Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Novem Linguae

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

Novem Linguae

Final (232/4/1); closed as successful by Maxim (talk) at 20:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Novem Linguae (talk · contribs) – I'm very excited today to nominate Novem Linguae for adminship. Incredibly friendly and dedicated, Novem has been editing since 2009, and really became active in 2020. His work on scripts and other technical aspects have made life easier for reviewers and content builders alike, for instance by helping bring the WP:Good article reassessment process back to life with the GANReviewTool. One of Novem’s key qualities is his temperament. Even when working in rather contentious areas, such as WP:NPP or editing around the COVID-19 pandemic, he always remains calm, clueful and helpful. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Vanamonde

Novem is an editor with considerable technical expertise and long tenure who I believe would make a solid addition to the administrator corps. He has made contributions to several scripts and tools that materially save editor time, highlighted by my colleagues above. He has also demonstrated an understanding of how content works, with one new GA and a few short pages created, in addition to considerable content-related maintenance work at NPP. Most critically, he has the even temperament and ability to have rational discussions that is the mark of a quality admin candidate. It has been said that a good sign of an editor being ready for adminship is their being asked to run by multiple experienced editors: Novem is the perfect example of that, as I offered him a nomination entirely independent of my esteemed co-noms. I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Lee Vilenski

I hope you'll agree with me that Novem is a fantastic member of our community. They are someone I first came to notice due to the fantastic scripts and tools they have created. Moreover, when getting to know them and their edits it's clear that they know their stuff. Lately gaining a GA, they are no stranger to content work. Best of all, they have a fantastic temperament, a joy to talk to and would thrive with the toolset. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for the kind words. I accept. I have never edited for pay. I have a bot account, two test accounts, and a very old previous account which I have disclosed to ArbCom, and the accounts are listed here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2023 (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: I received some requests on and off wiki to consider becoming an administrator, and I'd be happy to help out. Administration seems like an area where we need more trusted and experienced users. I would probably start with areas where I feel comfortable, such as technical areas, CSD, and RD1. I feel comfortable with technical areas due to my programming background (see question #2 for some of my programming and technical accomplishments). I feel comfortable with CSD and RD1 due to my work with New Pages Patrol and Articles for Creation. Over time, I would carefully move into other areas. Perhaps areas with high backlogs that need assistance. I may also apply for interface administrator, to help publish Twinkle updates more frequently.

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

A: As a technical contributor, I have created around 20 user scripts, including GANReviewTool and CiteHighlighter. In total, I have written over 7,000 lines of user script code. I run a bot, NovemBot, that helps out with things like the featured and good topic candidates process and the RFA process. For software, I am a maintainer of PageTriage (which includes Special:NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar) and Twinkle. For both of these, I have written dozens of patches, I evaluate and approve other people's patches, I do project management such as categorizing tickets, and I respond to bug reports and feature requests on talk pages.

In project space, I am a joint lead coordinator of New Pages Patrol, where I have prioritized fixing bugs in the PageTriage software and getting the NPP Discord server active again (both successfully). I have also participated in the NPP/WMF open letter process, where I attended several video conferences with the WMF on behalf of NPP. The backlog I've spent the most time on is the Articles for Creation (draftspace) backlog, where I have done several hundred reviews, and also rescued some unsubmitted drafts.

In mainspace, I brought the article red team to good article status, and I hope to find time to do additional content creation.

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: Wikipedia doesn't usually stress me out. When it does, I aspire to remain polite, open to persuasion by good arguments, and willing to apologize or self-revert. For example, one time I misread a source and deleted corresponding article text, and an editor pointed out my mistake. I apologized and restored the deleted text. Another time, an editor deleted a personal attack from a talk page, and myself and another editor restored it. The first editor queried me about it on my user talk page, and I decided that they were right and I was wrong, so I apologized and disengaged from the dispute. In another example, I deleted a paragraph with possible sourcing issues, and a consensus of editors on a talk page disagreed with me, so I self-reverted.

---

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 Rschen7754

4. What is your position on WP:NPPCON and the role of NPP in relation to the rest of Wikipedia in general?

A: Thanks for the question. WP:NPPCON is a recently added section to WP:NPP, and overall I agree with it. The ethos of it seems to be to be diplomatic to new editors, which aligns well with WP:BITE. There is a specific example advising NPPs not to keep articles in draftspace if there are objections, and I agree with this too, as that aligns nicely with WP:DRAFTOBJECT.

The role of NPP in relation to the rest of Wikipedia, in my view, is to check each new article for CSD issues, notability issues, and title issues, and optionally to also perform gnoming tasks on these articles (such as applying maintenance tags, WikiProject tags, etc.). In my opinion, this is the current consensus on what review steps should be taken on new articles. While there are editors that have suggested that NPP should do less, for example some editors would prefer that NPP not evaluate notability and only focus on CSD, this has not yet achieved consensus and would require additional discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Sdrqaz

5. Please comment on your speedy deletion nomination of Draft:ABDULRAZAK ABDULMUMIN as patent nonsense (restored; deleted as a test page) and your nomination of Draft:Amna Tanveer Hussain as unambiguous advertising (not restored for BLP reasons; deleted as an attack page). These were taken from your last four nominations.

A: Thanks for taking a look at these. Draft:ABDULRAZAK ABDULMUMIN’s only text is “WIKI IS MY BEST CHOICE.”, which seemed like “incoherent text” to me. However since you’re asking this question I suspect that you may think I made a mistake on this and this CSD should be interpreted more strictly? If that’s the case let me know and I can calibrate. I’ll note that the admin deleted it as a “test page”, but that might not be a perfect fit either.

Unfortunately I do not remember the text of Draft:Amna Tanveer Hussain. I’m not trying to evade your question, but it’s hard to comment on it without knowing the text.

