Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
DanCherek 257 0 2 100 Open 19:22, 9 August 2022 1 day, 3 hours no report
Current time is 15:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
DanCherek 257 0 2 100 Open 19:22, 9 August 2022 1 day, 3 hours no report
Current time is 15:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page

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

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

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Wugapodes RfB Unsuccessful 16 Jun 2022 136 39 7 78
Lee Vilenski RfB Successful 15 Jun 2022 158 6 2 96
Tamzin RfA Successful 3 May 2022 340 112 16 75

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

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll. If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 15:51:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


DanCherek

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (257/0/2); Scheduled to end 19:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

DanCherek (talk · contribs) – DanCherek is a consistently excellent editor and one I am very happy to nominate for adminship. Friendly and knowledgeable, Dan is a strong force in the anti– copyright violations field with over 16,500 reviews at Copypatrol and is one of the most frequent requesters of RD1 revision deletions and G12s. Dan is also a regular at contributor copyright investigations, and consistently offers help to those asking questions about copyright at noticeboards and his talk page. Aside from his work in the copyright arena, Dan is a prolific content creator with a featured article, a featured list, 15 good articles, and over 70 did you know hooks. Dan is also a frequent face at the Resource Request, processing several requests there, and is always willing to collaborate with others. DanCherek is a skilled editor with a good attitude and temperament– I have no doubt he will be a great administrator, and hope the community feels the same. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I am happy to co-nominate DanCherek for administrator. He's been active on Wikipedia as a content contributor, working on promoting articles to GA status and participating at DYK, and has a Featured Article as well. At CopyPatrol, he's at the number three spot on our all-time leaderboard, and has been tirelessly clearing the bulk of the reports for many months now; and he has some experience with other back-of-house tasks as well. He's a good and patient communicator, has a steady temperament, and has a clean block log. I think he's a great candidate. — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to Moneytrees and Diannaa. I have never edited for pay. A decade ago, as a minor, I made several trivial copyedits from a previous account. For privacy reasons, that account (to which I have since lost access) has been disclosed to ArbCom and my nominators. DanCherek (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I have immensely enjoyed editing Wikipedia and I'd like the chance to continue contributing to the community in this additional capacity. More specifically, I've worked on copyright cleanup on Wikipedia for over a year – primarily assessing reports at CopyPatrol and occasionally clearing out CCI cases – and that often results in requests for revision deletion (RD1) or speedy deletion (CSD G12). Having the ability to carry these out myself and to fulfill others' requests would be extremely useful. Based on my past experience with additional areas of the project such as counter-vandalism, I'm also interested in helping out with evaluating requests at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and other speedy deletion categories.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I love writing on Wikipedia about topics that are interesting to me (and hopefully others), and I am particularly proud of a couple of the articles that I've created or expanded. I really enjoyed working on A Beautiful Crime, a featured article for which I received the Four Award; it appeared on the Main Page as the TFA on January 29, 2022. I've also helped promote a featured list (List of awards and nominations received by Jake Gyllenhaal) and various good articles such as Chaconne in G minor, The Old French Tristan Poems, and W. Sterling Cary. (A big shout-out to the reviewers whose feedback helped get those articles to their current states!) Additionally, I am glad to have been able to use my institution's library collection to fulfill hundreds of source requests at the Resource Exchange, since I know that sometimes a single source can make all the difference for a given article.
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: Working in copyright cleanup on Wikipedia can be tricky. It requires nuance because you are primarily interacting with good-faith contributors – editors who are trying to make articles better but who may not be familiar with certain aspects of Wikipedia's copyright policy. It's perfectly natural for one to feel frustrated when their edit is partially or wholly reversed, and I think that being able to recognize and empathize with that kind of reaction is a good starting point for de-escalating conflicts that may arise. In such situations, I will also double-check my work, recognizing that I am far from perfect and, like everyone else, will make mistakes from time to time. If that happens, it's important to apologize and self-revert if needed. In general, I don't find myself getting stressed over Wikipedia, but I've learned that taking a break and spending a few hours doing real-life things, away from the computer, is often helpful for regaining perspective on editing disputes or other tense situations.

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 Idoghor Melody
4. I have already supported this RFA, but let me ask. Would you ever block an Administrator when necessary? And would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking an editor who isn't an admin? If not, what would you do differently?
A: Thanks for the question. With an expanded toolset, administrators are in a position of community trust and are held to the same expectations that apply to non-admins, plus a few additional important ones. So while I think there is a reasonable expectation that an admin should not be engaging in block-worthy activity, they don't get some kind of special immunity if they are. All that being said, I want to emphasize that I plan to start slow if this RfA is successful, and any blocks I place in the near term would likely be of the AIV/UAA variety.
Optional question from Toadspike
5. What are your thoughts on voluntary recall processes, and will you hold yourself to any? This question seems almost obligatory at RfAs now and I'm surprised no one has asked.
A: I appreciate the question. Yes, I would be open to recall. I think the sample process makes sense and would be willing to have that, or something similar, outlined on my user page if this RfA is successful. But, you can't really talk about recall without acknowledging the fact that there hasn't been a successful recall petition in a decade (if I "recall" correctly). Some are opposed to such a non-binding commitment, which isn't an unreasonable perspective. In almost all cases where an admin has really messed up, they'll either acknowledge it and offer to resign the tools upon a simple request, or they'll dispute it and it probably gets taken to WP:ARC. The recall process attempts to be a middle ground, but it's easy to see why some skeptical editors feel that it is redundant to either of those outcomes. More important than this debate over recall or not: as an administrator, I would do my best to use the toolset carefully, and to listen and respond in good faith to any concerns that are raised on my talk page or elsewhere.
Optional question from CollectiveSolidarity
6. You have already met 8/10 points out of my criteria, but I would like to ask you : What was your biggest mistake made while editing? And what did you learn from it?
A: Thanks for asking! Recently, I felt pretty bad when I made specific commitments to improve certain articles for The Core Contest and a featured article review (these were happening at the same time), and then made far less progress on each than I had hoped for, due to a combination of real-life things and poor time management on my part. Though I know we're all just volunteers, giving up on those felt like a letdown to myself and others who had offered kind encouragement or advice for those projects. Going forward I am being more careful about what I take on, and more generally about balancing various things that are going on, because it's important for me to try my best at following through on things when I say I'll do them and because these commitments can affect others as well.
