Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/1997kB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Final (38/23/8); ended 09:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. qedk (t c) 09:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]


1997kB (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate 1997kB for adminship. 1997kB is largely a behind the scenes worker on multiple Wikimedia projects, and I'm most familiar with him from his work as a global renamer and as one of my SPI clerk trainees. As a renamer, he is constantly one of the saner voices in discussions, and understands the applicability of username policies on and how it interacts with the global policies. Additionally, this permission has largely shifted to being one mainly held by sysops on various projects, and his ability to use it prolifically while also being one of the most diligent members of that team speaks volumes for his suitability to the tools.
He also has a characteristic we don't see as often in RfAs: he's multilingual and extremely active cross-wiki while being a member of this community. His presence here would add much needed diversity to the admin corps from a major English-speaking region where we do not have much admin representation. He is a meta sysop, and all of his actions there are reasonable, and he often fights against cross-wiki vandals and LTAs. In terms of SPI, while he took some time off, he is now continuing to work on his training and cases, and I think having him as a sysop would assist the SPI team by having a diligent admin clerk.
1997kB is unassuming and gets the job done. While there are various traits that make a good administrator, these two are some of the best. I'm happy to nominate him to be an administrator, and I hope you will join me in supporting this RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Co-nom by TheSandDoctor

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to co-nominate 1997kB for adminship. 1997kB has been a user that I have seen around for a long time. I have been keeping my eye on him as a potential candidate for enwiki admin for at least the past year.

Though I have gotten to know them best as a global renamer and Sockpuppet Investigations Clerk trainee, his cross-wiki work speaks volumes about his dedication to the projects. Having another multilingual administrator would add, as Tony said, "much needed diversity to the admin corps". I trust his judgement and see a demonstrable need for the tools; SPI would benefit from having another admin clerk like 1997kB. I strongly believe that 1997kB becoming an administrator would be a benefit to the project. I hope that you will join myself and TonyBallioni in supporting this RfA. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you TonyBallioni and TheSandDoctor for the nomination. I happily accept the nomination. Disclosures: I have not edited for pay. The accounts I have (or used) on Wikipedia are listed at User:1997kB/Disclose. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think continuing this further is just a waste of everyone's valuable time. I am grateful to both who supported and opposed. It is totally untrue that I'm insensitive or that picture was there to make jokes on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. It was just a mistake that happened unintentionally and which I have corrected now. I wholeheartedly welcome the comments regarding content creation and will try to improve in future. Thanks again TonyBallioni and TheSandDoctor for an opportunity, I withdraw my request. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Currently I'm involved at WP:SPI and WP:CHUS. At WP:SPI the ability to see deleted content, merge cases (whenever required) and blocking sockpuppet accounts will greatly help me. Being a renamer for almost 2 years I think I have good grasp of username policy and I can help with issues regarding username policy violations, so I also would like to help at WP:UAA and CAT:UCR. My plan is to take things slow, and if I ever feel unsure, ask a more experienced admin for advice.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I mostly do WikiGnome'ish type editing, but I'd say my best contributions are the work I have done as a renamer and cross-wiki vandal fighter. I have also helped in development of an anti-vandalism tool called m:SWViewer. In terms of content, while I don't have any GAs or FAs, I am proud of the work I did on articles related to beetles and villages in North India. My skillset lies primarily in the areas I mentioned in Q1, but I understand our mission is to contribute to the spread of knowledge, and I try to assist in that the best way I know how.
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: Well no big conflicts here, but there are some small things which caused me little stress; I remember a conversation with this IP user, where they completely misunderstood why I left them a note about copyright violation. Another conflict I remember was on Italian Wikipedia; while dealing with rename requests I noticed a sysop blocked some users who never edited that wiki, upon asking they simply denied to unblock those accounts. In both cases instead of just arguing, I took a different approach by approaching an uninvolved editor to view things from netural point and which worked for the best. I think in conflict it's better to view things from a cool head and even when you are right, try to be civil.