If at any point as an editor or admin I misfire on a CSD, please feel free to point it out to me and I will be happy to calibrate. In general I support interpreting the CSD criteria strictly, and leaving anything too ambiguous to consensus-building processes such as AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

(If I may: The attack, with the attacking word blurred by a typo, was at the very end of the page below the reference section. Everything else looks like a run-of-the-mill badly written autobiography or similar COI editing.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: An advertisement and an attack page should surely be on opposite sides of the spectrum. Administrators must only delete pages when they've read them properly and policy calls for people to read all revisions – I thought that was a bare minimum. I don't think that COI inherently necessitates deletion either. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm also not real sure it is fair to ask someone about a deleted revision from six months ago that they cannot see. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I did what I could with the other page, but I'm not going to restore an attack page. If the candidate expresses an intention to work in CSD, it's highly appropriate to scrutinise their record. They have three administrator nominators that can email contents to them if they want. As I noted above, this was in their last four nominations; if their last few nominations stretch back so far, that certainly isn't the community's fault for carrying out scrutiny. (Having this conversation here seems to confer undue prominence on concerns regarding the question – similar issues tend to be in "general comments" or on the talk page). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have read the draft, as it was when you nominated it for deletion, Novem Linguae. It was written in such a poor attempt at English that it is difficult to be sure what its author was trying to convey, but it starts with the word "I", and looked to me as though it was intended as self-promotion. If I had not read the comments here before looking at the draft it wouldn't have occurred to me to read it as an attack page, and even now, I'm not totally sure that it was. There's a strange remark about someone or other having "kilped" some people. I suppose that may have been a typo for "killed", in which case it was an attack page, but even if it was, it isn't sufficiently obviously so as to justify viewing your deletion nomination as so unreasonable as to cast doubt on your suitability to be an administrator. I am also bewildered as to why Sdrqaz considered it reasonable to ask you to comment on this so much later, when you couldn't see the edit in question. Finally, I am horrified to find that policy requires people always to read every revision of a page for which they are considering deletion. Now that I know that, I will never again delete any page with thousands of revisions, or probably even several dozens of revisions. I have always thought, mistakenly it seems, that in such cases checking a substantial sample of revisions, including the earliest and latest ones, was enough. Maybe someone csn tell me where this grossly unreasonable policy is, since it's one I've never seen. JBW (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

JBW, see the third paragraph of WP:CSD: "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible" and § Procedure for administrators: "Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version". I'm not even asking for that: I'm asking that people read pages properly before tagging or deleting. I already addressed the issue of having a purported lack of access above, but even if we were to ignore that, the fact that these pages were deleted in such a wildly incongruous manner with their tag – and that they were recent in terms of their CSD work – should have been more concerning to the candidate. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Illusion Flame

6. Which Wikipedia pillar is the most important and why?

A: I think pillar #2 (Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view) resonates the most with me. This pillar covers picking the right sources, citing sources so that things can be verified, and getting the WP:WEIGHT of an article right. In my opinion, the combination of these things is the secret sauce to writing a fairly accurate encyclopedia article. Knowing how to evaluate reliable sources ensures that we are using accurate knowledge. Citing sources allows parts of the article and their corresponding sources to be discussed objectively, instead of article prose just being a free-for-all of editor’s opinions. Trying to present ideas in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources (WP:WEIGHT) helps ensure that we cover all mainstream ideas, and downweight or omit WP:FRINGE ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from MPGuy2824

7. What article have you found to be your biggest Wiki rabbit hole?

A: I think my good article red team has been my biggest Wiki rabbit hole so far. I decided to write it by surveying the most popular red team books, then I let the content of the books determine what I wrote about. I ended up reading two complete books, and pieces of two more books. This kept me wiki-busy for a month or two, including giving me lots to write on my recent flights to Europe and back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Joe Roe

8. According to XTools you have created 9 articles and patrolled 139 new pages. Do you think this limited experience "in the trenches" has impacted your work as an NPP coordinator? Do you think it would impact your work as an admin?

A: Thanks for the question. I believe myself to be a competent NPP reviewer. I think I have closer to 213 reviews rather than 139 (the patrol log and the page curation log are slightly different). In addition to the 213 new pages and new redirects I have reviewed (which does not count pages that were CSDd or PRODded), I also have 186 entries in my CSD log, I’ve participated in a thorough 3-month NPP school, and I have several hundred AFC reviews (it’s hard to say how many due to draft deletions and the relatively recent implementation of AFC userspace logs, but I’d estimate around 500). I don’t think a review of my user talk page will find any concerning complaints about my NPP reviewing.

I do not specialize in content creation, but I enjoyed creating my first good article, and I hope to continue building my article writing skills. I believe that an admin should be well-rounded, and that having familiarity with content creation is beneficial in numerous ways, and I am doing my best. I am aware of the essay User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content and I agree with its principles. I will be careful and go slowly in admin areas involving content creation.

I do not believe that either of these stats would impact my work as an admin in a negative way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from NinjaRobotPirate

9. When should an IP address be indefinitely blocked? When should an IP address be hard blocked?

A: In regards to the duration of IP blocks, I’ve noticed that we are not supposed to block IP addresses for very long. I would imagine this is because multiple users can sometimes share an IP. For example, every user at a school, library, or apartment complex may be sharing the same IP. Therefore I have noticed that IP blocks for behavior are usually kept much shorter than equivalent username blocks. But back to your question, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#IP address blocks, IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely. I do not plan on indefinitely blocking any IPs.

WP:HARDBLOCK talks about IP hard blocks. It says that they should be applied in cases of very high levels of vandalism/disruption from throwaway accounts connected to an IP address, or in the case of open proxies and Tor nodes. It looks like IP soft blocks rather than IP hard blocks are the norm for IP blocks involving poor behavior, and I will be sure to default to IP soft blocks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from KoA

10. Awhile ago at AfD you voted to procedural keep an article, but it had consensus that it did not meet notability requirements, was deleted, and many superfluous arguments (including "procedural keeps") had to be discarded.[1] In situations like that, how would you go about assessing consensus in terms of WP:!VOTE and especially WP:NOTBURO policy?

