Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Modussiccandi

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

Modussiccandi

Final (196/0/1); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I should add that the deciding factor in whether an IP should be blocked for anything other than a short time is that there needs to be proof that the IP has been used by one user over an extended period of time. Otherwise there would be no evidence that a long-term block would still serve the intended preventative purpose. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Optional question from Panini!

8. (This is an opinion question based on a specific field; please ignore if you express no interest): 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: Thank you for the question, Panini. I will accept your offer to stay silent on this question because I have no immediate interest in working in this area. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lee V

9. A new user removed sourced content from L. D. Reynolds. What would be your response? At what time would you use administrative tools on the article or the user? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A:Thanks for the question, Lee. In the first instance, I would revert their edits and initiate a discussion on the talk page. This is how I handled such issues when my FAs were TFA. In general, I would be very reluctant to even consider the use of administrative tools on this user because I would have a good reason to see myself as an involved admin. The one occasion where I would turn to use of the tools is if said user were to escalate their behaviour to the level of obvious vandalism. The same goes for any article I'm involved with. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Andrew D.

10. Your account name seems to literally mean "dry mode" and is perhaps a pun on modus significandi, right? Please elaborate. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A: My name was inspired by a passage of Columella's De re rustica, a Roman treatise on agriculture from the 1st century AD. In Book 2.18, Columella say that a middle course that is neither too wet nor to dry should be followed when curing grass. He calls this 'middle way' of drying modus in siccando. When I read this passage, I was for some reason struck by the phrase and I created the username as a pun on phrases such as modus operandi or modus vivendi. I must admit that I didn't know the phrase modus significandi. Still, you got quite close to decoding the whole thing. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Asartea

11. At the risk of restating Q1 and in relation to my comment below: Which areas do you see yourself using the toolset in?

A: Thank you for asking, Asartea. Should I become a sysop, I would begin using the toolset in the areas adjacent to those I'm already working in. In the context of NPP, this could mean that I begin by evaluating the most common CSD taggings (I think here of G11, G12, A7). I have successfully tagged for these criteria a good number of times (G11 in particular) and so feel that my potential admin work would build on what I do now. I would also like to explore closing at AfD, where I think I have a good understanding of what goes into consensus building from my experience as a !voter. As I said in Q.1, I might move into further admin areas in the future, but I plan to take things slow at first if I do become a sysop. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from HouseBlaster

12. Why do you edit Wikipedia?

A: I edit Wikipedia because I think it's a beautiful way to share topics that I'm passionate about. I love the idea that everyone with an internet connection can now enjoy free, well-sourced articles on subjects that I only learnt about at university. I enjoy the collegiality and collaboration. And finally, I edit Wikipedia because I used to be an avid reader of the site (still am) before I started editing. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Celestina007

13. You already have my support. It has become somewhat customary for admin candidates to expressly state that they have never edited for pay, & I note you affirm this also when accepting this nomination. My question is, seeing the negative impact of UPE, do you see yourself getting involved in tackling UPE in any capacity?

A: Thank you for raising this topic, Celestina. I have definitely noticed in my work at NPP and AfC that UPE and issues surrounding it make a noticeable negative impact on our project. I must admit I haven't given active involvement in anti-UPE measures like SPI much thought so far; but given that I agree with your assessment of the situation, I might well lend a helping hand in this area once I've familiarised myself with the use of the tools. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Kavyansh

14. What is your understanding/opinion of the essay—No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability?

A: I think the essay touches on the same point that I have tried to make in my answer to Question 5: notability and content are two separate issues. In deletion discussions, we mainly argue about notability. Even if you polish an article on a non-notable subject up to GA level, it will probably be deleted if notability cannot be demonstrated. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15. You have expressed particular interest in helping with deletion process if you receive the mop. Suppose, in a deletion discussion, there are seven 'keep' !votes, all arguing that the subject is notable without providing any sources. The only one to !vote for deleting the article is, well, the nominator, saying that the subject fails WP:GNG. It has already been relisted many times. What would be your rationale when you close that discussion?

