Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

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


Final: (288/5/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 13:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Blablubbs (talk · contribs) – Dedicated, creative, kind, and knowledgeable, Blablubbs is someone I've been pestering to RfA for months now. In addition to his solid content work (four DYKs and new GA Wolfdietrich Schnurre stand out), Blablubbs particularly excels in the maintenance and anti-abuse work that keeps our project running. In his 40,000 edits over the last 15 months, he has demonstrated a superb grasp of the letter and spirit of our policies as well as the good judgment and temperament that will make him a terrific administrator.

His need for the tools is clear. Blablubbs is one of our best and most prolific SPI clerks – his SPI record (1 2 3 4) speaks for itself, and as a CheckUser, I trust him implicitly. Blablubbs is also a core member of the WikiProject on open proxies and an avid ACC team member, and has helped lead broader anti-abuse efforts, including the recent push on residential proxies.

Finally, Blablubbs shares the same unmeasurable qualities as Wikipedia's best administrators: he communicates well (see his talk page), he listens before speaking, he's unafraid to change his mind, and he is enjoyable to work with. I'm honored to present him to the community for adminship. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Blablubbs has crossed my path on many occasions in the past year, always in a positive way. He's been working on SPIs (and asking really useful questions), pitching in on the open proxy work, giving serious attention to undisclosed paid editing, and keeps showing up with useful comments and suggestions on phabricator tickets. It was pretty obvious to me that he'd be even more effective if he had the administrator tools, so a few months ago I asked him if there was a reason he wasn't an admin yet. This is where it gets really interesting.

Blablubbs was well aware of the expectations for administrator candidates, and was upfront that he didn't think he had done enough work yet on quality content, but that he planned to address this in the near future; then he did some very good work at Wolfdietrich Schnurre and got it up to GA. He also had taken the time to carefully review his activities to self-identify any other weaknesses. He knew that, although his account was created back in 2014, he really didn't get into editing until it occurred to him during the insanity of the global pandemic that editing Wikipedia would be something useful to do with his time. He knows he's made some faux pas on deletion discussions and requests, but has learned from his errors. He's had a few missteps on SPI, which is expected of new clerks, and has learned from these experiences as well. In other words, he's what I look for in a candidate: He knows that quality content is important. He does good work, and learns from his occasional mistakes and does not repeat them. He gets along with most people. And he has found areas where his personal interests and skills make a difference for the project as a whole. I'm happy to co-nominate Blablubbs as administrator. Risker (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words (I blushed a little!); I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay or any other reimbursement. A list of my accounts (seven Doppelgänger and a rarely used testing account) can be found here. I have never operated any other accounts, and have never, to my knowledge, edited logged out on enwiki (I made a handful of logged-out edits to dewiki about a decade ago, before my account was registered). --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2021 (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: Most of my contributions are already in admin-y areas, with the vast majority of my time being spent at SPI and Wikiproject on Open Proxies, and I plan to stick to those areas for the foreseeable future. My work there frequently involves asking administrators to use the relevant buttons to block socks and proxies and perform case merges or G6 deletions, which I could do myself if the community chooses to entrust me with the bit. I haven't actively patrolled recent changes in the last few months and focused on SPI work instead, but I also plan to keep an eye on WP:AIV, and I could see myself venturing into patrolling Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and Category:Requests for unblock at some point in the future. There are also some administrative areas where I feel that I lack the experience to be able to usefully contribute in an administrative capacity, like AfD and most CSD-related matters. I would only start working these areas once I have gained considerably more experience in a non-administrative capacity.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I enjoy working on content, and I'm proud of some of the articlespace work I have done, but I think my most meaningful contributions have been made behind the scenes: Working together with MarioGom to create technical fingerprints of most major VPN providers is neither particularly glamourous work for example, nor is the end result interesting or comprehensible to the average reader. But it did enable us to query and block dozens of (frequently abused) proxy ranges, and I hope that made a difference. I feel the same way about my work at SPI.
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: Certainly. No specific cases immediately come to mind, but I've been heavily involved with sockpuppetry and UPE-related issues; working in either of those areas often entails interacting with combative or distressed users, and being lied to is part of the job, which can be aggravating (my SPI helper script's log has almost 2000 revisions, and and I can count on one or two hands the number of cases I have seen where a user admitted to socking and apologised for it before being blocked). They are also areas that can sometimes trigger the frustrating thought that there is an incredible amount of abuse on this website and I will never be able to do enough. I try to stay calm and step away whenever that happens; I read the paper, go outside and take a walk, moan about it to friends, then open the laptop again and type a response. I had an extended "step away for a bit" moment with regard to UPE-related matters some time ago when I noticed that they were starting to burn me out. I didn't give up on the topic area, but I shifted my focus away from actively hunting for PR firm socks and towards bouncing ideas about potential methods for making detection and tracking of complex socking operations back and forth with awesome people like MarioGom and GeneralNotability, with some great results.