Optional question from Banks Irk
7. Another editor asked this question in a much more politic way, but the question was deleted because they asked it as an IP rather than logged in under their username. Did you edit under a different account or accounts prior to your current account? Was that account blocked for any reason?Banks Irk (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
A. Thanks for the question. As I mentioned above in the acceptance statement, I made a dozen grammar-correcting edits in high school from another account. None of the edits were reverted, and the account was never warned or blocked. I haven't directly linked it here because the account contains personal information (like my real name), and so I chose to instead submit the information to ArbCom last year, as well as my nominators prior to the start of this RfA. I will also extend the offer to share the details with any functionary upon request. After that brief stint, I moved on to other hobbies, and did not make any more edits to Wikipedia until December 2020 when I registered this account. So, how did I find my way back to Wikipedia? As someone who was interested in various statewide and federal politics in the U.S., I found myself reading Wikipedia more and more in 2020 (a big electoral year) because articles like 2020 United States Senate elections made it so easy to keep track of them. When I signed up, I thought that would be where I would spend the most time editing – and I did for a while, though I eventually got tired of it. A quick comment on edit count, while I'm here, since it was brought up previously: I've never really concerned myself with my edit count, or that of other editors – it's all quite meaningless to me because I can make a single edit like this one which is obviously very substantive (not pictured: the week I spent writing that in the preview window without hitting "Publish changes"), while in the same amount of time I could fire up any number of semi-automated tools and make thousands of easier edits. So having X number of edits simply means I carried out a lot of round-robin page moves recently, or disambiguated a bunch of wikilinks a year ago. I consider those contributions pretty immaterial in terms of the actual ones that I'm proud of, such as the ones listed in the answer to Q2.
Optional question from Your Power
8. One primary role of administrators is to mediate disputes between two or more editors. That said, do you have any plans to spend much of your time in the extraordinarily spicy disputes of enwiki, such as those in discretionary sanctions areas or ANI?
A: I don't really expect to get too involved with discretionary sanctions for a couple of reasons, though I know that there has been a perpetual need for more admins at WP:AE and I appreciate those who volunteer there. Personally, I'm not very familiar with the venue and I sometimes find the discussion structure a little hard to navigate. I don't particularly want to add it to my watchlist, either, and per my answer to Q6, I want to be careful about not stretching myself too thin across too many areas of the project. So while I won't say "never", I will say "not in the near future". I've found ANI useful a couple times as a non-administrator, such as in cases of persistent copyright issues or requests for revoking talk page access. I would continue to try to keep an eye on it, and if I think I can be helpful by weighing in on a discussion or taking some action, I will, though I don't see myself prioritizing it over either content creation or copyright cleanup.
Optional question from Dr.Pinsky
9. Which Wikipedia policy do you believe is most important and why?
A: Consensus – the thing that enables millions of editors of different backgrounds to come together and produce a resource as staggeringly wide-ranging as this one. Without it, Wikipedia would be an incoherent mess, or more likely it would never have been able to take off in the first place. Our treatment of consensus come quite a long way since this 816-word character creation, and it can be easy to get lost in the minutiae, but it's the common thread that runs through every discussion – including this RfA – and helps us get anything done.
Optional question from Wugapodes
10. An editor adds text from a 1957 journal article originally published in the United States, claiming the text is in the public domain. How would you evaluate this claim, and in what circumstances (if any) would you use revision deletion? (I realize this is rather vague, so if you'd like me to be more specific just ask; I'm more interested in your thought process so feel free to give broad strokes.)
A: Thanks for the interesting question. There are a few things I would check for here, given the claim. The publication date of 1957 means that it's not old enough to automatically be public domain based on the date alone, so this needs a more detailed examination. If it was an article authored by a U.S. federal government employee and published by a federal government agency like the National Park Service or the United States Forest Service (for example, any of the articles listed at Treesearch), then they are likely correct. Same goes for government agencies of specific states such as California or Florida. If it's not a government work, then we should check for the presence of a copyright notice; for an article first published in the U.S. before 1978, if it doesn't have one, then it's in the public domain. But I would generally expect there to be a copyright notice for a journal publication. We also need to consider copyright renewal, because anything published in the U.S. before 1964 whose copyright was not renewed is in the public domain. This is often annoying to check but resources like the Copyright Renewal Database can be helpful. (TL;DR: Hirtle chart.) If there is an original copyright notice with renewal, then some kind of copyright is likely still in effect, but it's also worth checking to see if the journal has since released the content under a compatibly-free license such as CC BY 4.0, because that affects how we would proceed.
Hopefully at this point we have an idea of whether it is in the public domain, copyright but compatibly licensed, or copyright and not compatibly licensed. If it's in the public domain, then it doesn't need to be removed from the article, but I would recommend using {{PD-notice}} or a similar template to let readers know that content was copied from the source, and to meet our guidelines on plagiarism. We'd proceed similarly if it was compatibly licensed, adding appropriate attribution in the edit summary and/or with a template like {{CC-notice}}. If the text is copyright and not compatibly licensed, then it needs to be removed from the article and possibly revision deleted. When to use revision deletion essentially boils down to how recently the text was added, how significant of an edit it was, and how many intervening edits by other editors would be hidden as "collateral damage". Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use is the relevant guidance for that. (I am happy to further expound on my thoughts about this if anyone wants to ask a follow-up question.)
If it's a fairly unambiguous violation or non-violation, then it should be relatively straightforward to deal with. For more complicated cases, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is a great venue for flagging potential violations; allowing a reasonable amount of time to get them sorted out, rewritten, or to demonstrate that it's not a copyright violation; and to get the input of additional experienced copyright editors.
Optional question from Weeklyd3
11. (This is optional, feel free to ignore this. You already have my "support" !vote.) Let's say you are an administrator and see an account with a username "Example Company Marketing" adding extremely promotional text to the article "Example Company" that would have been deleted under CSD G11 if it was an article alone. The addition of promotional text is the first and only edit the account has made. Do you warn the user about the username and spamming policies, or do you block the user?
A: That's a pretty clear violation of the part of the username policy that disallows shared use: Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they [...] only describe a particular role, title, position, department, or a group or team of people within a parent organization or group that can be represented or held by multiple people or by different people. Based on that and your description of their singular edit, a {{Uw-spamublock}} seems appropriate in this case – I would want to see not only the username issue resolved, but also an understanding of our conflict of interest and NPOV policies/guidelines.