A: In this hypothetical situation, it would be important to remember that AfDs are not decided by majority, but by whether a policy–based argument can find a rough consensus among !voters. If, as you say, the seven editors who want to keep the article have not provided any reliable sourcing and have failed to adduce the relevant notability guidelines, I would not close the discussion as a 'keep' because no policy-based consensus has been reached. At the same time, I would not close as 'delete' either. One !vote, even if it's well argued, does not represent a rough consensus. I think I would close this discussion as 'no consensus' without prejudice against a re-nomination. I realise that this close would probably lead to some complaints from the 'keep' !voters, but a positive 'keep' close would not be justified if they offer no more than 'the subject is notable'. Let me add that I would not have the guts to attempt such a close any time soon. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lomrjyo

16. What are your plans after adminship?

A: I don't have any specific plans in case this RfA turns out to be successful. Should I become a sysop, I would continue to pursue my current content creation projects. For the near future, this includes tweaking Eduard Fraenkel for FAC and (if I have the time) getting started on a new version of Investiture Controversy. Apart from that, I would carefully begin using the tools in the way outlined in my responses above. I hope this answers your question, Lomrjyo. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Sea Cow

17. What is one field of sysop Wikipedia you plan to never be involved in, if you are successful in your RFA? And why?

A: I can't say for sure at this point that I will never get involved in any one area of sysop activity. However, I can say that it's very unlikely that I'll be involved with WP:ITN. In contrast with DYK, I have never submitted a candidate for that section and consequently have no experience of the process there. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Kudpung

18. In the context of NPP, do you intend to work at PERM, and if you do, what depth of due diligence will you apply before according user rights, especially NPR and Autopatroled?

A: It's interesting that you should ask this question, Kudpung; I actually am somewhat interested in PERM. I used not to have an opinion about it, but that changed after this discussion. In the case of this editor, we had given someone a tool for which, it later turned out, they were not qualified. Fortunately, they made only a small number of problematic AfC decisions before they lost the permission; it's still easy to see that they could have caused quite the headache in the long run. With this incident in mind, I would opt for a fairly thorough vet before granting an editor autopatrolled or NPP rights. Of course, we still need to take their self assessments, usually written in good faith, into account, but a good depth of due diligence is absolutely necessary. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Jason Quinn

19. Suppose an editor loves to take macro photos of insects and has added many high-quality images of insect species (say 100) to our large number of such articles without even a single image. The editor has no expert background in entomology and identifies the insect species on their own using the web (as the experts often do too). They are a hobbyist entomologist. You have no reason to doubt the user strives for truth but it is true that it is sometimes hard to identify with certainty a specific species of insect within a genre from a photograph. This can be due to similarity of other species in the genre or due to the variation of individuals. Is this editor violating our OR policy by including their insect photos on the species articles and what, if anything, should be done about it?

A: Thank you for the question, Jason Quinn. Our policy on original research states that image captions are subject to the same standard as the body of the article. If this user has made a less-than-straightforward identification of a species on one of their photos and then proceeds to add this photo to an article, I'd say that that they are violating our OR policy. What I would do about this is to talk to the editor and ask that they limit their illustrations to species where a non-OR identification is possible. (Please accept my apologies if this last point makes no sense — I have no clue about entomology). I see that it's not ideal to discourage this hypothetical editor because their work could help close a big gap in our project. But still, OR is one of our content policies and the need for illustration has to be balanced with it. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from AlexEng

20. Would you please comment on your understanding of REVDEL and how you anticipate using this tool? Please describe a specific example of material you would deem appropriate to remove under each of criteria 2 and 3 of CFRD.

A: Thank you for asking, AlexEng. The vast majority of my experience with REVDEL has been in copyvio situations where an article had what I would call a partial copyright violation. In those cases there was no need to perform a G12, so I removed the content in question and requested revision deletion. This is the use of the REVDEL tool (CFRD 1) that I'd be most likely to make. To give you an example of a CFRD 2: an editor adds grossly offensive and clearly non-factual statements to the biography of a living person. And for CFRD 3: an editor has inserted into an article a large shock image that depicts something that clearly is not suitable for the consumption of minors. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from RadioKAOS

21. When the encyclopedia reached six million articles a little over two years ago, WP:6MIL was created, which very prominently featured the Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge". In this piece, after dutifully regurgitating the WMF's press release about the milestone, it goes on to explain that the sum of all human knowledge has been quantified ("According to one estimate, the sum of human knowledge would require 104 million articles"). In other words, the typical admin attitude of the encyclopedia containing too many articles is viewed quite differently outside of that bubble, and according to this view, we've only accomplished approximately five percent of the overall goal after twenty years of existence. Taking that into consideration, how can we continue to provide a platform for 1) those editors whose only concept of building an encyclopedia is to tear down what others have built; 2) those editors who spend inordinate amounts of time trying to define what's notable while demonstrating zero interest in reflecting what's notable; and 3) many members of the top tier of WP:MAW who make a lot of edits just to make make a lot of edits because they appear to be in some sort of competition, in the process flooding watchlists with low-quality editing activity which doesn't necessarily move the project forward?