A: Thanks for the question. The AFD you linked is a fairly complex set of AFDs. I re-read the second and third nominations just now. To summarize, the second AFD occurred, closed as no consensus rather than relist, then someone immediately nominated it again about two days later. In this third AFD, the minority !voted “procedural keep” with the rationale that this was too quick to renominate, and the majority !voted delete, citing notability problems. I !voted procedural keep. The closer closed it as delete, and stated in their close that they discarded all procedural keep arguments.

I think this was a reasonable close and the correct close here. The delete !voters provided plenty of discussion about the notability of the article, enough so that a closer could form a good consensus about whether the article was notable or not. Fundamentally, AFD is about discussing notability. However, if there had ended up not being enough discussion about notability, perhaps due to poor participation or a very high number of procedural keeps, then I think procedural keep would be a reasonable outcome.

To answer your question about how I would have closed it, I think I would close it similarly. My philosophy on closing is to attempt to summarize the discussion, with adjustments for Wikipedia policy and strength of argument. If a closer has a temptation to do anything except summarize the discussion and then weigh the arguments within the lens of Wikipedia policy, they should not close it and should !vote instead, to avoid WP:SUPERVOTEing. By the end of the above discussion, the consensus to delete was very clear, both numerically and in strength of argument. Because of this, I don’t think this specific AFD is a case where we would need to invoke WP:NOTBURO. I hope that sufficiently answers your question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

10A. Thanks. For my followup I asked about WP:NOTBURO policy because that's what your !vote essentially was running into at the AfD (i.e., procedure over a very clear notability problem at that point in the AfD). Everyone messes up on occasion, but I thought this would be a good example to illustrate how you navigate assessing a dispute whether it's behavior or content. I was mainly asking how you would avoid a repeat of your !vote as an admin (e.g., a "vote" among admins at WP:AE). In other words, if you come into a conversation at AfD, ANI, etc. in an admin role, what would your process in the conversation itself be (not necessarily the close) for making sure you are addressing the core issue and not missing key details? KoA (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@KoA: it may be better to format this into question 10A, to avoid threaded discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. KoA (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A: Thanks for the follow up. It seems to me that admin decisions are often more high-stakes. I would strive to be more careful in my admin decisions than I would be in a normal discussion. If I had any doubts, I would read relevant policy pages, use talk pages and discussion, and consult with experienced admins. To help gather information and make sure I am not missing important issues, I would politely ask questions. I would be especially careful at places like WP:AE and WP:ANI, and with blocking in general. A bad block will destroy the motivation of a good editor and will cause drama, and no one wants that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from The void century

11. It sounds like you've contributed more to the technical tools of wikipedia than editing content. Can you provide some examples of how admin permissions would allow you to do more with technical tools?

A: Thanks for the question. While “technical” admins are awesome and I can think of several examples of very competent and drama-free technical admins, I feel I am more well-rounded than that. For example, I have around 35,000 edits, and 41 percent of those edits are to mainspace, so I am no stranger to “editing content”. I discuss what I’d like to do in non-technical areas a bit in my answer to question one if you’d like to take a look.