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

Additional question from Ritchie333
4. You created Sega, Kaithal, which cited and Sitush had to remove these citations because they were unreliable. Could you give me some more context as to why?
A: Both of these websites takes data from government website, and there were some discussion about them on WikiProject India noticeboard in which participants has agreed that these websites are unreliable and sometimes there's a mismatch of actual data and data available on site. Obviously I didn't know that when I created the page but this is the reason why I haven't challenged them when Sitush removed.
Question from Bbb23
5. Tony says you're multilingual. What languages do you speak and with what proficiency? This question is not terribly important; I'd just like to know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Yeah as my meta talk page says I have native understanding of Hindi, and I also can speak advanced level English. Apart from that I can understand Sanskrit, Rajasthani, Marathi and Nepali too, as these are also Devnagari based language.
Additional question from Dolotta
6. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: Well, IMO content creation is really hard. I can think of all the time and research people do to build these beautiful articles and I respect what they do is true means of contributing to Wikipedia. I also started in the same way as contributing to those stubs I mentioned in answer of Q2, but soon realised that I am not very good at it. Other than content I think speedy deletion (especially A7) is really challenging area.
Additional question from Rosguill
7. The nominators mentioned global renamer, but do you hold any other permissions on other language Wikipedia projects?
A: Yes, I'm also sysop at multilingual project Wikidata. Apart from that I also hold global rollback.
Additional question from Espresso Addict
8. Would you care to comment on the quality of your articles Auraiya train derailment and Seemanchal Express derailment? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I think to some degree Q6 explains that, but I'd like to expand more on first one. I think this could be most good article I have created and really enjoyed that. I initially thought of making Auraiya train derailment atleast C-class but as the time passed I got myself into other things, such as crosswiki patrolling and renaming work and never got back to it.
Additional question from Espresso Addict
9. You're credited as starting Shipbuilding in the early modern era and William Oliver (artist) but they seem to be other editors' drafts where the attributions have been lost -- can you point to any content that you've developed beyond a stub? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: All the credit for this article goes to INicolas225. It took me some time to figure out that I'm there because I have previously moved their sandbox to draft namespace and they have started editing sandbox with that move history. I think it would be great if someone can fix this to give proper attribution to actual creator. In terms of content creation by me — I think Auraiya train derailment was a fine attempt in that direction.
Additional question from John M Wolfson
10. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
A: Well that depends on multiple factors; a) Firstly I am assuming that the content on the school's website isn't under a licence Wikipedia accept — in that case I would simply tag it with WP:G12. b) If content on the website is under a licence Wikipedia accept and it isn't attributed appropriately on articles, I'll try to fix it. c) Obviously there could be case when the editor is just here for only for promotional purposes and school is actually not notable, then I'll tag it with WP:G11.
Additional question from Taewangkorea
11. In your opinion, what is the most important policy or guideline Wikipedia has, and why? Taewangkorea (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I'd say the username policy — I mean most of our great editors starts their journey with a username (obviously not forgetting IPs), and with a wrong username things can end up pretty bad even for good faith editors. I feel this is the zone where one interacts with new users and so I think Civility is next in terms of importance. Also in the areas of content, I see WP:NPOV as an important policy. I think this policy respect the collaborative contribution environment and having unbiased content is what I look as an reader.
I also agree that in general there are more important policies than WP:UPOL. But the whole point behind my answer is that I am referring to a policy which matter most in the areas I work, so for me that'd be most important.