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

Support As co-nom. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as unrelated. Panini!^🥪 12:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Can be trusted with the tool. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 13:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Need more admins, good vouching.Polska na zawsze (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)~~ LTA struck, other comments removed. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent content and DYK work. Happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Seems fine to me. _{دَستخَط،}اِفلاق ^{(کَتھ باتھ)} 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work with article creation, level headed, and communicates well. All I need to see to get my +1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom, happy to support! SoyokoAnis - talk 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This RfA has been on my watchlist for quite some time now, and I'm delighted to see it materialize. I know from personal experience that Modussicandi's content creation is superb, and his work at AfC, NPP, AfD, etc. shows both a solid knowledge of policy and, just as importantly, an unflappably calm and pleasant temperament. I have no doubt that he'll use the tools judiciously. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Made my day. Competent, pleasant and strong track record. JBchrch talk 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of great content, and I trust Barkeep's sage nominating skills. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precious, excellent answer to Q5, no other concerns. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me, thanks for running. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for meeting my mins, no big deal, and no reasons in the opposes. Best of luck! Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a clue. ––FormalDude talk 17:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've never heard of this candidate, but they look to be an excellent editor and an excellent addition to the mop corps. Their deletion question answer was an excellent example of nuanced AfD reasoning, and alleviates any blp concerns (which their content work would indicate against anyway). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have not come across Modussiccandi previously, however am encouraged by positive content creation and reasonable responses to the questions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I believe they will be a real asset. Cavalryman (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Seems to be a reasonable person who will be as reasonable in adminiship areas as he has been in non-adminship areas. – Athaenara ✉ 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Absolutely no qualms at all. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:Asartea's "neutral"; I don't know Modussiccandi, and I can only delve so far into their contributions, so the trust placed by other editors (in particular one who is inclined to oppose) is important in helping me decide. I don't believe that "need for the tools" should come into consideration for an active editor; a lot of admin tools are editing tools. You learn to use them by cleaning up your own mistakes and being able to check a deleted page you might be interested in recreating. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My two criteria are good temperament and has a clue. Good temperament is shown for instance at the first Mynors FA nomination. Having a nomination archived can be tough, and the candidate reacted well. Femke (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support shows a need for the tools, good communication track record. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Seddon ^talk 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardworking user who understands how to handle tools. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Answers to all questions are well thought-out. Candidate is polite and well-reasoned, and shows incredible dedication to building the encyclopedia. A model of what an admin should be. — Ghost River 18:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – If Barkeep49 trusts you by extension I trust you. Furthermore, I’m appreciative of the candidate's well thought out responses thus far. P.S, Modussiccandi gave a very important reply to my question. Celestina007 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to support. Thanks for stepping up! DanCherek (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Here to build an encyclopedia. No concerns, and the mop is NOBIGDEAL. House Blaster^talk 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sounds like is worthy of a mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am willing to see what direction this person takes Wikipedia as an admin Kirbopher2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Their content work speaks for itself, both in terms of generation and reviewing; the project needs more people willing to work in administrative areas; I also have confidence in the nominators. Happy to support, good luck with all those questions! Girth Summit _(blether) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood content creation, good answers Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support user has done good work and can be trusted with the tools. They have outlined a few areas in which they'll use them, which is sufficient for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominators, and the fact that Modussiccandi shows ample clue whilst not being a jerk. We should ask ourselves, why not? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't come across the candidate but I trust the nominators' judgment. Deb (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A skim of contributions and talk page comments shows the candidate has good AfC judgment, is extremely civil, and seems willing to admit errors and constructive feedback. Politanvm ^talk 22:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With best wishes given everything so far: noting others comments and answers to questions and a little AfD scruitiny (always hoping no problems beam in from somewhere). Shows signs of being able to make careful use of the tools. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No red flags. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great track record, answers to questions demonstrate good policy knowledge, as well as a good attitude in general. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on thoughtful responses to questions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 22:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Draco phyllum 22:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy noms, good temperament and answers to questions. WP:NONEED. Miniapolis 23:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like good responses to the questions and overall good judgment. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Finally! Vaticidalprophet 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)~~ striking vote and recusing -- don't mind it too much, it's not exactly going to impact the outcome Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems fine. SVcode(Talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no stop signs, your contributions seem great. Severe storm 28 01:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with the candidate, but trust the nominators. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trustworthy editor and could do lots of good with adminship MrMeAndMrMe_{Contributions} 01:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems more than qualified and makes sense.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Slightly weak~~ support — ~~I only see one field that he demonstrates the need for administrators’ tools, but he states that he will cautiously move into other fields.~~ Wikipedia is quickly losing sysops, ~~and I trust that in the future he’ll prove me wrong.~~ — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@3PPYB6: See WP:NONEED. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AssumeGoodWraith — Per WP:NONEED, I have struck some of my text. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no obvious reasons to not support. Has a clue and is enthusiastic. Anarchyte (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passes my "criteria" Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Yes! I agree too! Esaïe Prickett (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the above. Reply to this post if you feel you need and deserve some particular articulation. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Very thoughtfully answered my questions. Great work on other aspects as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trusted wikipedian with good knowledge and application of relevant policies. Hand him the mop! If he's not currently working in areas that need the tools, he can be recruited to help out with areas that do need said tools. Someone's gotta do it, and it might as well be someone who isn't reckless. I like his caution. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Back in mid-2020, Modussiccandi asked me to assess one of his future FAs (R. A. B. Mynors) for WP CGR and it was very well done. Very skilled when it comes to content creation & I'm glad to see this RFA. 0qd (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Content creation is fantastic. Seems to have a good grasp on the enclyopedia. Previously stated that we are in need of additional ranks, so a no-brainer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no reason not to pile on :) Excellent answers to all questions so far. Lennart97 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per everything said above, I've also taken time to read their answers to questions and I'm amazed. I'm sure They'll do a good job. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Add one to the list. Our 1062nd admin. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although hopefully this will not detract from their excellent work at AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We need more admins. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent editor, unlikely to break things, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Brilliant. - Amras (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone nominated by Barkeep is a yes from me. We very much need more admins, and I don't see an obvious reason not to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't personally looked through their contributions, but it's clear from reading this page that they are a clueful and competent editor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Demonstrated competence, good work at NPP. Vexations (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ethan Gaming 7640 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is the kind of editor I like to see at RFA. An experienced Wikipedian who hasn't necessarily devoted their lives to the drama boardz and other admin haunts, but who is willing to step up and help out as and where. — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 16:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of one or two excellent nominators and super answers to questions 7 and 8. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM Seren_Dept 17:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes please, ticks the boxes for me Victuallers (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT per my criteria: good edit history, good social skills, good knowledge of WP policy. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy user; will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 18:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant contributions to the encyclopedia and excellent answers to the questions. No problems identified. We need more administrators. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A Strong RFA canidate, with a great edit history, and supurb answers to questions. Sea Cow (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've reviewed their contributions and didn't find anything that concerns me. I haven't encountered the candidate on my watchlist or edits, but I respect the judgement of the nominators and other supporters. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good content creator in the classics in the tradition of Beard, Vout et al and would be similarly useful as an admin, in the mould of Adam Bishop. Mathsci (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid contributor. Not seeing any good reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A trustworthy candidate. Good answers to the questions. That they are a great content creator and they want to work at AfD are pluses. Is qualified to put the tools to good use. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just checked out some of their contributions, they are excellent. Great nomination! Gün (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a jerk. Has a clue. Knows how to create, improve, and defend content. Tenure sufficient in length and quantity to reasonably judge candidate won't purposefully delete main page. Has clearly outlined how having extra tools will benefit the project. Plus per nominators and many of the above statements in support. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support great answers to questions and I trust the nominators. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need good admins and this candidate appears to be willing and able to use the tools responsibly. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support good answers to some good questions. Good contributions. Looks like they will do a fine job. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Essentially my ideal for an admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need admins like fish need water; this user seems experienced, competent, trustworthy, collegial, and level-headed, and I trust them with the extra buttons. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 23:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has the right background and the right attitude. Will do well as an admin. Schwede 66 02:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support no red flags, good content creator, seems very balanced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while I don't see strong inclination to use the tools per Q1, you will able to help in someway as you clarified your response to Q11. We also need more admins, so good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good content creator and handing deletion of articles. Thingofme (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's about four-five months since the last admins, and you show a good reason for the tools. Thingofme (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support—No reason not to. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, user appears to have clue. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers to questions. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, finally remembered to recheck and convinced by several of the comments -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, user has made many fine contributions, answers to questions are also good -Kpddg ^(talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't see any reason to oppose, and we need more admins. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what has been pointed to on this page and what I've looked at myself, Modussicandi seems to be considerate towards others, to have a careful attitude towards powerful tools, and to be open to feedback. PJvanMill)talk( 15:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems thoughtful, civil, and willing to ackowledge mistakes. Rusalkii (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: strong content creation, great knowledge of PAGs and community norms, solid answer to questions and a very professional attitude with no temperament concerns. My only concern is that they went to The Other Place. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to not support after going through their answers above. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support no issues - has a clue - good attitute. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. Mkdw ^talk 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good editor, I would trust them with the tools, more than happy for them to become a sysop. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a fine addition to our team. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Involved with several areas of the project and good tone on talk page interactions. Loopy30 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy editing--IAm Chaos 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing I can see to preclude giving Modussiccandi the mop, and that's what we're looking for. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a jerk, has clue, and the answers to questions show maturity and make me confident they will be a positive for Wikipedia as an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Don't usually vote in runaway RfAs where I don't know the editor, but this is someone who reads Columella. Must have good sense. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. --Ferien (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Understands what he's here for. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see any problems that would put me off supporting. Pahunkat (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms – Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 01:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support + clue; if you like G12s, you could always try RD1s :) Sennecaster (Chat) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues, like the content contributions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pile on support. - tucoxn\^talk 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- an experienced editor with no issues I can see that can make of a bad admin. Gerald WL 03:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not a jerk, impressive editing record, well-reasoned responses to questions. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 06:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not familiar with the candidate, but the rave reviews of them by highly trusted and experienced editors above are convincing enough for me to support their candidacy. Java Hurricane 07:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't know the nominee nor their work, but I don't see a single negative comment either. Seems to be a very solid and capable candidate. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns EN-Jungwon 13:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great candidate. Real easy choice. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye – Reasons in chief: (1) having perused a subset of the last several discussions he's participated in, the candidate's AFD participation and !voting reflect a strong mind for the application of content policy, particularly GNG and various SNG, a perception enforced by (2) the candidate's superb track record for peer-reviewed content creation (FAs, GAs, DYKs), (3) the candidate's thoughtful, articulate answers to the questions posed here (particularly Q5, Q9, Q15, and Q19, which demonstrate to me a clear aptitude for thoughtful deliberation), and (4) the candidate's level-headed, cordial interaction with other editors, even in instances of disagreement (this discussion being a fine example). If there are material concerns, they are not evident to me. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per other users I greatly respect in this section. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate the answers to the questions and don't see any issues. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any red flags. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I do not remember crossing paths with this editor, and per nominations. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Adumbrativus (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very good editor,definite net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Impressive work so far, and no reason to suspect it wouldn't continue. jp×g 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems competent in CSD and RD1 areas, given NPP experience. eviolite (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
—⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per Tyrol5's points above. It's always good to see strong content creators get the mop as well, and I think that Modussiccandi represents the best Wikipedia has to offer. Nomader (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having not interacted with this editor personally nor fully reviewed their contributions, my opinion may not be particularly valuable. However, the candidate meets my simple RfA criteria, and I have not observed any problematic issues in their contribution history. That's more than enough for full support. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support because majority vote~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Struck as a duplicate !vote. 00:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has a clue, not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support knowledgeable editor —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support well rounded editor with a clear need for the tool. Neovu79 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for concern. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Angry Harpy‍^talk 19:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Purely on the well constructed responses to questions. Though, I'm not sure I agree with the response to ~~Q14~~Q15. One well argued delete !vote versus many "non-argued" keep !votes should be sufficient to delete. However, not an unreasonable viewpoint and differences in the application of policies is what makes the world go round (don't believe that "fake news" momentum explanation!)--RegentsPark (comment) 21:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: I feel a little silly posting this with 3 hours left and a non-opposed RfA, but I assume you mean Q15? And yes, AfD would be boring if there weren't some valid policy disagreements! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quality editor, no concerns from me.♠JCW555 talk♠ 02:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support overdue to be honest. Gizza (talk • voy) 04:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong content contributions, no red flags that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have never commented on an RfA before, but I felt compelled do so here. I first encountered Modussiccandi when he nominated the classicist R. A. B. Mynors at FAC. After a lot of positive comments from others, I waded in and suggested some quite significant additions were needed to make it comprehensive. Modussiccandi would have been quite justified in being rather miffed at my late intervention, but he handled my comments with a patience, politeness and professionalism that is all too often lacking here. He withdrew that nomination, opened a peer-review process, discussed the issues with me and worked out a solution which incorporated my suggestions without unbalancing his otherwise excellent work. I was happy to support when he renominated the article later (and indeed that article was given its well-deserved star soon after). In my subsequent interactions, I have found him to be only courteous and kind. Matched with the exacting standards he has shown in both his AfC and content-editing, these traits will no doubt stand him in excellent stead to be a fair, patient and constructive administrator. Will I cannot comment about his suitability for the more technical tools that come with the mop, I felt compelled to add this support for those reasons. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Support Great nomination and I would welcome more admins keeping an eye on the NPP area Josey Wales^Parley 15:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Less Unless (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid editor. Will make a good addition to the admin corps. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any pressing issues which would cause me to oppose. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms. — Ched (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Solid candidate. Good luck! :) — sparklism ^hey! 09:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination is solid. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yay!!! Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support − I don't think I have encountered Modussiccandi, but what with the excellent manifesto, above, and the support of several editors I particularly admire I have no hesitation in adding my, by now rather superfluous, support. Good luck with the job, Modussiccandi! Tim riley talk 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Support. Seems like a great candidate. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good candidate for mop. Tolly 4 bolly 03:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congrats! – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has all been said above; great candidate. Glad to get my support in before the deadline. (Pushing for 200 supporters.) Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~SS49~ {talk} 08:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, why not? Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservation. Seems to have broad experience, covering content creation and behind the scenes. No red flags. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be a perfectly qualified candidate with no issues. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom. Well qualified and a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