With that said, I do think the administrator toolset would be useful for various technical tasks. Some potential technical tasks that come to mind are full protected edit requests of MediaWiki namespace pages, the spam blacklist, the title blacklist, the image blacklist, edit filter management, template and module editing, and applying for interface administrator so that I can edit gadgets and deploy Twinkle updates more quickly. I am not experienced in most of these specific areas yet, but I am confident that I could learn them. When learning a new area, I would of course be careful, read the documentation, use talk pages, and get second opinions from specialists as needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Novem Linguae: Novem Linguae (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Novem Linguae 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. Sure, good candidate etc. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
2. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
3. As co-nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
4. I do not see any issues--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
5. I think Novem Linguae will make good use of the tools. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Hands down one of the best - need many more like him! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
7. Strong support exactly the kind of candidate we need. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
8. Support as nom. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
9. Support for the same reasons laid out by the nominators. Novem will make a great admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
10. Sure, good editor, no problems. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
11. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
12. Support top geezer Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
13. Support net positive! Tails Wx 21:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
14. Done more for the project than I ever will, of course I’ll support! The Night Watch (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
15. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
16. Very competent technical editor. Would be a net positive if given the tools. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
17. Support - I've only had positive interactions with the candidate and, per the nominators, think that giving him the tools would be beneficial to Wikipedia. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
18. Honestly thought they were already, honestly think they should be now. Solid support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
19. Support good luck! Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
20. Support with gratitude. Folly Mox (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
21. Support obvious support, in my opinion should have been nominated a long time ago! --Ferien (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
22. Support - of course. Excellent candidate.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
23. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
24. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
25. I do not see any issues Sobhanjahanpanah (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
26. Support Would make good use of the mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
27. LGTM -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
28. Support Good editor, thank you for creating those user scripts! Good luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
29. Support thanks for volunteering your time with Wikipedia jengod (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
30. Support After reviewing this editor's last 250 edits they appear level headed, friendly, and sensible. Though as usual I’m shocked, shocked by a lack of interest in botany. Despite this serious oversight I'll support this candidacy. ;) MtBotany (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
31. Support They seem like they would be a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
32. Support (t · c) buidhe 22:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
33. Support Also I've seen him rv'ing vandalism before, so good candidate :) Sheep (talk • he/him) 22:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
34. (edit conflict) Support No evidence that the candidate will misuse the tools. Good luck! Miniapolis 22:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
35. Support, based on several positive interactions and our need for admins with technical expertise. Certes (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
36. Support: Hard not to like such a technically competent editor who looks as driven as this nominee! Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
37. Support. Novem has been an incredible editor to work with. This is well-deserved. SWinxy (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
38. whole-hearted support primarily due to the deft and constructive handling I observed in the past of a difficult situation that was escalating. We need more of that. Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
39. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
40. Strong support NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
41. Lightoil (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
42. Support no qualms at all--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
43. Clear support. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
44. Weren't they already an admin? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
45. Strong Support When I first started at NPP they were one of the most welcoming and helpful people. We're lucky to have someone like this as a member of our community. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
46. supports++; A great editor and tool developer. My interactions with Novem Linguae have been nothing but positive. Good at wielding a wrench; certainly will be great at wielding the mop! Chlod (say hi!) 00:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
47. Support satisfies my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
48. Support Obvious choice for admin, and it's always good to have another admin good with the technical side of things. I can attest to how useful GANReviewTool has been. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
49. (edit conflict × 2) Support. Well-established editor, deserving of the mop. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 01:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
50. Support excellent candidate. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
51. Strong Support. I pulled up everything in Wikipedia-space that links to his user page [2], [3], then I looked at all his edits on our "noticeboard" pages - about 60+ pages. What I saw was a cautious editor with good judgement who often lead an evolving consensus. I didn't see any evidence of BITEiness. Excels in temperament and judgment - my 2 main criteria. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
52. Support Great editor who can be trusted with the bit. Noah^Talk 01:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
53. Seen him around and I'm glad to Support. Volten001 ^☎ 01:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
54. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
55. No concerns. Thanks for standing! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
56. Support Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
57. Support, snooping around their most recent edits shows an at-least decently competent editor, even with controversial areas. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
58. Support. I’ll be honest, the candidates behavior, experience, and demeanor had me confident they were already an administrator. I was wrong. Let’s change that shall we. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
59. Support, very patient when I broke a script slightly, and very quickly wrote a fix to prevent it ever happening again. CMD (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
60. Support. Quite a fine candidate. Has my confidence. (edit conflict) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
61. Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
62. Support. Very happy to see this; best of luck! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
63. Support. Always very helpful on-wiki, as well as off-wiki (i.e. discord). I'm sure that within a few months of getting the bit, he would be writing scripts to help admins in their jobs. Good luck! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
64. Support Passes my criteria for adminship. Nice work in NPP, great techincal knowledge and also a good content writer. Tbh, I've already thought they had the mop. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 04:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
65. Support oh defo, without any hesitation! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
66. Support – Why not? Graham87 06:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
67. Support - thought they were an admin. Andre🚐 06:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
68. Support Have only had great experiences collaborating with them on various technical areas. – SD0001 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
69. Strong support – really excellent editor. Calm, friendly, with good judgement and great technical skills. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
70. Support - nice. Whenever I have interacted with this editor it has left me feeling good, and it seems this is a common sentiment. I do not think any bad will come of them having a mop. jp×g 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
71. Nardog (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
72. Stephen 11:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
73. Support - Yup KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
74. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
75. Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
76. Support – Solid candidate. Always helpful and pleasant in my interactions. --DB1729^talk 11:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
77. Support. Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 12:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
78. Support Absolutely, 100% - if anything, he is overqualified. Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
79. Support Good woork in their editing, trustworthy and I feel confident in reading their answers they would be a net positive as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
80. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
81. Support, has great knowledge of the technical side of Wikipedia which, while admin's typically are better at anti-vandalism, I think Wikipedia could benefit from another technical admin. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
82. Support affable, and will be a great addition to the admin corps, especially with the technical chops that he has. – robertsky (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
83. Support: Not a clue, has a jerk (anag.) - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
84. Oppose Already is one. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
85. Support: Great candidate, their scripts are pretty useful too. ULPS (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
86. Support: Every time I've interacted with this user, they have been great and helpful. I honestly thought they were already an Admin! BhamBoi (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
87. Support. An active editor whose username has positive associations in my mind. No concerning issues raised so far here. Their content work does appear rather limited, but that's not a dealbreaker. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
88. Support easy +1. HouseBlaster^talk 16:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
89. Support A quick glance through their editing history reveals nothing but positive, helpful edits to the mainspace and talk pages (such as Novem's recent GA review). Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
90. Support I thought he was already an admin. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
91. Support - Trustworthy, helpful and a good disposition. Their work as a tool/script editor has helped to improve many articles. Solid work on NPP. Netherzone (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
92. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
93. Strong support - had great chats with this user at the Hackathon. Full support with no reservations. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
94. Support Dedicated, skilled and clueful editor with great temperament, who can immediately put the admin toolset to use. The relatively mild examples of "conflicts" listed in response to Q3 indicate that there are some areas of wikipedia they have yet to venture into (as is inevitable for such a large project) but Novem's editing history shows that they have the ability to learn, and the temperament to both exercise due caution and to be effective, if/when they decide to wade into such waters. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
95. Support great work with the user scripts, very competent and am not seeing any reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
96. Support I don't see why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
97. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
98. Support only positive impressions from their AfC work. Rusalkii (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
99. Support no concerns and seems ready overall. Skynxnex (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
100. Support, nothing problematic that I can remember and a lot of good admins vouching for them, so I will make it 100! Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
101. Support great editor who has done tons of technical work and can clearly be trusted. Q5 was a tad concerning but ToBeFree's comment reassures me enough. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
102. Support. Competent, trustworthy, no concerns. Maproom (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
103. Support. Someone I've seen around many times, and I have no concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

     Not that this is going to be close, but I want to say that I've carefully reviewed the concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections, and I am still supporting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

104. Support. Everything looks fine here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
105. support per good reasons above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
106. Excellent technical work and excellent attitude and temperament. —Kusma (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
107. Support I have had nothing but the nicest interactions with this user. He takes a lot of proactivity in improving the project, notably in NPP and his collaboration with WMF. Excellent supporting nominations too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
108. Support – I have full confidence in him. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
109. Support. As many others have said, I have no concerns as well. Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
110. Support. 64andtim ^{💬 📚} 22:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
111. +1 I have seen Novem Linguae around in Phabricator and Gerrit, the fact that they have +2 on PageTriage already qualifies them well beyond the requirements for an administrator (since via +2 they literally have the ability to deploy arbitrary code on wiki). -- Sohom (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
112. Support good X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
113. Support Excellent candidate for admin. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
114. Support. I honestly thought he was already an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
115. Support - We need administrators with technical skills and knowledge, or we to give the admin tools to editors with technical skills. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
116. Support - Outstanding candidate all-around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanHannibal (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
117. Frostly (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
118. Support Leijurv (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
119. Support – based on my interactions with Novem Linguae on-wiki, I think he's a competent and level-headed editor. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
120. Support Excellent candidate for an administrator. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 04:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
121. Support. Clearly trustworthy and experienced. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
122. Support I've been waiting for this RfA, Novem is great :) Legoktm (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
123. Support Competent editor. Has some deep technical skills. Enough content creation experience. Level-headed, which is very important for adminship. There are no concerns whatsoever. Schwede66 05:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
124. Support -- Been using their GA promotion tool for a while now. Would be an incredible, level-headed admin.--NØ 05:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
125. Support Outstanding candidate, clearly will use the tools well. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
126. Support: I haven't had a "wait, they aren't an admin yet?" moment with Novem, but I'm sure I'd end up with some soon. I've seen great work at the back-ends of both WP:NPP and WP:AFC. I fully trust Novem with the tools. (This is also, I believe, my first support on an RFA! Just had comments before 👀) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