Additional question from Taewangkorea
12. Some editors have raised the concern that your content creations are weaker than other areas of your involvement at Wikipedia. What would you say in return to mitigate their concerns? Taewangkorea (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

  1. As nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  2. Support per TonyBallioni. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support per noms epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support I’ve observed their good work. Would make a great sysop in my honest opinion.Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1997kb's competence and dedication have been evident to me for years -- I'm proud to support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry to do this, but the candidate's answer to Q11 was uninspiring. While questions like "what is the most important policy or guideline" are awful and should not be asked, the candidate's response to this question missed the mark. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Fantastic candidate! Puddleglum 2.0 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. The reasons Kevin, TSD, and Tony state are the reasons I'm happy to support this candidacy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support - I'm familiar with him due to working in the same areas and I can't remember any bad interactions with him, or bad decisions. A true wikignome. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support as co-nom. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support: seems trustworthy enough for me.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support An active and trusted checkuser nominates them because he has confidence in his work at SPI, and an active and trusted global renamer nominates him due to his confidence in his work as a global renamer - these people probably know what they're talking about in their own realms. He has been entrusted with sysop privileges at meta, and appears not to have made a mess. Looking at his contributions on EnWiki, and I see a great deal of counter-vandalism/spam activity, handled capably and collegiately. Rosguill makes a reasonable point about the issue of handing someone the Autopatrolled perm when they haven't produced significant amounts of content, but in my view that goes for all of the bundled admin perms - I mean, I could start editing high-risk templates through protection if I wanted to, but I don't because I know that I'd make probably make a bollocks of it. I'm happy to trust that, if 1997kb decides to go on an article-writing spree, he will ask for a steer on any aspects he's unsure about. GirthSummit (blether) 19:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Girth Summit, one key difference between template editing and autopatrol is the level of oversight. Sure, you could break a high-risk template and that would be bad, but it would be quickly noticed and reverted. An editor who makes mistakes in article creation while holding autopatrol will not be notified of their mistake, and it may pass without notice indefinitely. signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - definitely.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. strongest possible support excellent candidate who I have enjoyed working with cross-wiki and will be an incredibly positive addition to enwiki. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Yes. Already has the tools on Meta and Wikidata and brings these skills to the team. --Rschen7754 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support - another long-awaited RFA, this is a good week for the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - won't pretend that he will be a front-end (content) admin, but for the backend reasons listed above, he has my vote. ~riley (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support for meeting my minimums, no big deal, and strength of nominator. Ifnord (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - Based on what I see at WP:AIV and WP:ANI, editors with this kind of background are needed as admins. Not every admin nominee needs the same background. Not every candidate is going to have the same qualifications, and we need those diverse backgrounds among admins. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Why not? -FASTILY 21:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support - Trusted user with a use for the tools. The talk page image is, at worst, a bad joke. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support for the reasons stated in the nomination. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Has the temperment, and in his SPI work has shown very good/even handed judgement (and his noms, who work with them daily, are also impressive in this area); this is all an admin needs. As we need strong content-focused admins with such temperment and judgement like Ergo Sum, we also need strong technical ones like 1997kb. As much as I worry about the future of who will run/lead FA-GA, I have the same concerns with SPI etc. (the burnouts happen, and suddenly). Indiscretion of the shuttle pic is just that; we all have them. Britishfinance (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    .... the Challenger shuttle is 33 years ago, 1997kb is not the only current RfA candidate that wasn't close to being born then (e.g. Wugapodes for one)? Per Juliancolton's great point on this RfA Talk Page, are we going to outlaw pics of the Titanic or Hindenburg, or any historical disaster as well? We are all different ages here. Britishfinance (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. 