How often does that happen? Seems like a naive form of paid editing, which is generally surreptitious. I noticed concerns about paid editing have cropped up in the last few ArbCom elections. I thought of posting a suggestion to the Ideas board that known paid editors should be flagged (e.g., special coloration of username), but there was a ton of old discussion to wade through so I gave up. I did find a 2010 quote from Wales (archive #78 IIRC) fiercely opposing any paid editing, but my impression is that paid editing is now tolerated. So my question drilling further into Q11 is: How would you as an Admin deal with paid editing in regard to instant reverts, edit wars, and other gatekeeping? Martindo (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
That kind of username is pretty common. I looked through the recent history of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and found the following reported usernames from just the past few days: "ChSCC-Marketing", "HNB Marketing", "SWCCmarketing", "ReCapturit Marketing", "HG Marketing", and "Everett Sports Marketing". Presumably these are paid editors who are used to signing up with company usernames on other websites and aren't aware that promotional usernames (and promotional edits) aren't allowed here.
While undisclosed paid editing is a blockable violation of the terms of use, you're right that paid editing is discouraged-but-not-forbidden if the paid contributions are clearly and properly disclosed. That certainly doesn't mean that such an editor has free rein to do whatever they want after disclosing. They ideally should stick to edit requests on the talk page of an affected article, and – subject to the usual exceptions of keeping out BLP violations, obvious vandalism, illegal content, etc. – should absolutely not be edit-warring over that article. I think it's reasonable to expect anyone who is being paid to edit Wikipedia to be extra vigilant about adhering to policies and guidelines, and if they are continuing to edit disruptively, well – an administrator's role is to defend the project and the community, not the status of that editor's job.
If I misunderstood your question, please feel free to clarify if you'd like. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Great answer, thanks. Martindo (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from 2nd Ias
12. Is there any advice you would give to users becoming administrators in the future?
A: I don't want to get ahead of myself and start commenting on the process before it's over, but Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates sums it up pretty well. I think it's important for any candidate to have a solid reason for requesting the tools (wanting to be an admin in and of itself is not a reason) and a good understanding of current community norms and expectations.
Questions from Ruwaym
13.How much you consider yourself a global-minded? Do you have any personal ethics to deal with users from around the world who come to English Wikipedia?
A: That Wikipedia is made up of contributors from all around the world is one of our greatest strengths. One of my favorite things to see is the spirit of collaboration at a venue like WP:RX, where people will sometimes ask for sources that can be accessed only from a particular region, and those requests will be fulfilled thanks to other editors who live there! That kind of cross-collaboration benefits our articles and, consequently, our readers. So it's important to support and retain editors of different backgrounds, and that means not only keeping in mind that people might be used to different cultural norms, but also not making negative (or really any) assumptions based on where someone is from.
14. Let me change the topic from diversity of our "flags" to our human being psychology. Do you pay attention to the personality differences of users? You know that Wikipedia is approaching its 20th anniversary, but "blocking" is still the last option. And the most interesting thing is to judge users based on block log, not the number of articles they have written. Can you take a step to change this "tradition"?
A: As I mentioned in my answer to Q3, empathy goes a long way towards resolving disagreements or conflicts, and that includes recognizing that different people can react in different ways to a given situation. An approach that works really well with one particular editor might not be effective at all with another editor, so yes, I try to be flexible and do my best to consider how I communicate with others and how that affects the conversation we're having. I'm not sure I fully understand the connection between Wikipedia's anniversary and your comment "blocking" is still the last option, but feel free to clarify if you'd like. If I can add a quick personal note: while I'm not familiar with your editing history, I see that you've had some frustrating experiences on other Wikimedia projects that you might be alluding to with some of your questions here. It never feels good when we dedicate a lot of time to something that should be fun and enjoyable and then it becomes the opposite of that. A good thing about the English Wikipedia is that what happens on other projects doesn't matter too much for the most part, and what you do here counts for a lot. I'm pleased to see that recently you seem to be settling in nicely at enwiki, with plenty of new article creations and a DYK nomination, and I hope you continue to have better experiences here.
Optional questions from FourPaws
15. How involved will you be within political articles and discussion on Wikipedia?
A: While I registered at a time when I was interested in modern American politics, my interests have since evolved and it's no longer where I like to spend my limited time on the website. So it's not like I go out of my way to avoid political topics, but I personally prefer to edit in areas like classical music, children's literature, and medieval romance, where there are relatively fewer editors and I feel like I can have a bigger impact. Along with copyright cleanup – dozens of new CopyPatrol reports every day and a CCI backlog that stretches back 11 years – that's enough to keep me busy around here and I don't anticipate that changing in the near future.
16. What is your understanding on the left-leaning bias some editors believe Wikipedia has and how may you use your administrator privileges to counter any bias in Wikipedia?
A: I think there are more helpful ways to frame this complicated topic in a way that can encourage more productive discussion. Above, someone asked me which Wikipedia policy I believed was most important, and I responded with Consensus – the thing that enables millions of editors of different backgrounds to come together and produce a resource as staggeringly wide-ranging as this one. In that sense, we should look for approaches to bring people together and figure out how to actually deal with the very real issues that can plague Wikipedia articles. For instance, while the contents of hot-button, high-profile articles with hundreds or thousands of talk page watchers are often thoroughly and painstakingly hashed out with RFCs and discussion, we need to be concerned about POV forks that attempt to splinter controversial viewpoints – of any political persuasion – to a page with substantially less oversight. And if someone is persistently and aggressively pushing a particular POV in contravention of the neutral point of view policy, they need to re-evaluate their approach to collaborative editing or else contend with the possibility of a sanction for battleground or tendentious editing. All that being said, I want to reiterate that the reason I'm requesting adminship is not to work all day at WP:AE or WP:ANI (see also my answer to Q8), but rather to help with the removal of copyright violations, a (mostly) uncontroversial cleanup task.
Optional question from 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB
17. Let's say there is a new editor that is adding subtle copyright violations in the form of close paraphrases. They have been warned a few times, but keep doing this behavior without understanding why it is not acceptable. They do not respond to any messages on their talk page, despite repeated attempts to reach the user. What do you do?