     Woah, I completely forgot to mention the awesome user scripts they've made. I use several of them – CiteHighlighter in particular is incredibly useful. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

127. Support – clearly qualified to wield the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello — Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
128. I have to admit I was hoping for a more introspective answer to Q8. Lack of experience in day-to-day editing will affect your work as an admin, that's what Ritchie's essay is all about. The important thing is that admins recognise that and stick within the limits of their competence. Novem Linguae's contributions to the coordination of NPP despite limited experience actually patrolling new pages (though thanks for showing me how to get a more accurate count, Novem) was an opportunity to reflect on how that can work in practice, but one apparently not taken. We've seen a lot of 'technical' admins pass through RfA recently, but promises made to stick to the 'technical' side of adminship are easily forgotten. Still, it would be stupid to turn away an eminently qualified candidate like Novem for the sake of balance. I just hope we'll also see some new blood with wider experience in article writing and dispute resolution soon – at RfA and NPP. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
129. Support - More admins is always a good thing.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
130. Support Great candidate with a solid history. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
131. User appears to be in possession of clue. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
132. Support Looks ready and clearly qualified. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
133. Support - Tolly4bolly 10:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
134. Support - Clearly qualified and fully trusted by me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
135. Support - Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
136. Suppprt — per most of the above, and they have a clue & aren't a jerk — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
137. Strong support Based on all of the above plus I have had many opportunities to see them at work and how they interact. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
138. Support Qualified, Novem has the right temperament for the tools. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
139. Strong support: Absolute no brainer of a vote for me. Extremely qualified candidate who I think will be a great addition to the admin corps. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
140. Support Absolutely. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
141. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
142. Support, not seeing anything concerning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
143. Support surprised to learn you weren't already an admin ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
144. sure. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
145. I am glad to see NL take this step and look forward to his work as an admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
146. Support per others. Dedicated, level-headed and qualified. S0091 (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
147. — Trey Maturin™ 16:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
148. Support: a trusted user with a great temperament and skillset who has devoted many hours to the thankless but essential areas of NPP and AFC. Thank you for standing! — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
149. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
150. Support as yet another user who I am surprised was not an admin already. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
151. Support I honestly thought Novem Linguae was already an admin. Given how level-headed he is and the work he does here, it would be a net benefit to give him the tools.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
152. Support Was going to stay out of this, as I don't have any strong views, but the oppose from Rschen7754 has tipped me to support. That ANI thread seemed to demonstrate that Rschen7754 and Onel5959 just don't see eye to eye and should avoid each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
153. Support. I have a good impression of this editor in article space, where we've had some interactions.—Alalch E. 21:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
154. Support, I usually wait for that one oppose when it comes to a no-brainer. Keeps me going. I wish you good luck, Novem Linguae. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
155. Support. No concerns. The oppose votes are unconvincing. – bradv 23:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
156. Support. Seems fine. What I've seen of this editor's work has been excellent, and I haven't seen anything in the discussion that would give me any pause. -- Visviva (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
157. Support. Excellent candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
158. Support DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
159. Support. No issues. My interactions with this editor have been positive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
160. Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
161. Support-- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
162. Support- I am confident the candidate will not break the project. Good luck wielding the mop.   Aloha27  talk  11:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
163. Support — Sure. Why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
164. Support My interactions with the candidate have been positive and I've generally seen good opinions from them. I've not seen the technical background or other areas of experience before, but those give me more faith in the candidate. Soni (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
165. Support Not really familiar with their work, but don't see any problems. Enjoy the mop! SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
166. Support —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
167. Support User does good work. We need people like this willing to be admins here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
168. Support I don't understand the objections to this candidate, so Jno.skinner (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
169. Support Absolutely; has all of the qualities I like to see in a potential admin.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
170. Support. Came across Novem a few times. Has a clue, competent, considerate towards others. This candidacy goes in my "hell yeah" bucket; happy to see it. DFlhb (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
171. Support Solid record. No red or yellow flags. The oppose !votes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
172. Support Without question. Curbon7 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
173. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
174. Support Eminently qualified, and I can attest from personal experience Novem Linguae is fit to hold administrative permissions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
175. Support Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
176. Support. Passes my "I thought they already were one" test. BD2412 T 02:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
177. Support Solid candidate. Good record. Competent. Technically capable.— FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
178. Support - Unequivocally. Outstanding technical ability, strong policy knowledge, and a friendly editor. So glad to see this! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
179. I support this candidate without hesitation or concern. I am certain, from interactions, observations, and personal knowledge that Wikipedia will be operationally improved the moment adminship is confered to Novem Linguae.--John Cline (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
180. Support Graham Beards (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
181. Support overdue to be honest. Gizza (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
182. Support Very importantly, good demeanor, good temperament and good interactions with others. Has more than enough experience. Would expect NL to be helpful when technical ability is needed. Appears to be open-minded and careful. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
183. I've checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
184. Support never seen them do anything which causes me concern. Not persuaded by the opposes, particularly the ones regarding content creation. As Wikipedia matures the scope for new articles reduces and the need for maintenance increases, so there will inevitably be more editors mainly undertaking maintenance tasks. Neiltonks (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
185. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 10:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
186. Support - appears to have a clue. While I am a strong opponent of draftification replacing AfD, Novem's conduct in the ANI thread linked in the oppose section is not concerning and does not sway my opinion here. Anarchyte (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
187. Support, will be a fine admin. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
188. Support, with enthusiasm. A true leader in the editing community, with a dizzying display of capability and volunteerism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
189. Support, LGTM. Drummingman (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
190. Support I thought he is an admin already. Full support, being admin should be easy. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
191. Support. 500 edits in less than a month is rarity. Like Illusion Flame said, I was surprised that they weren't already an admin. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