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 John Cline
4. Regarding your userpage statement: "Nazism and similar beliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment and with the goals of a neutral encyclopaedia", are you suggesting that these topics should not be covered in Wikipedia, that editors contributing to or interested in these topics are inherently incompatible with our project, or something entirely different? Please elaborate. Thank you.
A: Something entirely different. I have previously written about far-right groups and the Holocaust myself, I think it's extremely important that we provide accurate coverage of these topics, and I am grateful that we have many skilled editors working on these articles. The statement is intended to convey that I don't believe that people who support genocidal ideologies should be welcomed as editors – it is essentially a similar point of view to the one that is expressed in WP:NONAZIS.
Optional question from TheresNoTime
5. Lately we've seen significant drama at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with deeply entrenched beliefs causing significant rifts in opinion, so I'm afraid I have a difficult question for you... Is it pronounced A-N-I, or annie?
A: After extended emails with my nominators where we debated weighing in on such a contentious issue, I have decided to just go ahead and say it: I'm on team Ay-Enne-Eye. All the way.
Optional question from Djm-leighpark
6. Question removed/struck by Primefac, 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Optional question from Lomrjyo
7. What are your thoughts on the possibility of getting CheckUser?
A: Given my focus on SPI, it's certainly something I would consider somewhere down the road.
Optional question from WaltCip
8. Tackling vandalism, proxy abuse and SPIs can be a thankless job. As you've outlined above, it can be stressful managing such abusive use of Wikipedia scenes. So why do it? What motivates you?
A: The short answer is: Because most of the time, I really enjoy the work I do here, and because I think it's worthwhile. The long answer is that I've always enjoyed Wikipedia as a reader – I learnt English at quite an early age, and that is to a large extent attributable to the fact that I realised that the English Wikipedia was far more comprehensive than dewiki, so I started looking up things in English instead, and occasionally made small contributions. Fast forward quite a few years, and I discovered recent changes patrol for myself. I wasn't in a great place in real life and didn't really have the mental bandwidth to write content, but I did feel that I was doing something useful by trying to give something back to a project I had learnt so much from. And it was a fascinating experience to me: It made me realise how fragile knowledge can be, and it was mesmerising to observe in real time which topics people from all over the world care about enough to edit war and vandalise. At some point I became interested in undisclosed paid editing, which led to interest in socking, which led to interest in proxies. I've always enjoyed investigating things, drawing connections and finding patterns, so it was sort of a natural fit. I made some great friends along the way, and work in these areas has also taught me a lot, both about technical (when I started editing, I didn't know what a /64 is, or anything about networking, really) and social matters; that's rewarding in its own right.
Optional questions from BrxBrx
9. Hi Blablubbs and thank you for running. I see you are an experienced SPI hunter. In a hypothetical situation, how would you handle such an incident where you are accusing an editor of UPE, but the editor's works in question turn out not to be. In this situation, how would you balance vigilance against undisclosed paid editing, and assuming good faith (and assuming others assuming good faith)?
A: I'm afraid I'm struggling to parse the hypothetical – are you referring to a scenario where I ask a user about UPE and they state that they aren't editing for pay?
10. Unrelated question, but from your answer to q4, in particular, intended to convey that I don't believe that people who support genocidal ideologies should be welcomed as editors, I'm curious how you square that with our 5 pillars - in particular pillar 3 and 4, which in my view, would suggest that it doesn't matter what crank ideology an editor may subscribe to - so long as it is kept off wikipedia, and does not impact their positive contributions to the project, they shall be allowed to contribute?
A: I don't advocate for some sort of political purity test that people need to pass before being allowed to contribute. If support for an abhorrent ideology is in fact kept entirely off Wikipedia, then I have no way to know about it. But if those views become apparent, either through contributions or through open identification with them, our policies and guidelines are inherently being violated: If someone denies the Holocaust, then that's an NPOV issue, and potentially abuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda platform; if someone puts a statement on their userpage that says "my political beliefs align with those of the NSDAP", then that's a civility issue because they are essentially expressing support for the murder or mistreatment of a good chunk of our editor base. I don't believe much WP:ROPE should be extended in such cases.
Optional question from Hawkeye7
11. You said the "I have previously written about far-right groups and the Holocaust". Can you tell us about these articles, and your contributions to them?
A: I translated Dachau camp trial, a dewiki-GA that didn't exist in English, and Hannibal (network), which I later rewrote completely. I also significantly expanded Wolfdietrich Schnurre, a biography about an author whose works were strongly influenced by his experiences during the Second World War and under Nazi rule.
Optional question from Nosebagbear
12. I was aware of your NONAZIs position, but from the extra detail you've provided in this RfA I would like to ask: where do you draw the line on what might be called similar infringements (userpage support being a civility-breach)? For example, we've had no-consensus MfDs for things like the PKK, and there are plenty of other polities/organisations both more and less problematic than them
A: It's a good question, and I'm afraid I don't have a clear-cut answer. Context and specifics matter; "no nazis, period." is the only hard line I can really draw. In very general terms, I believe that people who advocate for ideologies that inherently support violence against people based on their ethnicity, disability, religious beliefs, sexuality, gender, or nationality (that's not a complete list, just the first few things that came to mind) in any namespace inherently contribute to a toxic editing environment. Regarding the specific example, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the PKK or the specific userbox to have a strong opinion on whether it should exist or not. I can say that I certainly wouldn't act without precedent and consensus which, I believe, exists for people who openly support Nazism.
Optional question from RZuo
13. What tool were you using, or what page were you watching, when you suddenly became active on 11 June 2020 (having only 55 edits from 2014 to 2019)? How did you learn about that tool or page and learn how everything works?
A: I was bored and reading Wikipedia – at the time, there wasn't much to do because of the pandemic – clicked the recent changes link, played around with the filter options, saw people reverting vandalism and figured it might be an interesting thing to do, so I observed for a while, started making some reverts of my own, and learnt by watching other patrollers as I went.