A: First, the fact that they aren't responding at all on their talk page could be a sign of a known mobile communication bug (WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). This can be checked by seeing if there is a specific tag associated with their edits. If we think that the editor is affected by this bug, then they probably don't even know that there are any issues with their edits. Unfortunately, in these kinds of cases where THEYCANTHEARYOU is combined with problematic editing, we can't do very much other than blocking with a block reason that tries to direct them to the right page by including something like "Please see your talk page https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User_talk:Example for more information."
Onto the close paraphrasing concerns. While close paraphrasing of copyright content, compared to a straight copy/paste, demonstrates at least some good-faith attempt at rewording, ultimately it's still not okay if the phrasing is still too similar to the external source. This is particularly true if it's the kind of close paraphrasing I frequently see – a bunch of words simply replaced with their synonyms, resulting in not only copyright issues but also a distortion of the content's accuracy. If this user's edits constantly require other volunteers to clean up after them with rewrites or removals, that's not sustainable in the long run. If a "final warning" clearly laying out these concerns hasn't already been issued, I would do so. Otherwise, it sounds like a block is warranted, given that they have multiple past warnings and no acknowledgments of those. If I haven't already, I would also link to helpful resources like WP:FIXCLOSEPARA and this WikiEdu module on plagiarism and copyright (seriously, it's pretty good!), along with the option to try writing sample content on their talk page or within their userspace with minimal disruption to mainspace, and try to provide guidance along the way. If I'm unsure about any of this, I would of course seek additional opinions from more experienced administrators or at WP:ANI.
Optional question from 0xDeadbeef
18. Retention is one of Wikipedia's biggest challenges. Have you ever regretted about something you did that was related to retention, and what do you think could have been done differently?
A: Thanks for the question, and I agree that it's an ongoing challenge. In early 2021, I was a very active user of Huggle and though it helped me revert a lot of vandalism, there were two or three instances where I inadvertently made a bad revert as a result of going too fast or (in one case) carrying my laptop with Huggle open from one room to another and pressing a key I didn't mean to press when I set it down. The nature of Huggle means that a single wrong key-press can cause you to not only rollback of the edit in question but also issue one of the {{uw-vandalism}} templates on the user's talk page. Of course, I quickly self-reverted on both pages with apologies. But it really struck me how disconcerting it would be for a new user to see a good edit reverted and to be hit with an incorrect vandalism warning, even if both actions were reversed afterwards. Looking back on that, I should have been more careful and less hurried from the start, and that kind of experience was why I eventually wound down my use of Huggle.

Discussion


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

Support
  1. Seen him around quite often and always been highly impressed. I keep forgetting he isn't already an admin! --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 19:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support Per noms. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Aw, heck yeah! DanCherek is a pleasure to work with—knowledgeable, thorough, unfailingly collegial. What a great addition to the admin corps. Thanks for standing! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Very, very happy to see this. It would be great to have another copyright admin around. Thanks Dan for running! Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. A strong overall contributor with the right temperament to be an admin. Thanks for putting your name forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  6. Support No apparent reason to oppose. PhantomTech[talk] 19:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  7. Support 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  8. Support with pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  10. Support - No reason to oppose. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  11. Support, appears to be a quality contributor who does a lot of good. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  12. Support thought he was one already.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  13. Support - Copyright clean-up is an important area and it's good to have an experienced person taking on being an admin in that field. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  14. There are a few people whose judgment I trust enough that I think they should just be able to make anyone they want an admin immediately. Diannaa is one of them. No offense to Moneytrees, who I'm sure is a fine judge of character, nor Dan, who I'm sure would impress me if I researched his contribs. Anyway, looks like it's going to be one of those 200-3-7 RFA's. For added excitement, would you like me to jinx it the way I jinxed User:Tamzin's? Oh, wait, I just did. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, the Floquenbeam curse. A widely-feared hiccup in adminship nominations.[Humour] casualdejekyll 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    WPVA-khamsa.svg Kinehore. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  15. Support - excellent CCI experience, happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  16. Support; superb candidate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  17. Support: Great editor to see and deserves to have the admin mop. NASCARfan0548  20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  18. Support, seen them around--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  19. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  20. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  21. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  22. Support NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  23. Support casualdejekyll 20:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  24. Support a FA, many GAs and DYKs, great work in the copyright area, no concerns. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  25. Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  26. Support as per my co-nomination statement. — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  27. Support Seen Dan around, they've got a use for the mop, and have some impressive content to boot. In other news, I think this may be my first RfA vote! I keep missing them... Toadspike (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  28. Support: Excellent user. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) (Edit conflict x2 by Dylan620 per Special:Diff/1101988538)
  29. Support the users contribution have influenced me to do so.--Noman(Talk) 20:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  30. Support - hako9 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  31. Support — My interactions with DanCherek have been limited to good article reviews, where he has produced some of the finest articles I have reviewed. I am also aware of his excellent copyrights-related work and he should make for a diligent administrator. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  32. Support – more hands are always needed at CCI, and DanCherek is certainly qualified to wield the mop. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  33. Support - Seems generally helpful, and no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  34. Support. I thought you were an admin already! — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  35. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  36. Support per nominators I like the strength of the work with COPYVIO's. Knowledgeable, capable, clear thinking and easy to get along with.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Switching to strong support based on astounding answers to questions I could not have begun to answer. So uncommonly, imminently qualified in so many area, but focusing on one of the areas that need the most help, WP:CCI Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  37. Support - Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 21:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  38. Support of course. Copyright is an area that is important and understaffed. I'm sure they'll appreciate the help! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  39. Support per nom, I can honestly say, when it comes to this user's DYK contributions, I did not know. Andrevan@ 21:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  40. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  41. Support scope_creepTalk 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  42. Support Looks like a great candidate. --Canley (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  43. Support: an excellent content creator and a very valuable member of our project for getting his hands dirty with CCI stuff. He seemingly has endless patience to answer questions and speak politely to people who are (unintentionally) adding many hours to our labour time. A recommendation from Diannaa and Moneytrees is a huge reassurance. When seeing his name around before, I've been surprised at how new he is, though it's now 18 months, which is not so little. If this passes, will it be our first sysop who joined in the 2020s? — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Bilorv, technically yes, although Blablubbs, while having created their account in 2014, realistically only really joined in June 2020. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 23:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)>