     It's not a rarity if you're a WP:MEATBOT. Nothing wrong with it, but it bloats the edit count. Some admins have actually made >30k substantive content edits, which is different than semi-automated anti-vandalism and maintenance edits. The void century (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

192. Support – Will be an asset to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
193. Support , definitely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
194. Support mostly because of much faith in the nominators. I did scan Rschen7754's link and it doesn't seem that concerning to me. Their comments were measured in tone and numerous other editors held the same view as Novem_linguae so, clearly, nothing very outre was going on. Abecedare makes a good point about the mildness of the conflict examples but Novem Linguae seems to be a careful sort of person who is unlikely to jump in shooting from the hip so no worries. RegentsPark (comment) 19:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
195. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
196. Support, good experiences with Novem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

     With apologies for real-life-busy that led to my neglectful and belated support statement here, Novem was instrumental in the WP:DCGAR effort. In fact, the task at hand was much more technically difficult than it appeared at the outset, and would have been a lengthy and difficult undertaking if not for NovemBot and Novem's diligence and effort. I almost never support an RFA candidate who has only a GA for content work, unless they are an expert at what they do outside of content work, as well as an example of civility and collaboration, and Novem is that. The GA is also non-trivial, and a fine example of what Wikipedia content should be. Working with Novem on DCGAR was a pleasure, and I apologize for not noticing this RFA as soon as it launched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

197. Support - I see no red flags here, Opposes don't sway me either, easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
198. Support - I reviewed random 100+ contributions and see no red flags here, Support is what user:Istbhrung say. –Istbhrung^Talk 01:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
199. Support No reason to think that this editor would abuse the tools. Opposers are unconvincing. --rogerd (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
200. Support I have frequently seen Novem's diverse participation and work at and around NPP and it has been signally positive, supportive and their contributions thoughtful and considered. A wiser head and one of those people you're generally glad to see coming round the corner, especially when things are getting messy... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
201. Support I vaguely remember crossing paths with NL, and whatever interaction I can remember with them were positive. So why not? NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
202. Support This is a well-qualified candidate, and the opposes are underwhelming. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
203. Support Experienced DreamRimmer (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
204. Will do fine. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
205. Support Clearly has clue. Many. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
206. Sure, why not? Kurtis ^(talk) 13:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
207. Support. Honestly, I had assumed that the reason Novem Linguae wasn't an admin already was because they didn't want to be one. -- asilvering (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
208. Support based on past interactions with the candidate and the state of discussion in this RfA. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
209. Support. Experienced, intelligent, helpful, and technically savvy. Absolutely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
210. Support due to constructiveness, experience, and civility. DrowssapSMM (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
211. Support. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
212. Support. I second the nominators. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
213. Support: This is a terrific, trusted candidate and I'm not hearing anything approaching a reason to oppose. Highly qualified and well experienced. BusterD (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
214. Support – A proactive and dedicated editor. Has helped immensely by creating crucial templates and bots. Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
215. Support per nom and feedback --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
216. Support per noms. I understand Rschen's oppose, but also understand then when you volunteer to shovel that much.... refuse, you're arms are prone to the shoveling motion, and mistakes can and will be made. Otherwise I am unconvinced by the opposes, and find the candidate to have much clue, to not be a jerk, and to likely benefit the project if they have access to additional tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
217. Support. They are friendly, and technically experienced. I also liked the answers they gave. Huggums537 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
218. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
219. Support. An excellent candidate. --Bduke (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
220. Absolute support, but I really hope it doesn't come at the expense of their tech help. My experience with Novem is in situations like User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_12#Crova6 where they are amazingly helpful with those of us who don't fully understand scripts, etc. and use that expertise as a means to improving the tools for all users. Star Mississippi 17:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
221. Support - I have absolute trust in the judgement of the three nominators and the editor a very impactful net positive to Wikipedia through the tools they have created. After looking through the contribs and linked discussions I don't think the opposes are unreasonable, but I do think that Novem Linguae can and will differentiate between their opinions as an editor (especially in the no-win scenario of having an opinion related to NPP) and the consensus of a discussion and the application of Wikipedia policy, which is the important part for being an admin. - Aoidh (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
222. Support Competent candidate, no issues, lots of experience. Plus THREE nominations as well. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
223. Support Excellent candidate, solid editing, good contributions. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
224. Support — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
225. Support. No issues here. Loopy30 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
226. Support I've got no problems with him at all! Oltrepier (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
227. Support --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
228. Support:​ competent and enthusiastic, net positive. However, I would urge them to change the colour of their signature. They are using 'LimeGreen', which is advised against at MOS:ONWHITE because it doesn't meet the minimum contrast ratio (4.5:1) specified by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA. I'm not generally a stickler for rules like that, but I think that administrators ought to take the needs of editors with visual impairments into consideration. Regular 'Green' would be fine. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
229. Weak Support Struck my neutral. It seems like Novem has made important contributions with scripts and they seem like a responsible/friendly person, but like others, I'm concerned the lack of experience would impact judgments. Semi-automated edits aren't the same as substantive edits. However, I'm willing to give them a chance with the tools. It seems like they have good intentions even if they're sugar-coating their stats a little. The void century (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
230. Support - The candidate has nice technical experience and an overall good experience which is needed for being an admin. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
231. Support per Girth Summit. I am a fan of vibrant colours as well, but agree that that particular shade could be tricky to read. Don't worry about past contributions with it (obviously), but do consider picking another shade for future revisions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
232. support. my previous interactions with Novem Linguae have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I share the concerns Joe Roe expressed, except a bit more strongly. I am also disappointed in their reactions here, where they appeared to overlook the policy violations and lack of accountability of the most prominent NPP reviewer. It leads me to question whether they will enforce policy fairly, if this behavior is being tolerated in the process where they are NPP coordinator. --Rschen7754 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