1997kB's experience with content work is, to be blunt, abysmal. However, there are many more factors working in the candidate's favor, including adminship on other major Wikimedia projects (demonstrating technical competence with the tools); multilingualism and apparent residence in an under-represented time zone; strong nomination statements by two trusted local users, as well as endorsements from multiple stewards and other prominent cross-wiki contributors; and plentiful activity over a relatively long period of time. I've said for many years that adminship is not an award for stellar editing, and Britishfinance above makes a fantastic point: instead of seeking out the once-in-a-blue moon model of a modern Wikipedia, we appoint a variety of trusted users with different editing backgrounds to create a balanced and well-rounded admin corps. 1997kB is likely to be a fine, if low-profile, admin. (For my thoughts on the objectionable illustration, see the thread I started on the talk page.) Best of luck. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support per nominators. I don't care about content work, just knowledge of the tools. And I've seen this candidate around in admin related areas enough to trust with the tools. Tyrenius said it best long ago.-- Deepfriedokra 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, meets my my standards. ANd though I understand the image concerns, I think the hyperbole is well taken. It does not negate my support reasons.-- Deepfriedokra 23:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support I thought he was an admin already! Saucy[talkcontribs] 23:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Content work is not that crucial to me as a criteria for adminship. I assume in good faith that the user is a content reader — I mean how else would they navigate and negotiate Wikipedia without serious problems? If enough trusted users vouch for this editor, that's good enough for me. I'll trust that the user is familiar with content work (albeit read-only), even if they do not directly participate. But that direct participation does not serve as a prerequisite for me. El_C 00:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Trusted, net positive. Vermont (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. 1997kB has and plans to work at SPI, coming with an endorsement from a checkuser who presumably knows that domain far better than I could hope. That gives me confidence that within the domain the editor plans to work, the tools will be used well. The concerns about the talk page photo feel wrong-headed. The photo is in poor taste, yes, but if the candidate removes it and learns from the situation I don't see it as evidence that the tools will be placed in poor hands. Concerns about mainspace contributions are more compelling, as is the point that, even if 1997kB has no plans to use the tools in mainspace, it still grants them access. I think GirthSummit's counterpoint is strong though: many administrators know little about template syntax, but we trust they'll know their limits and not be reckless with parts of the toolset that they are unfamiliar with. So while I share concerns about levels of mainspace contributions, I would want to see some level of recklessness or poor self-assessment of their limits before taking that as a reason to oppose. Given what I've seen so far, I think the editor will be a net positive with the tools. Wug·a·po·des 00:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Weak Support Not wowed by their content work, but on balance I think they will be a net positive given the arguments made by Tony B. If this RfA should fail I would encourage them to spend six to twelve months focused on the main space and come back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support per TonyBallioni and SandDoctor net positive .User is global-renamer, sysop, translationadmin in Meta and Sysop in Wikidata as per this in addition to be being a SPI clerk trainee and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support. 1997kB bring unusual kinds of experience and unique skills to the table, and I think that’s a strong positive. Not all admin candidates have to follow the same pattern or do the same things here. In particular I am not disturbed by his lack of content creation; the areas he plans to work in involve users, not content. He understands user issues very well, and he has not expressed any wish to create or delete or protect articles. I do not know him personally, but if Tony and SandDoctor trust him not to break the wiki, so do I. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support. Seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Would make a good admin, while they do not have a very high percentage of edits in article space they have a satisfactory amount of edits there, and while they do not have much experience at AfD they have a good track record there. Also, I believe making a joke with an event from over 30 years ago, however tragic, is not indicative of immaturity. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support As so stated in nomination. Operator873talkconnect 03:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support per nom. An incredibly astute and adept editor that's already in numerous positions of trust as it is. Not only do I believe that 1997kB would be a net positive as an admin, but there is a demonstrable track record of this user working with positions of trust. I'm not particularly convinced by the oppose rationales, given 1997kB's solid track record in SPI and cross-wiki experience. I have no doubt that 1997kB would use the tools sparingly and responsibly. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support as a clear net positive in the area they're most-interested in working in. If the user is interested in working in more content-centric areas in the future, I'd advise them to take it slowly. Otherwise, if the users working at SPI think 1997kB is trustworthy, I'm happy to trust their judgment and extend the same trust. Thank you for volunteering! Ajpolino (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Although this user doesn't have many content space edits, review of their record and stellar activity log convinces me that they're likely to be a net positive to the project as an admin. Support. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose Insufficient meaningful article work. As noted in Neutral #2, the inappropriate citation to that image suggesting (to me) a lack of maturity. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Coming back having seen answer to Q11 - that is just abysmal - few other words express my concern. Technical specialist or not, this candidate is wholly unprepared and I suggest a minimum of 12 months working 70% in content areas to understand what the core policies of en-WP are and how they are used. The user name policy, with respect, is insignificant in comparison. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose per wholly inappropriate photo/caption on userpage which (somehow) is still there. As noted by LC and in 'Neutral' section this is concerning and shows a lack of maturity. GiantSnowman 20:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Honestly, I’m fairly confused by this oppose rationale. As an American who wasn’t alive at the time, I wouldn’t have thought this offensive or immature at all. A non-American who is also likely not old enough to remember it couldn’t be expected to understand the connotations it might have for those who do remember it. Now that people have raised it, I can see why it may cut close to home, but to me, it’s just a picture because I didn’t live through it, and I suspect it’s meaning to people outside of the US and Europe is even less clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are we now demanding that admin candidates also have impeccable taste in humour? Oh the huge manatee... that'll be an interesting hurdle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: I imagine it's still there because 1997kB signed off for the night before Ritchie brought it up. As a ten year old kid in England I remember the disaster vividly and I find it distasteful, but I can understand a younger editor not recognizing the impact of the image.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose per almost non-existent experience in building content. With 39 edits as the most ever contributed to any article (a mostly unsourced stub at Sega, Kaithal), and only 19% of edits in article space, I don't think we can possibly know enough about how this editor engages the core reason we are here to be able to trust them just yet with the tools. The scariest kind of admin is the one who hasn't experienced the daily grind of defending content built according to policy from those who don't respect policy, and we all too often see admins reaching for the block button for what they characterize as behavioral issues, sometimes not understanding content issues. Too soon: please build a bit of content.
    Also, as someone who lived outside of the US at the time of the Challenger explosion, and endured the jokes and disrespect circulating among people not from the United States, I also hope this editor will change the image on their talk page.
    Also, please use edit summaries, particularly when editing in main space; not using them makes it harder on other editors when checking their watchlists or looking for certain additions in history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. I find this nomination puzzling, to be honest. I'm not so sure the global renamer right is a good demonstration of one's ability to properly admin across the board (I say that as a global renamer myself). It shows that he is trustworthy, but being an admin requires more than that. I find it difficult to support someone with such a lack of demonstrated need. Nihlus 21:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not enough level of maturity, not enough edits to mainspace and no article creation. Very premature nomination.--Darwinek (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose I really, really hate to be like this, especially since I recently opposed an RfA for focusing too much on content and not enough on proto-admin stuff, but 39 edits for the most of all time in the mainspace constitutes "frighteningly negligible" for my purposes. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll add that while I agree with SandyGeorgia on the rest of her oppose (especially with the talkpage photo, which strikes me as in rather poor taste and bad judgment), I'm not particularly worried about the candidate's edit summary usage. Overall the edit summary usage has been 93% and consistently over 90% since September. Mainspace usage is less rosy, at a mere 80.4%, but has been consistently over 90% since May; these are all still less than perfect, but my personal threshold is 90% and I'm sure that the candidate has learned that more is better for edit summaries. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose. Little evidence of content development, and less than perfect communication skills in English. ETA And the answer to Q11 is the strangest I can recall. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose does not meet my content creation expectations. Admins need to understand the challenges and frustrations of content creation if they are going to take admin actions affecting content creators. It isn't unreasonable to expect a potential admin to be able to put a GA together on a subject of their choice to demonstrate they know what is involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per SandyGeorgia and WP:NOTQUITEYET. It gives me pause to disagree with Tony, but for me content creation has always been something of a red line. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and I think everyone who wants to put themselves in the position of marshalling the project and mediating its disputes and issues, needs to have first-hand experience of life at the coal face. This doesn't have to mean a massive library of featured content, or even as much as a GA, but some demonstration that you can put together a well-researched and well-referenced body of work. It's not that hard to do, it's very enjoyable, so I recommend that the candidate spend some time producing a couple of C-class articles for us to look at, after which I think I would support them. Because other than this I'll take Tony's recommendation - they don't look like a jerk, and have a clue when it comes to the proposed admin activity they wish to carry out.