  44. Support, one of those people I always vaguely think is an admin anyway based on their work and comportment, so it'll be nice to no longer have to correct myself on that. Plus, anyone who wants to come work at CCI/CP as an admin has my support. ♠PMC(talk) 21:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  45. Support: Absolutely. He's clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and is handling difficulties with patience and class. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  46. I've looked through a sample of about a hundred pages the candidate tagged for non-G12 csd, and haven't found any I disagree with. Not even one that I have so much as a quibble with. That's a better error rate than just about any admin gets. —Cryptic 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  47. Support: no issues; NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 22:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  48. Support. Copyright experience is a huge plus. ––FormalDude talk 22:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  49. Support If I had misgivings, it would be on the order of too soon with just two years of editing, and 100+ edits per day, the vast majority of which are non-substantive, but in the spirit of "first, do no harm", this nomination does not arouse misgivings. When handed the mop, I expect the nominee will use it principally, if not exclusively, in the Wikignomish areas they focus on. So, no worries. Banks Irk (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  50. Strong support Wait, Dan's not an admin? — GhostRiver 22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  51. No concerns. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  52. Support per nominators. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  53. Support for that recall pun. On a more serious note, the more competent folks to help Diannaa at copyright cleanup, the better. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  54. Support per positive experience with the candidate at Talk:Real Estate Bank of Arkansas/GA1. Hog Farm Talk 23:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  55. Support Seems to be a prolific article creator and has several GA's and other awards under their belt. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  56. Support I could have sworn they already were one. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  57. Support PacificDepths(talk) 00:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  58. Strong support LGTM! Chlod (say hi!) 00:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  59. Support will be fine. Good communicator Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  60. Support: Always a welcome sight around DYK – logical, reasonable, and flexible. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  61. Support I considered asking further questions, but don't see the necessity and I would like to err on side of making adminship less of a big deal than it is. Clearly DanCherek is a net positive in both content creation and notably moderation (copyright/revdeletions). Wholeheartedly support! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  62. Stephen 00:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  63. Support 16,500 copyright patrols, that is a very good reason! We need more cleanup on that area! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  64. Support Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  65. Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  66. Support - Can't see any red flags, does excellent work. Will do well. Onel5969 TT me 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  67. Support. 9/10 on my criteria. I actually already thought he was a sysop. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  68. Support Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  69. 69! Erm, Dan is not only capable and sharp, but also, just a chill guy. Which is a great combination. Will be a great fit. El_C 02:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  70. Support BOZ (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  71. Support Ruy (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  72. Support DanCherek and I have crossed paths quite a bit. From experience, I know that he is kind and helpful to new editors (for starters), as well as one hell of a copyright patroller. His CSD log shows that he understands the different criteria and how they are applied. Overall, he is an ideal candidate for the mop— I wish him the best! Helen(💬📖) 02:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  73. Support Great candidate, excellent experience in CCI, AfDs, and GA/FA/DYKs. VickKiang (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  74. Support Experienced and valued content creator and has a good reason for needing the tools. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  75. Support Not a big deal but he is a valued creator who has a long history at patrolling copyrights. Thingofme (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  76. Support Dan is an experienced and outstanding good editor which I think is suitable of being an admin. XYF37 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  77. Support Needs the tools, has shown himself trustworthy many times over, an excellent content-creator in addition to mop-wielder. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  78. Support Seems like he does good work and is well-suited. LemonOrangeLime (Talk) 02:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  79. Support with pleasure. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  80. Support, Experienced editor. Thought already was an admin! --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  81. SupportVersaceSpace 🌃 03:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  82. Support - can't see any reason not to. Been around awhile, made a lot of edits, many of very high quality. Went through talkpage history and came away impressed by their candor, humility, and downright helpfulness, though can't say I read everything. Trusted noms, good answer to questions. Although this isn't a requirement, it's clear that the candidate has purpose in requesting the tools. Wrote Chaconne in G minor. What's not to like? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  83. Support. Seen his good work. Best of luck! Chanaka L (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  84. Support Excellent candidate, no problems that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  85. Support eminently qualified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  86. Support per nom. Liliana (UwU) 04:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  87. Support. Have a huge amount of trust in and esteem for Diannaa, which makes following her lead the right thing for me to do. Only wish we had many more like this candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  88. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  89. Support. --Ratekreel (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  90. Support – has all the attributes that I would like to see in a sysop. Schwede66 05:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  91. Absolutely Seen them around loads, always in a positive light. Girth Summit (blether) 05:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  92. SupportClovermoss (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  93. Support hope you can get 100% support votes because you seen to have an incredible record. Bill Williams 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  94. Support ditto The Most Comfortable Chair - thoughtful, articulate, and respects the people he comes across. Urve (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  95. Finally. Vaticidalprophet 06:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  96. Without a doubt. Dan is one of the most knowledgeable and skillful copyright editors there is, and his content record is superb. – Berrely • TC 07:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  97. Strong support Dan has always been helpful and shown the utmost respect and professionalism when working with others. He will make a wonderful sysop. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  98. Support Worthy of a mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  99. Support Leijurv (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  100. Yep. Mz7 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  101. Support LGTM —MdsShakil (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  102. Support Seems like someone who will do good work with the mop. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  103. Support Very active and visible, and knowledgeable of Wikipedia rules. His good character and/or respect/professionalism for others stands out. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  104. Support Endwise (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  105. Support NytharT.C 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  106. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  107. Support precious, "it's fun to go where the wind blows!", and I love musical inventiveness and empathy also, compare 16 entries on my talk this year --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  108. Support Good choice. Grimes2 (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  109. Support. Excellent candidate who will put the tools to good use in critical project areas. /wiae /tlk 10:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  110. Support. Have positive experience with candidate at GAN and seems well-suited otherwise. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  111. Support♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  112. Support Is extremely helpful, and great at his contribution to the project. Would be a wonderful leader! BevoLJ (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  113. Support Modussiccandi (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  114. Support a strong admin, with lots of contributions devoted to writing quality content and copyright investigations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  115. Support; no negative experiences with this user during the few times I've seen them. Their help with WP:RX and CCI is extremely valuable, and their content creating looks pretty solid. They have my trust ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
    📝 "Don't get complacent..."