2. After considering the candidate's answers I have moved from neutral. According to their answer to question one, they hope to work in CSD, and RD1. I see only one quality article that they created so I am troubled by someone who wants to work in those areas. Joe Roe has also pointed out in question eight that the editor has minimal NPP experience. The editor does much work in the technical areas and they will not need the tools to continue. Lightburst (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

   How is creating an article necessary to understand copyright deletion? I work in NPP and AFC and have experience in copyright. Yet I haven’t written an article. I personally don’t see a correlation between copyright understanding and article creation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

   Unless I am reading your stats wrong you have been editing for 3 months; the candidate has been editing for 14 years. You are also not applying for a lifetime appointment. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

   Not sure how that’s relevant… I was simply trying to say that writing articles isn’t the only thing that matters when dealing with copyright. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

   A look through Novem's CSD log shows that he has a bit of experience in G12 nominations, with a pretty high accuracy. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

   Sharing Illusion Flame's thoughts here. Copyright understanding obviously is related to article relation but it's actually more that copyright understanding is required for article creation than the other way around. If they've written a quality article, they know what an article should look like. Schminnte's comment confirms that Novem's G12s are accurate. And only one quality article... seriously? How many do you need just to have access to block and delete buttons.... --Ferien (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose has been consistently active for about two and a half years (would expect more experience for an admin). Lack of content creation is a concern. Answer to Q1 is a bit vague as well. Willbb234 17:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

   At the risk certainty of unnecessary commenting on an oppose (!)vote that already wouldn't mean anything...2.5 years of experience (with 37,000 edits in the meantime) isn't enough for an admin? Even the relatively frequently stated modern minimum of 18 months gets criticism for being excessively long. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

   Willbb234 made an almost identical Oppose to Ingenuity's RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

4. Along with Rschen7754, Lightburst, and Joe Roe,, and Willbb234 I cannot support this candidate with their questionable decision making with regards to the policy, as well as their lack of quality content creation (despite their answer to Q1), and their lack of work in the WP:NPP areas of the site (despite the answer to Q8). In the context of the questionable decision making in particular, NL appears to ignore the violations and inculpable behavior that was shown by the reviewer, which all hinders me from being able to want this candidate as a future admin. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

   Err, I voted support... – Joe (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

   Details, details... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral The editor has only written one quality article in 14 years. After that just a few stubs and G7'd creations. The editor only has three DYK's. Their AfD participation is ok - I see a few notable misses. I do not oppose the candidate at this time because I see behind the scenes process and technical work and the editor is nominated by three respected editors; in addition I see that the NPP backlog is now ballooning and the editor is a coordinator. My criteria for administrators is that they protect content and content creators and I feel like an administrator needs to be much more involved in creating quality content in order to do that. Lightburst (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what – "the NPP backlog is now ballooning and the editor is a coordinator", seriously? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

WTF indeed. The NPP queue hit zero in October 2022 and has been kept under 3k ever since – the first time in the project's history that NPP hasn't been chronically backlogged. And Novem Linguae's technical expertise definitely contributed to that. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. That was a positive about the candidate so I added a semicolon and a conjunction. Lightburst (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I too was confused. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm still confused, but whatevs... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the backlog is ballooning because our largest contributor, responsible for roughly 1/3 of all reviews, has not been actively reviewing content over the past week. The editor's contributions to the team are massive, but this is an issue with the NPP team not having enough solid contributors who can fill the void in that editor's absence. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it rare for any editor to have created a GA article? I would be more concerned if they haven't done many high-quality contentful edits in general, but I'm not sure how you assess that. Does anyone have a resource that provides more data in that respect? The void century (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now related to Q10. I am a bit worried about a shoot from the hip mentality from that interaction. As an uninvolved editor up to that point in that AfD myself, even if the AfD was only a few days after the last one, it was pretty clear that there were a ton of superficial !votes and that there wasn't any content actually supporting notability. The topic seemed to have been caught up in drama where no one was actually addressing the core content issue, so that's something I'd hope potential admins/closers would pick up on. Since Novem Linguae came into the AfD over halfway through when much of that had been aired out, it made me pump the brakes a little that they didn't catch that. KoA (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

   I would let them actually respond to Q10 first. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

   I was the one who posted Q10, and the above is the situation that I remember coming across them in. There's nothing here that's "jumping the gun", and that's the reason why I put this in the neutral section, not oppose. KoA (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral I'm on the fence. It would be great to have another interface admin since there are only 11 people with that toolset currently, but I also feel the answer to my optional question #11 lacked some transparency. The candidate said I have around 35,000 edits, and 41 percent of those edits are to mainspace, so I am no stranger to “editing content” but according to xtools, 32.2% of their main space edits were semi-automated. It's unclear to me if xtools is underestimating how many edits were automated, since Novem apparently uses a lot of user-created scripts that might not be tracked by xtools. It also seems like their work to get Red team to GA status was very recent, almost like they were doing it to check off the box for this RfA. It's great that they're making the effort to gain that experience, but I'm not totally decided on if they're qualified to be an admin. I'm willing to hear out anyone who can provide some context that might sway my vote to a support. The void century (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I get that. When looking through the candidates GA, I also thought that it looked like box-checking for RFA. But then I thought, does it really matter? It shows that the candidate can write a GA, which is really all that matters. It shows they are able to create high quality articles. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that people who have concerns about non-content creator admins object because they worry about capability. --JBL (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Not ticking the box, but arising from work automating GA. ie not putting others through what you are not willing to do yourself. GA is not actually a high quality standard: GA approximates our minimum acceptable standard for an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd correct that to say it's the minimum standard for a "good" article. WP:NOTABLE is the minimum acceptable standard for an article. It takes significantly more effort to bring an article to GA than to just create an article that meets inclusion criteria. The void century (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