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose on 39%. Not particularly bothered about the talk page image, although I can see how it may offend. With a sense of humour like that, he could almost be British. Unfortunately I also don't think that having the tools on Meta or Wikidata is relevant here—apart from providing some foreknowledge of where Twinkle lays out a few buttons/tabs—as the skill sets required on thos eprojects are very different to the required here. Indeed, the skillsets required here would probably work against one on those projects. I also don't expect anyone to have the content creation that a certain other candidate has (referenced by JMW), but, please, more than some would suffice. ——SN54129 23:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose per Sandy, Amakuru and SN, whose concerns I share. Levivich 23:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Per SandyGeorgia and others: this candidate lacks meaningful experience editing Wikipedia. Why they feel the need for advanced tools is a bit baffling. Should have sought advice from experienced users to avoid this likely unsuccessful candidacy. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll go ahead and comment here as I think this oppose is insulting to the candidate: I have been encouraging them to run for RfA for months, and they had been delaying because of the content reasons. My view is that they have a particularly unique use case where it would be beneficial enough despite this: they're exceptionally involved and trusted with fighting cross-wiki abuse, and are a trusted member of this local community. The community has been receptive to people with unique skillsets but little content work using the tools before, and in my view this is a case of that. We don't have many admins who help out in this area, and I think there is a strong case to bring someone on from a different background where we do have an extremely strong need, and where most of our existing sysops don't do a good job. I have a fairly strong record of nominations, so the advice to "[seek advice] from experienced users" was followed. In fact, it was an experienced user who sought them out to encourage them to run, not vice versa. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Meant no offense and didn't realize they had consulted someone with lots of experience with RfA candidates. What's your position on the candidates use of the Challenger image? Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem, my commenting was more based on that fact that I don't want the meme of "should have gotten advice" to start because they were not the one who was urging to go for RfA, it was other people who thought they should run. Re: Challenger, I've seen people in their 40s use it as a stock photo in slide decks both as a serious and a more lighthearted thing, so to me, it was being used in a way I've seen before IRL. I get the concerns now that they are explained, but I don't consider it malicious or even immature: more of someone from a different age group and geography not realizing other have different perceptions. That's a mistake we can all make, and the question is how they respond to those concerns when raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not Tony but my position is editors should act on concerns when brought to their attention. To my knowledge no one had ever made this point to 1997 before and I would hope when they wake-up for the day that they change the image (if someone had made the point to them before I'd love to read that diff). But it also isn't humor in such poor taste as to show a fundamental inability to be a positive sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ TonyBallioni. I hope you can understand that we already have enough admins who do not understand or respect core policies wrt how content is built or should be built according to policy. It is too great of a risk to add one more. (As to the image, hopefully it will be removed in the morning; it's not a sticking point, but an indication of maturity.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I completely understand that and get the content opposes, and expected some, but I think there are other factors that compensate. I'd never nominate someone without showing an understanding of why we're here, and the easiest way for me on that is content creating. The reason I'm not particularly concerned in this case is that 1997kB isn't really the drama type and I don't expect that he'd be getting involved playing WikiCop or civility police, which is what people are usually worried about there. He's a gnome who is extremely prolific on cross-wiki abuse and also is active here and knows our standards and our community. I can count on one hand the number of users I can say that about, and can count on the other the number of existing admins who fit that. This is a real need we have, and in all honesty, 1997kB is one of the best there is to fill that need. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NO, it is not about civility policing at all (we know where that notion comes from, and we don't all subscribe). It is about the frequency with which we see admins completely failing to understand what our content policies are, and how hard it is to enforce them. We Already Have Too Many of Those, and they tend to sound off at ANI, with very little understanding or respect for core policies, instead, often, interpreting clear-cut policy issues as behavioral concerns. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We seriously need more admins who understand our core purpose here, and will deal with others who don't respect policy when building content. Please do not paint all content contributors with the civility police brush wrt adminship. Yes, we need admins. We also need more respect for the people who are actually building the content, and understanding of the issues from the admin corps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose. Per SandyGeorgia and Amakuru and Juliancolton's conclusion above that "content work is, to be blunt, abysmal." Not all admins need to be primarily focused on content creation, but it is essential that an admin go through the crucible of content creation to a significant degree before wielding the tools over that content. Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Also per answer to Q11 stating that the username policy is Wikipedia's "most important" policy or guideline. Really? More important than WP:5P, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N?. Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose. Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Sorry; I don't care who the noms are, but immaturity (the Challenger photo; believe it or not, some of us are old enough to remember) + negligible content work + subpar communication skills put me here. Miniapolis 00:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Weak in article creation. Weak on BLPs. Extremely weak at AfD from my usual position. Collect (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose - Lack of content work and the fact they've made more edits to userpages and talkpages than they have articles also places me here. Rather surprised by this nomination if I'm completely honest. –Davey2010Talk 01:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose insufficient participation in mainspace. I don't expect all candidates to have a plethora of DYKs and GAs, but I would like to see more engagement with our most important namespace. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose Oh my heavens, no.  [REDACTED - Oshwah] 03:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    IP vote struck. Please log in or create an account to vote. --qedk (t c) 03:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Very well. 400 Lux (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved to its proper chronological order as we don’t order !votes the way it was before. @400 Lux: if you are indeed taking ownership of this vote, please replace the signature when reinstating it. —TheSandDoctor Talk 03:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    400 Lux - Assuming that the edit above was you and while logged out, I went ahead and suppressed the IP information from this page for you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose While the user has contributed positively to the project, I would like to see more involvement with content work before taking the next step to adminship. SpencerT•C 03:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose- I don't often oppose RfAs, but I share the concerns about communication skills. And the weirdly subpar answer to Q11 makes me wonder if the candidate really knows how to properly prioritize different issues. Reyk YO! 04:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose The quality of their content creation is less than what I would expect from an admin. And, taken in totality, their judgement outside of SPI is too concerning for me. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose lack of content creation might not be a show-stopper in itself, but surely an admin needs to at least know what good looks like. So their pointing to Auraiya train derailment as an example of some of their best content work is somewhat worrying. Hugsyrup 08:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose. The candidate's commitment to not only Wikipedia but other projects is evident, and their honesty is refreshing, but their mainspace contributions are in my view simply insufficient to entrust them with the tools, the image shows a lack of sensitivity or awareness that suggests to me they may not be ready to communicate in fraught situations with editors of different backgrounds and viewpoints, and the answers to some questions, particularly 10 and 11, suggest less familiarity with policies, or thought about them, than I like to see in an admin candidate. They have less experience on the project than has recently been the norm at RfA, and during that time have also been busy on other projects, so I'd like to suggest they get a bit more experience here, particularly with writing and improving content, and then try again. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral leaning support. 1997kB seems like a very capable clerk, and the biggest red flag in their edit history, Confirmtkt, is a red herring with no wrongdoing from 1997kB. I'm nevertheless hesitant about handing out a toolkit that includes autopatrol permissions to someone with so little article creation experience, and find myself wishing that we could have some sort of Clerk usergroup that includes the rest of the admin toolset but not autopatrol. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral Thanks for answering the question, but like Rosguill, I'm uncomfortable about trusting 1997kB with the entire toolset. If we had "requests for admin SPI clerks", there wouldn't be any issue, but the general lack of content and evidence of excellent communication in difficult situations makes me pause. I have to say that the image on his user talk page, which appears to be making a joke off the back of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster to be in rather poor taste, as someone who distinctly remembers a memorial poster of Christa McAuliffe in school. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, I can't follow these thoughts. I cannot see the offensive image and there doesn't appear to be anything in the edit history that removed an image (and neither has the candidate edited since signing off with "good night"). Can you please point me in the right direction? Schwede66 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yea, that's pretty weird. Could someone explain to us how that image disappeared with no trace of it being removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia and Schwede66: see User:1997kB/Userpage/Modules/File. It's set to rotate through images based on the day of the week. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note that User talk:1997kB embeds User:1997kB/Userpage/Modules/File. That page uses a Lua script to display a different image each day of the week. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