~~Awaiting responses to a few more questions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutral, leaning oppose. I have two criteria for any RFA candidate: trust that they won't abuse the tools and a need for the tools. The supporting comments above and a quick skim show me that the first of those, trust, is clearly met, and you are a trusted editor with a long track record. I however, at this moment, do not see a clear need for the toolset. You mention in deletion in Q1, but with no AFD closes, a small amount of CSD's and no PROD's since November 2021 I at this point don't see you involved in any parts of the deletion processes which require the toolset. With no other areas you'd want to use the toolset in evident in your nomination from my reading I'm forced to regretfully conclude you don't meet the need part of the criteria. I'm placing this in the Neutral section for now, because I'd be very happy if someone can convince me you do have a proven need, but otherwise I'm going to need to regretfully oppose this nomination. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reiterating that the community often disaproves of non-administrator closes at AfD. They have also stated they'd want to work on DYK, where there is a need for tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~pending further questions. -- lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 19:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

moved to support

Wanted to support, but the pledge to be open to recall made me lose trust in the candidate. Reluctantly neutral. Hipocrite (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipocrite Could you explain why being open to recall makes you lose trust in the candidate? I am personally open to recall even though I had an unanimous and recent RfA. This is because I want to try to be as acountable as possible to the community even though I know the recall process is far from optimal. In my opinion this is a positive attribute for a candidate and would for me be either neutral or mildly positive on my willingness to support. --Trialpears (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Further, the history of recall demonstrates that when a pledge to be open to recall is made in an RFA, and it is the difference between passing and failing, the candidate is unqualified. People should stop asking about recall, and candidates who are informed about what they are pledging would never promise to be open to recall. As such, a pledge to be open to recall is either dishonest or uninformed, both negatives. If not for the fact I came to support, I would oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this viewpoint strikes me as rather cynical. While it's true that being open to recall is a very subjective pledge, and I have seen at least one administrator refuse to resign after their explicit recall conditions were met, I've also seen at least three who did follow through and resigned following a successful recall (one of whom subsequently regained adminship). In general, I like people who are willing to be held accountable for their actions, even if their idea of demonstrating said accountability is by signing up for an arbitrary and unenforceable process of their own volition. Those are the types of people who I want to see as administrators. If someone doesn't ultimately follow through, then that is a reflection on their own lack of integrity, not on the concept of recall itself. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extremely cynical viewpoint; people can truly care for the community & value their opinion rather than doing it ad captandum vulgus. What puzzles me equally more so is that they trust the candidate, yet apparently not enough to believe they accepted the concept of recall not trying to win public support. 0qd (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am completely open to recall. I believe I know what that means. I guess that leaves only the one other option. valereee (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am misunderstanding what AOR is, it bewilders me as to why someone would be against an admin candidate being for AOR. Whether the motivation for AOR is sincere or simply "ad captandum vulgus" is irrelevant. The candidate is willing to accept accountability. Would it be better he/she not want to be held accountable? This is a moot point, as this RfA is already well in the bag; I'm sincerely just curious. Maybe I really am missing something. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hipocrite in principle, but I think it's a lame reason to oppose, and also that it is perhaps even more pointless to badger a neutral commenter in an RFA that is obviously going to pass regardless. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People should look through Hipocrite's past RfA votes, they're extremely consistent in applying this silly rationale (see e.g. my comment here), there's no point in talking about it. --JBL (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it's a reasonable stance; I just happen to not place as much importance on this as Hipocrite. We already have methods of holding admins accountable, and historically, arbcom has not been shy about exercising that authority. Being open to recall is like saying, "you don't have to fire me; just tell me to quit." Again, this is not an important factor to me, and it didn't even make it into my own RfA criteria. But I understand. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Panini!, can you clarify that this is a general question about the candidate's opinion on second chances in general rather than a question about when and if an admin should unblock? This is a learning curve issue. No one goes into adminship understanding everything admins do. The candidate has never been blocked, has indicated no interest in working in unblocking, so probably has never even read the unblocking policy, because why would you go around reading policy you’ve never needed? So this question very likely requires the candidate to do significant research if it's about admins unblocking. (And frankly if it isn't about adminship and you've already !voted...) valereee (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I shall; I've clarified. Panini!^🥪 15:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asartea, just as an FYI the 'need for the tools' question was revised this year, so instead of opposing for lack of stated need, maybe ask a question about need? It seems unfair to the candidate, who answered the revised question, to oppose because they didn't answer the previous question. valereee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
valereee have done so already in Q11 (I disagree with that discussion, but thats a different can of worms) -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked where they'd use the toolset. You didn't ask what they needed it for, which seems to be your issue. I would have assumed they needed it to close AfDs, an area where non-admin closes often are looked at squinty-eyed. Not being experienced at non-admin closes at AfD doesn't mean admin privs aren't extremely useful for closing AfDs. I guess I'm confused...if they'd made AfD closes, you'd think they somehow had more need for the mop? That just seems kind of backwards to me. valereee (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
valereee, the candidate has answered Q1 to my satisfaction, but I do not see any backwards thinking in expecting the candidate to demonstrate having some experience closing discussions without the mop before trusting them with it. Maybe stricter than what others would expect, but not backwards. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 19:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Valereee that we have a catch 22 here: we can't simultaneously discourage non-admin closes of controversial AfDs and then also expect candidates who want to work in AfD to have experience in that area. A record of good closes in other areas outside of AfD would be a plus (I haven't looked through the candidate's contributions to see if they have done these; others are welcome to share links), but speaking personally, it's not something I'd require. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the greater concern ought be the candidate's familiarity with, and aptitude for the application of, policy (GNG etc.) in the realm of AFD discussion, more so than willingness to, and aptitude for, camping out and jumping on the rare opportunity for a NAC, cases which demonstrate aptitude perhaps for judging when NAC is appropriate, but not so much the substantive policy at play in more complicated cases. But it is a digression for another time and place. For purposes of this RFA, I would plan to assess the quality and depth of the candidate's AFD discussion participation with an eye towards gauging the appropriateness of granting sysop tools for use in that area, and would encourage others to do likewise. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single opposing vote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus — If it does happen to go on for too long, this could be closed per WP:AVALANCHE. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never going to happen; this hasn't even cracked WP:RFX200 and is still less than half of the record. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac — You’re probably right, as this RfA would probably call in for the experiment to be done in full, or, in other words, to let the snowball run the full course. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not wrong, the record for highest unanimous RfA is held by Ealdgyth—unopposed at 250 supports!!. This one is going pretty well in that direction, comparing to this – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was so much easier back in my day... haha « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007 — Wasn’t registered at that point, but I discovered an RfA in 2004. The candidate had about ~2,600 edits and was about 7 months registered. 18 support, 1 neutral. So yeah, like Jimbo stated, RfA is a horrible and broken process, and our standards are just going higher.