General comments

Extended content

I'm not comfortable clearly falling in one column or the other at this point, because I'm poking my head back into the project and my interactions with Novem aren't especially fresh. That said, I've frequently felt that his approach to Wikipedia is more inflexible/regimented in some ways than I think is ideal, and tends to focus heavily on quantitative rather than qualitative achievements in a way that doesn't well-accommodate how the project functions. It's tricky for me to place how many of these are representative of his current perspectives -- for instance, I had (and still have, if they're still endorsed) qualms with his assumptions in the former why-these-permissions on his user highlighter, which are much more optimistic than I feel justified about all three cutoffs (and in particular totally miss some of the more dangerous LTA kinds of vandalism), but it's hard to tell how endorsed those are at present. I note User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter still tries to track MEDRS, which source highlighters really aren't well-equipped to track. Having said that, I really appreciate his recent work at GAR in particular. Vaticidalprophet 21:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) I'm trying but struggling to understand this comment. How does a disagreement on text highlighting in a userscript relate to the candidate's suitability for adminship? Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) I wrote out a longer reply, but decided I couldn't write anything that both clearly explained my contention and wasn't amenable to misinterpretation, so I'll just sit this one out. Vaticidalprophet 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• I wonder why Femke is a nominator, when two admins are nominating as Well. Quite innovative 💡 👌 SN54129 21:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what your point is, but Femke is an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's also plenty of precedent for >2 noms; the other two on which I was involved come to mind, but I seem to recall a discussion with more than five noms. I'm too lazy to find it, if someone else wishes to do my work for me I'd be much obliged. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Still searching through archives for more than 5 noms, but the highest I’ve found so far is 4, here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  In recent years I think the record is five, but if you go back further you can get at least to eight, and there might be more I'm not aware of. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I had three nominators and I don't think I ever broke anything, so Novum Linguae's got that going for him.

  Then again, I later got desysopped so there's that.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Oppose because too many people nominated him". That's RFA in a nutshell... Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, where’s a ‘Y’all are funny’ tag when ya need it? Haha! MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Non-admin nominators used to be not uncommon back in the day (my nominator only became an admin a few months after me). Anyway, not "innovative" to have non-admin noms, but "back to the roots" :) —Kusma (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just a note (not all that important) but all three noms are admin. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, we know. This is referring to the above discussion where @Serial Number 54129 didn’t realize @Femke was an a admin. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Didn't I just realize that too :) SN54129 23:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should install the nominee's user highlighter script so you can instantlty see who is an admin.... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox Thanks; this does for me just fine; I don't want my watchlist looking like a Jackson Pollock :D SN54129 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I'm a big fan of User:Mdaniels5757/markAdmins, which doesn't involve colors and lets you pick which usergroups to show. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  If anyone wants a non-admin nominator, it's on my wiki-based bucketlist to nominate someone for RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you should become an admin… - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nominate yourself. Foreshadowing... Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Illusion Flame maybe YOU should be an admin. I would be happily on your side. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. I appreciate the support, but given I have only been here for 4 months, this can almost guarantee a failure at RFA. Candidates are almost required to have 2 years of tenure and at least 20,000-30,000 edits. I may run in a few years (probably at least 3), though. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Awwww. Well, once you do meet the requierments, I will. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would support you if you run. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, thanks! I appreciate that. Honestly, since I haven’t written an article, I think my RFA would almost instantly fail. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  do meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SWinxy (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Non-admin nominators? Yes, I did, and it happens more often than people think. Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• It's rarely appropriate to judge someone entirely based off the comments in one discussion, especially when dealing with ambiguous situations. By itself, time active is a rather crude measure, and certainly a substandard one with all the others available.

I respect those who would like to see more work in certain areas from prospective sysops, some things are best learned by doing. However there's simply too many areas for it to be feasible to have extensive experience across the board. No one actually has extensive experience using every tool in the tool-kit, let alone with the innumerable circumstances in which they may be employed. What's most important is humility, an understanding of one's own limitations, and a willingness to correct course and acknowledge error with grace.

Anyway, no concerns on my end. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything you said is wrong. Content creation is the whole point of wikipedia and if an admin lacks content creation then they don't have an understanding of wikipedia nessecary to have the tools. If an admin says that they will work with deletion they need to have plenty of experience in that area, especially as they have tools that aren't accessible to those who aren't admins. Nobody has ever said that an admin needs to have experience in all areas, or if they have then everyone already knows they are wrong. We don't need you to tell us. Willbb234 13:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Content is the overarching aim, but to achieve it, much more needs to be in place: servers, wiki software, content editors, community moderation, and all the procedures that bind all this stuff together. It would be absurd to demand that all website coders and software maintainers be also skilled copywriters or community moderators, and vice versa. We all have various strengths and preferences, and here the candidate's strength is the IT aspect of Wikipedia. To me, your insistence that admin rights should always go with content creation expertise suggests that you don't (yet?) grasp how the Wikipedia project actually works. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. You might give a police officer a gun, but would you give the call handler a gun? Here's my point, why are we giving the admin tools, which include the ability to delete an article or to add or remove protections, to someone who doesn't have experience in producing or reviewing content just because they have experience in related, but still different areas? To me, your insistence that content creation is of little relevance in RFAs suggests that you don't (yet?) grasp how the Wikipedia project actually works. Willbb234 18:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The answer is, because admin tools are bundled together, which is actually a limitation in the MediaWiki software (one that underlies Wikipedia). This has been discussed ad nauseam. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

...it is absolutely not a technical limitation in MediaWiki. Legoktm (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree with @Kashmiri here. Maybe it’s you that doesn’t yet understand how the project works. You don’t have to have written content to be able to delete/protect pages and block users. There’s no correlation. While it may be helpful to show experience on certain areas, it isn’t necessary in my mind. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame: nice work on not reporting me to ANI again. That's what we call progress :) Willbb234 20:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your sarcastic and passive aggressive remarks. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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.