    11:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  116. Support; All looks good, thanks for volunteering to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  117. Support- Absolutely. Won't break the project IMO.   Aloha27  talk  12:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  118. Support – sure thing. Graham87 12:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  119. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  120. SupportMaestro Ivanković 12:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  121. Support – Always good to see a candidate who has need of the mop for specific tasks. No red flags as far as I'm concerned. Neiltonks (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  122. Support – Yet another thought they were already one candidate! Face-smile.svgTheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  123. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  124. Support - Always appreciate the good work at CCI and with copyright problems. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  125. Support - Absolutely.PDGPA (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  126. Support. Content creation + work in an understaffed area like CCI is a winning formula for me. I've seen DC around in a few articles and it's all good work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  127. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  128. Support Very thoughtful responses. I especially loved that you brought up the issues with time management as I am sure many of us are in the same position. Also the point about empathizing with good faith editors that simply get caught up in the nuances of copyright policy really resonated with me for obvious reasons. The policies are needed and we have to follow them but most of those that run afoul of it do so in good faith are all, I think, are human beings. They deserve that common respect and dignity. Being kind yet firm is an excellent response to such cases. Great answer. Also, we love you Tamzin and Floquenbeam. --ARoseWolf 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  129. Support. Good to go, ticks all the boxes.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  130. Support — who doesn’t love Dan? R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 15:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  131. Support obviously will make a good Admin, very glad to see the interest in copyvio. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  132. I encouraged Cherek to run ten months ago, considering him a far better candidate than me. I still believe that. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  133. Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  134. Support Tweedle (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  135. Support - Adequate tenure, clear necessity for the tools, clean block log, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  136. Support - Excellent user. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 17:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  137. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  138. Support - per Reading Beans. Femke (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  139. Support. We can always use more people with the tools prepared to tackle WP:CCI. –MJLTalk 18:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  140. Support (as an involved editor) per their collegial attitude below, and their prompt usage of page-mover rights, answering a request after one minute. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  141. Support Impressed with his work at ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  142. Support Seems to be a great editor, especially when it come to copyvios. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  143. Support—No concerns. Kurtis (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  144. Wug·a·po·des 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  145. Support per nom. Great candidate; will be a good admin. – AiGenly (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  146. Support, there's a lot of work to be done in copyright cleanup, the tools will help with that, and I see no reason to believe they won't be used properly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  147. Support: Trustworthy user who will likely make effective contributions with the admin toolset. ToThAc (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  148. Support - I've seen Dan around for a while now, and am glad to see he volunteered. He has the right temperment, is trustworthy, and has skills in important areas. Netherzone (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  149. Support He's patient and helpful, good attitude. I trust him with the toolkit. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  150. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  151. Support with pleasure. We've had a number of interactions, many but not all relating to copyright. Adjectives that come to mind are helpful, capable, knowledgeable, painstaking, efficient ... and quick, too. He has a demonstrable need for the extra tools. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  152. Support. No concerns; seems a strong candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  153. Support Impressed with Q10. Demonstrates a solid understanding of our processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  154. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  155. Support. Great answers with the questions that were given to him by the community.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  156. Support. Haven't yet come across DanCherek, but glancing through their edit history I feel he is an unquestionable net positive for the project. I also like his answers very much, esp. to Q5 and Q9. — kashmīrī TALK 21:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  157. Support. Seems like a good administrator. Drummingman (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  158. Support - Well-reasoned need for the tools, strong trust in the editor's conduct and abilities from previous interactions. No concerns raised so far. Good luck! — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  159. Support - I'm comfortable with the idea of them as an admin. Guettarda (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  160. Support - Looks good to me. DB1729 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  161. Support - Good candidate, WP could always use more good admins. StartOkayStop (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  162. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 03:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  163. Support, seems cromulent. -- Visviva (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  164. Support - amazing edit summary usage and very nice contributions. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  165. Support When an outstanding copyright editor like Diannaa says that the candidate has copyright competence, that takes me about 90% of the way there. And then I took a look at W. Sterling Cary, which is an excellent encyclopedia article and I see that Dan is responsible for the vast majority of the content. Copyright expertise, great content creation, knowledge of policy, a level headed demeanor. That adds up to a very qualified candidate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  166. Support Long and clear history of cleaning up messes on wiki. Very qualified and will make a great admin. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 05:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  167. Support -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 05:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  168. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  169. Support Wait, I thought Dan Cherek was one already. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  170. Sure why not? CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 07:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  171. Support seen him a lot Dhoru 21 (talkcontribs) 09:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  172. Support After a little background check...honestly seems like a solid candidate to me Volten001 09:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  173. Nick (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  174. Support Has long been a sensible contributor. Would make a great administrator. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  175. Support I have no recollection of encountring the candidate. Reviewed hundreds of contributions, all good. No issues. Vexations (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  176. Support, no concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  177. Support, easily and wholeheartedly. I could write a lengthy rationale about how amazing an editor Dan is, and what a pleasure he has been to interact with-- and will, if that becomes necessary-- but it seems unneeded. Suffice it to say that Dan has never been anything short of a pleasure to interact with and has never done anything besides top-notch work, and I have absolute confidence that they have the knowledge, competence and ability to be a great administrator. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  178. Support well rounded good editor. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  179. Support DanCherek has been an excellent editor, he went out of his way to help me achieve my very first GA and has consistently been a positive contributor to Wikipedia. We will all be better off with him having access to the administrator toolkit. Not a jerk, has clue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  180. Strong oppose Asked Dan about filing an RfA in February and got told "not now, thanks". Jeez, make your mind up. ;-) Serious point Without wishing to jink the RfA (cf. Floquenbeam), the only thing I would add to Q11 is if somebody is adding blatant spam to an article via a blatantly spammy username, the chances are reasonable that the inserted text may well be a copyvio and might require revision deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  181. Support Great editor whom I'm sure will make a great admin. No issues here, Good luck. –Davey2010Talk 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  182. Support Looks knowledgable and well-rounded, no red flags. Complex/Rational 15:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  183. Support Excellent candidate. No concerns.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  184. Support An important note is that they indicated that they plan to start with areas they are already well versed in. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  185. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  186. Support without reservation. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  187. Support very well qualified and one of our best (and most prolific) text copyright people. If nothing else making him an admin would massively reduce the workload at CAT:RD1 - it's not unusual for it to largely consist of stuff he tagged. Hut 8.5 18:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  188. Support - FitIndia Talk (Admin/CheckUser on Commons) 18:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  189.  MainPeanut  (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  190. Support Probably the best candidate I've ever seen. Aza24 (talk)' 19:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  191. Support – robertsky (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  192. Support - I'm delighted to support. DanCherek has helped me several times with speedy responses to resource exchange requests, and I've also had the pleasure of reviewing and passing a recent GA nomination by them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  193. Support - Yes, absolutely. Osarius 20:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  194. Huh, count me among those who thought you already were an admin... stwalkerster (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  195. Support Easy call, clearly a great nominee. Hopefully, I will not be expected to reaffirm my support later. Equineducklings (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  196. Strong support Very good Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  197. Support – Communicative, sensible, experienced. Thanks for the work in the copyright area. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  198. Support -- lomrjyo talk 02:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  199. Support Trustworthy candidate, will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 04:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  200. Support Legoktm (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  201. Support No brainer, and God knows we need more admins well-versed in copyright cleanup. Ovinus (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  202. Support. A clear case. This should just be closed early. With masses of support and no rejections - just end it. --Bduke (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  203. Support Cabayi (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  204. I think my timely intervention to ward off the evil eye counts for well more than one support, but have a regular support as well. Impeccable judgment in every interaction we've had, marred only slightly by his decision to request adminship. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  205. Support —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  206. Support Pinguinn 🐧 10:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  207. When I first looked at this, I thought this was an RfB as I thought DanCherek was already an administrator. His level-headed arguments already give the impression of an administrator, and, he already has the administrator's mindset from what I have seen. Automatic support from my part here. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 12:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  208. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  209. Support - seems a very good contributor to be given the tools Kpddg (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  210. Support - Pile-on per other very respected users. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  211. Support - add to the pile-on. All good here. Antandrus (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  212. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  213. Support. Shamlessly piling on. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  214. Support More than enough recent activity and no significant issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partofthemachine (talkcontribs) 22:24, August 5, 2022‎ (UTC)
  215. Support - Pile on support. I've seen Dan around and they're extremely helpful, and the area of copyright could always use more admins. JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  216. Support more pile-on. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  217. Support He answered my questions well. He has enough multifaceted knowledge not bounded. He was able to "understand me" easily who had no talked to me before. This is a really good thing. --Ruwaym (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  218. Support I see no reason not to. Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  219. Support per the answer to Q14. I've never seen anything quite like it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 00:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  220. Support - No concerns from me, good responses to questions and a great overall record. Best wishes, Mifter (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  221. Support - Seen him around, and answers demonstrate knowledge and competence. Yeeno (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  222. Support - I have only seen good things. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  223. Support – I have encountered this editor in both his content creation and being a copyright maven. Looks Good To Me. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  224. Support - Excellent candidate. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  225. Support. MER-C 11:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  226. Support Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  227. Support. Strong content creator with both an FA and numerous GAs. We need more like him as admins. GregJackP Boomer! 14:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  228. Support. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  229. Support. I've seen DanCherek around quite a bit, and I like the responses to the questions above. By all indications he'd make an excellent administrator. --Sable232 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  230. Wizardman 16:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  231. Support Zero concern pile on. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  232. Support :) Sennecaster (Chat) 16:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  233. Support. I am impressed by the answer to Q14. 0xDeadbeef 16:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  234. Support Known for a good while. Good candidate indeed. May he be mopped. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  235. Support trusted user, working in a vital area Polyamorph (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  236. Support Helpful user and good volunteer we do have here on wikipedia. DIVINE (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  237. This should have happened ages ago :) --Ferien (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  238. Support I think he'll make an excellent addition to the admin corps! Happy to support. It makes me wonder about all of the other editors whose work I see every day, and whether I should do more active encouragement for them to brave the RfA waters. This one is going quite well but you never can tell! Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  239. Yeah, I'm up for this. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  240. Support. I'm impressed by this candidate's answers to the questions. No concerns whatever. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  241. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  242. Support Of course. :) Sea Cow (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  243. Support Trusted user. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  244. Support: He has been very helpful and courteous with resource requests! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  245. Support Good noms, seems sensible, I’m happy to trust him with the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  246. Support I look away for a second and we're already heading for 250! :) firefly ( t · c ) 10:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  247. Support: Excellent past experience with him, and it's clear to me that he's very prolific in a wide variety of subjects inside and outside mainspace! Wretchskull (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  248. Support. Lots of reasons, particularly how clearly this nominee distinguishes between different sorts of administrative responsibilities. Good luck, and I expect you will enjoy admining as much as you have been enjoying your other editing activities and participation. – Athaenara 15:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  249. Support Solid answers to the questions, great track record, DanCherek will be a great additions to the admins here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  250. Support - A good editor with a good cross-section of activity across different facets of Wikipedia, and taking a random look through older contribs gives no concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  251. Support Bridget (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  252. Support - Dan has done a lot in less than two years, but I have been unable to find fault. The kind of admin Wikipedia needs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  253. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  254. Oppose so that it's not unanimous. Just kidding. Support per everyone above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  255. Support. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 23:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  256. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  257. Support. Thoughtful editor who will be an excellent admin. DBaK (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral but Leaning Opposed - It is hardly disputable to question the merit and quality of this nominee with a very clear nearly unanimous supportive discussion list. My evaluation is heavily weight by the answers to the two questions I asked so any unconstructive replies to my unpopular opinion that ridicule or emit a snarky tone for this will be pointless. I am satisfied by the answer to Q15 but on the other hand I am not for Q16. While nominee has merely reaffirmed they will remain in cleanup task, the answer remains vague with an initial part towards the metanalysis of the question with a followed routine lip service to POV. Typically, these things follow with the nominees giving ambiguous answers to achieve broad support across the spectrum and then unleash their personal agenda once confirmed. The current SCOTUS rulings demonstrate this phenomenon. Any unelected person with extraordinary privileges over others becomes a promise to not become a peril but sadly too often do these individuals leave their affirmed role. Nominee has not affirmed they won't go back to American politics/politics in general and has only given an unlikely probability citing the large backlog in clean up which is neither a binding condition or evidence of affirmation. It is self-evident that the date by which nominee relinquished his administratorship is unknown. I can not cast myself in support with this risk of nominee leaving this affirmed curb of lip service be it a year, 2 years, 10 years, or tomorrow that he has a change of agenda. But for the greatly demonstrated experience, knowledge, and qualification by both examination of nominee's contributions and massive public support I can neither cast myself in opposition. Thus I sit, most likely alone, in neutral with a leaning towards opposition largely due to my hesitancy towards a general ambiguity conveyed by lip service to procedure and not affirmation of agenda. FourPaws (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I can agree with the gist of your opinion. People do change, and I think that administrators should have a term limit (of course able to reelect) because of this. I disagree however with the analysis of Dan's answer, which I think is just picking up noise from a very noisy signal. Even the best RfA questions cannot determine how the nominator will act 5 years down the line. Plenty of people who were great admins turn awry and become sockpuppeteers. Life and personality as much as we want it to be isn't static. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
      It is not about determining how the nominee will act in the future because no once can predict the future. Its for an affirmation of role or promise to hold them accountable later on. When you interrogate a criminal or interview a subject you want as little ambiguity as possible so they can not counter later with a "I didn't mean it like that" or "You misunderstood what I said" to evade responsibility. For example, when interviewing my Secretary of State, I would hope they can affirm to not purging my voter registration or commit voter suppression rather than hiding behind a wall of vagueness.