As to @Kavyansh.Singh — This one is particularly special, since there are no opposes or neutrals. So you can technically say this is truly unanimous.

Unless someone decides to break that… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@3PPYB6: WP:RFX200 lists those. Hammersoft's was 233-0-0. eviolite (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eviolite — Good point. There are some truly unanimous ones that have existed before. Thanks for catching that. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more lol. For a while there if you didn't say you were open to recall, people would oppose you. Now we've got to the other end of the spectrum: if you do say so, at least one person thinks you're either uninformed or dishonest. valereee (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball closes in favour are far less common—if I have ever seen it happen around here. If my understanding of SNOW as it pertains to RFA is correct, it's usually to save an obviously-failing candidate further embarrassment with one full week of pile-on opposes. That issue obviously doesn't happen if the RFA is turning out positively. Many successful RFAs do have oppose !votes as well, some of which may even be valid—even if the RFA is ultimately going to pass, it's worth letting the opposers have their say, since it can still amount to constructive feedback for the candidate (unless the oppose was for silly reasons—I think we're familiar with those). § A cautionary note warns: The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time, but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous. (emphasis mine). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts. For the occasions like this where the result seems obvious there is still the possbility (albeit very unlikely in this case) for a skeleton to emerge so its probably better (and even fairer) to let the week run its course, and might even be better for the candidate long term. The other point is the !vote count metric is not necessarily an indicator how "good" the candidate is ... if I was to rate this current candidate on a scale from 0 to 10 I might be giving a score of 8 ... maybe higher .... which relates to a solid !vote. Its also the case a candidate who has contributed in certain areas or more marginal discussions it more liable to end up with oppose !votes, and they might (or might not) be a more useful admin as they are prepared to get involved in those areas. But I'm reasonably certain any admin here who gets 100% is not going to be thinking they are perfect and of higher status than the one who gets through with say 75%. Thamkyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee — It’s no longer unanimous, but still unopposed. It’s really hard to get a unanimous RfA, as that one person will see something, and hold it against you.

As to @k6ka — Hell is definitely coated in snow now, but there is no avalanche yet. Per my reply to Primefac, it still stands — let the snowball run the full course.

Finally, to @Djm-leighpark — Definitely. I never said 100% support admins would be any better than those at 75%, ~~heck,~~ possibly even 65%. Like take a look at this one, it was very controversial, but now the community loves him,^{[citation needed]} and even started a (humorous) WikiProject on him.

So yeah. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so you guys don't about the RfA without any template/transclusion, three-four supports, no neutrals or opposes. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the response to question 9 just a little bit concerning. It implies that removal of sourced content should always be reverted without further investigation. There are numerous reasons that sourced content should be removed: it is irrelevant to the article it is in, the source is unreliable or just downright wrong, it is an edit by a banned user in contravention of their ban, the source is reliable but has failed verification, it is reliable but WP:UNDUE detail, it is repeating something described earlier in the article etc etc etc. I would expect the answer to include things like; look at what was said in the edit summary, see if there is a related talk page discussion, examine what the source actually said and whether it is reliable, consider asking the user why they removed it before reverting, take into account how knowledgeable Modussiccandi is on the subject matter etc. Perhaps the candidate would have given a more nuanced answer if they stopped to think about it, but as it stands it looks like a tendency to give new users a hard time rather than endeavouring to retain them. SpinningSpark 14:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question was specifically asked about L. D. Reynolds, a recently-promoted Featured Article which has been reviewed for reliable sourcing and due weight. Modussiccandi was answering the question within the specific context of that article; I certainly didn't interpret his response as a belief that removal of sourced content should always be reverted. DanCherek (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you were looking for the proper response re INVOLVED adnin then, yes, I think you got it. But the fact that the candidate wrote the article does not make the response any better wrt reverting. Worse if anything. It looks like a knee-jerk revert with the assumption "I knew what I was doing when I wrote it, therefore deleting must be wrong". SpinningSpark 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from but I think you're expressing concerns that Lee Vilenski's narrowly-posed question was not designed to address. For instance, I don't see any reason that a concise answer to his question would have addressed edits by banned users. In any case, maybe you could ask a broader question if you have remaining reservations or would like clarification (particularly since candidates are often reluctant to respond directly in this section). DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate has heard my concern and I'm sure they will take note of it in the future after they become an admin – which they undoudtedly and deservedly will. I see no need to ask a contrived question to have the answer I require parroted back to me. SpinningSpark 16:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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