    Thanks both, I see that now. So, to answer Schwede66, on Tuesdays, it shows File:Challenger explosion.jpg with the text: Don't disrupt space exploration to illustrate a point. It has now rotated off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See User:Billhpike/1997kb/Module for all the images. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Billhpike, Schwede66, SandyGeorgia, and Ritchie333: Just so you know, the image has been removed with an apology. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral I am hesitant to support because the candidate only has 19% of edits in the mainspace so this suggests that there aren't enough contributions to the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral one negative first - it's the content. For me it's a lack of a couple of more detailed creations - even decent Cs primarily made by the candidate would be fine for me. % of content, GAs etc are specifically not necessary. While their talk page photo is perhaps not in great taste, I don't consider it as detracting from their candidature or somehow a better judgement on their maturity than their performance, which leads me to the positives. A multi-lingual admin is always beneficial, they've demonstrate broad performance in multiple roles accepted as requiring good character to acquire and hold. This neutral isn't leaning, but it's such that a single C-quality article written (or one of 1997's stubs improved) during the course of the RfA would make me change. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral The lack of content experience concerns me. While the SPI experience is great, and they could use the tools there, admins get all of the tools, not just some of them. Among those is becoming autopatrolled, which can be misused in untrained hands. I need to investigate the candidate's content better before making a final decision. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral There's a demonstrated need for the tools, but I want to wait to see how 1997 answers several of the questions before making a final decision, if I decide to move this vote at all, based on concerns of maturity and lack of content creation. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral Was leaning positive and had submitted as such, but the lack of content scares me, as admins should be more experienced. The second thing that bothered me and caused me to retract my vote was the image of the challenger. I had not noticed this originally but this strikes to close to home as Sesame Street's Big Bird was almost on the challenger. Sorry about that. Flalf (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Flalf: Just so you know, the image has been removed from the rotation with an apology. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral. I have some mixed feelings about communication standards here. This is not a job, and so it would be a bit strange to make appeals to professionalism. However, I do not find the photo amusing, nor the description of its removal during this RFA sufficient (edit summary: "my apology if this hurted someone's feeling. It was just an image for me"). Further, even if 1997kb were to use the tools correctly, I am not convinced that the communication skills exhibited are sufficient to make such tool use effective when dealing with disputes or troublesome editors. Dekimasuよ! 04:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • I am in support of this RfA at the moment but the answer to question 11 concerns me. I like the idea behind it - good faith editors could get tripped up before they even get going - but even still I have a really hard time saying that it is our most important policy or guideline. I know they're experienced with UAA and I worry that this experience is elevating that policy in importance compared to some others. In general I've thought answers to this pretty standard question ahve ranged from neutral to "huh I hadn't thought about it that way" to "makes me like you even more". This is the first time I can recall where it's made me think worse of a candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If read charitably, I think that it can be seen as an attempt to provide an extra-clever answer by attempting to highlight a policy governing a rite of passage that every editor goes through, but I agree that it misses the mark while also betraying a lack of awareness of the role of IP editors on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1997kB has provided an explanation for their answer, my speculation was incorrect. signed, Rosguill talk 05:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The addendum is helpful. I wish they'd written that when they first replied. The frame of "most important for my admin work" (UPOL) and "most important in general" (Civility/NPOV) is far less concerning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:V over NPOV, but hey whatever floats ye boat. On an interesting note though, 1997kB is going to be the most interesting juxtaposition w.r.t. Ergo Sum's RfA. Their spheres are essentially opposite. --qedk (t c) 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd like to explain more on this image issue. Along with my userpage the /File module was also copied from the User:TheSigma. I was a newbie back then and didn't give much attention what the images and text says or not, I only liked the technicality of module and it was cool that it changes everyday. Ever since then it's sitting there without much of my attention. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.