      "Will you defend people's right to vote, Mr. Secretary of State?"
      "It is established law and I will follow whatever the laws says."
      Cue changing voter laws to ensure voting becomes an uphill battle.
      "Well, I only said I would follow the law. Oh well." FourPaws (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
      You seem to have forgotten about the existence of Administrator Accountability. If I'm an outsider reading this discussion, I might think, "who decided to give admins so much power?" And this secretary of state analogy is meaningless; if they changed their mind and behaved in a manner violating laws, they could still get fired. Their argument of "I didn't mean it like that" doesn't eliminate accountability. I don't understand what's wrong here. NytharT.C 23:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
      You lost me with references to the Supreme Court and similar. However important we like to consider ourselves, it's tools on a website. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
      SC justices get to decide whether abortion is guaranteed under the US constitution; here a sysop gets to determine (not even decide!) whether a Tongan footballer should have their article deleted. Apples, oranges. IMHO, the vast majority of admins I've encountered get better with age and experience, that's enough for me to assume good faith. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      FourPaws, I do not mean to "ridicule" or "emit a snarky tone", but I have read your comment three times now and find it almost but not quite impenetrable. I guess you are warning us that you fear that the candidate, once confirmed, is likely to jump into the US politics topic area in a disruptive way, using their administrative tools to push a political POV. If I am characterizing your view incorrectly, then please clarify. I encourage you to modify your style to write clearly and concisely. Also, please do not assume bad faith. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      "Nominee has not affirmed they won't go back to American politics/politics in general and has only given an unlikely probability citing the large backlog in clean up which is neither a binding condition or evidence of affirmation."
      I thought Cacti clarified the concerns of FourPaws by focusing on term limits as a valid and more encompassing issue. In general, I don't expect any candidate to "affirm" future inclinations, and in this case, I don't see any evidence of POV in the long-ago edits made by young Cherek.
      Considering that there are hundreds of incumbent Admins, my guess is that there are dozens who have more difficulty with NPOV politics than he has. So the issue seems worthy of a general topic, but IMO it has minimal bearing on his candidacy, and only that much because his early edits are not accessible.
      As for criticism of FourPaws, it's useful to remember that Talk requires less clarity than contributing to an article, and time-constrained comments like these are likely have even less. Martindo (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Neutral but leaning Support - The basis for my neutrality is that I have had zero encounters with the nominee other than today's admirable response to my addition to Q11. He seems like a great guy, so I lean to support, hesitant only because of an aversion to unanimity plus his description of DYK involvement.
    IMO, the DYK section is poorly supervised. I have pointed out several errors in recent weeks, the most egregious being the DYK excerpt of a speculative and uninformed journal article cited in Action_bias#In_sports. Given that the recency of an article is a key criterion for nominating it as DYK, it seems that this section will inevitably have content that is rushed into nomination (often by partisan interests) before there is sufficient time for general readers to see it. Nominations are not easy to find in advance, and the de facto time limit of recency means only the most avid editors are likely to comment on the nomination. I've also read that DYK was an education project that encouraged nominations by high school students, which is salutary if balanced by other editors who are less wowed by quirky facts (which aren't always factual). Martindo (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    You are of course entitled to your views but the statements that you make about DYK reveal more about you not knowing how that works than anything else. For example, mominations are not easy to find in advance is utterly surprising because anyone can view the hooks as they work their way towards the Main Page in the queue and prep and before hooks get there, they are all listed here. That looks as transparent to me as it could possibly be. Therefore, I don't understand what exactly you are saying here. Schwede66 08:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
General comments
"Is it pronounced like this?"
Hello Dan. How is "Cherek" pronounced? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I say it like "Eric" with a "ch" in front! But honestly, however you want and I'll never know the difference. DanCherek (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
"ch" of "chemistry" or "change"? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
"ch" of "chair", I am hoping. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I meant it as in "change" or "chair". DanCherek (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
So “chair” with an “ick” on it. Having kids, I’ve seen many of those round my dinner table.Jacona (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
actually chuckled IRL at that one HouseBlastertalk 01:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Odd... ne'er heard Cher followed by "ick" before. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Using Template:IPAc-en: (/ˈɛrɪk/) PacificDepths(talk) 06:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to give it a Celtic twist and pronounce it with the 'ch' from 'loch' from now on. Girth Summit (blether) 08:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of interest DanCherek, does Google's TTS pronounce it correctly (using /ˈɛrɪk/ as kindly provided above by PacificDepths)? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes it does! What a neat tool in progress that I didn't know about. Looking forward to what you all do with it! DanCherek (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Good to know, was curious given a "real-world" test 😌 That page was just some initial testing in preparation for the Generate Audio for IPA wish from the 2022 Community Wishlist SurveyTheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I've been pronouncing it Che-wreck, guess I was wrong :P — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This thread nicely illustrates the entire reason for my sig. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Qflib: "Fli" as in "flicker", or "flight"? :-p —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hoist on my own petard! Flicker, yes. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, academitards, in the globally lingua franca English language a "long i" is usually stimulated by a silent "e", as in Qflibe, aka KeeYou Flibe; however, I'm sure that username's already spoken for. ← ended the sentence with a preposition – that's some wiseass guy P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
In school, the teachers taught me that words like "give", despite possessing a silent e, did not stimulate a long i (or /ī/ for the teachers). This is probably one of those cases.[Humor]3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 12:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Footnotes

  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.