! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Support Can be trusted with the tool. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 13:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
7. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
8. Need more admins, good vouching.Polska na zawsze (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
9. Excellent content and DYK work. Happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)