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

  1. Without question - heck, I would have nominated him if he'd asked. Blablubbs has a great head on his shoulders and is both very competent and unfailingly polite when dealing with others. He has a solid use for the tools and has my trust, and will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. As co-nominator. Risker (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strong Support One of my few regrets with Blablubbs is that even though any who have known him for any time have seen that he was always going to make a good admin, by the time I raised it with him I would later find out I was at least the 7th person to do so. I've helped him with a few VRT areas and he's always been excellent there, and the noms outline both his excellent personality and broad and talented skillset. I simply cannot recommend him highly enough to the Community. I would note from how he's continued to pick up at-need and difficult areas over time, that he has the propensity to become a go-to admin for not merely the array he's currently active in, but across the toolkit. !Vote support, and have him join the mopcorps. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Without a doubt, support. Blablubbs is a trusted user who I can see putting the toolset to good use. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Strong support - between his clerk work at SPI, account creation work, and the open proxy WikiProject, I strongly believe the project would be better off with Blablubbs having the toolkit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support per Risker and has been around since October 2014 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Strong support: I'm seeing a great temperament; very strong technical skills, knowledge of Wikipedia and overall competence; and an enormous need for the tools. Thanks for running. — Bilorv (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support, without reading the nomination statements (sorry guys...) or waiting to review answers to questions. I've been working with Blablubbs for a while at SPI, and always found him to be thorough, wise, eager to help, and very easy to get along with - I offered to nominate him myself a few months back. The tools will help him in work he has already shown an aptitude for. Girth Summit (blether) 14:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support as nominator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Strong support - no negatives, strong knowledge of WP guidelines and policies. Net positive. Onel5969 TT me 15:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Experienced, trusted editor already experienced with certain niche areas that are very important to the project. May he be mopped. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support, I've experience of Blablubbs in several adminny areas that I frequent. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support I've seen Blablubbs around and they are always competent and civil and what more needs be said? Well, probably somebody will bring up the "content creation" bugaboo but simply counting article creations ignores the content defense that Blablubbs has already notably performed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support, with no reservations. I'm hoping the main question is just how quickly this will fly past 200. AngryHarpytalk 15:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support so glad you're finally asking for the mop. It's been long due that you've needed it. Perryprog (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support, no concerns. Bishonen | tålk 15:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  18. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support without reservation. Blablubbs is the kind of admin candidate we need more of - eminently helpful & polite, and also willing to work in areas of the project that are understaffed and yet critical to the well-functioning of the project and the well-being of its good-faith contributors. firefly ( t · c ) 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Absolutely. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Finally Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 15:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support – an excellent candidate.— Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support With absolutely no qualms about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support, definitely. Vermont (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support. I rarely vote at RfAs. This vote is a pleasure.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support – obviously suitable candidate. Favonian (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support and no concerns based on the entirely subjective sample of activity I've seen from them around the place. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support per the myriad reasons listed by other users above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support per temperament, contributions, need for the tools, and benefits to the project. Easy RFA.— Shibbolethink ( ) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support: I don't go to SPI often, but when I do I see Blablubbs. With a clear use for adminship and no serious issues, I think this is a great candidacy. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support - Heck yes. GABgab 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support tentatively, pending the answer to Q5 which will be pivotal for this nomination. Has a clue.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support I rarely, if ever, take part in any RfA, and I'm going to come out with the cliché - I already thought Blablubbs was an admin! I've only had a couple of interactions with this user, in relation to SPI cases, and I couldn't get a better service, from doing the legwork to explaining the technical side of the process. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support Clear need for the tools, great temperament. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Obvious choice. — The Earwig (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support – I'll echo the comments about temperament. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Eminently sensible editor who will be a fine administrator. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Not only he does invaluable work at SPI and anti-abuse areas, he's also eager to collaborate with others and mentor (see User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI). Also, I trust him to make good judgement calls. MarioGom (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Strong Support a fellow SPI clerk, I strongly support the mop being handed to this user. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support. RfA needs more editors like Blablubbs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Easiest decision I've made in weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. per the strong endorsement of the SPI team. My first reaction was "I thought they were an admin" and my second reaction was "I thought they had been around longer than 15 months". There is less "content creation work" than I would like to see, but there is enough that I'm not going to bother asking a "talk about editing article space" question. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Strong Support I have run across their work in various spaces and places around here and I frankly thought Blablubbs was already an admin. I never comment here, but in this case, I am glad to make an exception to support this worthy candidate. Cheers! Geoff | Who, me? 16:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support No brainer. Clog Wolf Howl 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Strong Support When this editor doesn't know something, they seek clarification from more knowledgable editors. Knowing your limitations, and asking for help, is the most important trait that an admin can have. This editor has that. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support without reservations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Strong support No brainer, without reservations, whatever else you'd like me to add. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support - clearly knows what they are doing. Should be dandy with the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Big Support: The majority of my RfA !votes are simple applications of "has clue, not a jerk". Blablubbs certainly has an abundance of clue (and a refreshing deficit of jerk), but to leave it at that would not be doing him the justice he deserves. He is the rare mix of a calm, collected and thoughtful chap with technical smarts and a true desire to build and protect the project. In other RfA !votes I often throw in a casual "ask why not?", but today reader, I have given you a solid why. Please join me in supporting a very worthy candidate ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not that Blablubbs needs it, but I stand in solidarity with their answer to Q10. I also wish to add my own comment, as much as I shouldn't, to the fray: anyone who identifies as a Nazi, or any other hateful ideology of a similar ilk, is not welcome to contribute here ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support You'll make a fine admin. Good luck! Sro23 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support, good one. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support I have just had the pleasure of reading Wolfdietrich Schnurre. This is a very well qualified candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support, excellent candidate. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support, trusted user, legitimate use for the tools. Good luck! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Adumbrativus (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Well qualified, no concerns from me. DanCherek (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support Will use sysop well. This page has been on my watchlist for a while. Pahunkat (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Seen them active on SPI where they do are doing a stellar job. No worries, quite the contrary.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. I wholeheartedly support this candidacy. I've been impressed by what I've seen of Blablubbs' work, especially at SPI and on the VRT team. I'm particularly struck by his exceptional sensitivity and communication skills, things that are a great asset for adminship and that more technical contributors are often criticized for lacking (whether fairly or not) - see for example [1] and [2] (sorry, VRT members only). I'm sure he'll make good use of the tools. Spicy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support. MER-C 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support Apart from my personal anguish at not knowing Blablubbs was on the RfA table/cutting board and my deeply hurt mental stature with respect to the same, I support. --qedk (t c) 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support – very qualified candidate. Thanks to the nominators for bringing this forward. – bradv🍁 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Let's goooooo. — 🦊 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Easily Eddie891 Talk Work 18:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Strong support; it's about time! stwalkerster (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Strong support; "it's about time!", indeed. Also the answer to Q5...I've also on the pirate team. Face-tongue.svg --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support. Princess of Ara 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, the second oppose is another excellent reason to support this candidate. Having another admin willing to make tough blocks against neo-nazis is a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. [Was gonna try to camp out #100, but I'm impatient.] Even if I didn't know Blablubbs as a mentor in the field of countering abuse; one of my SPI clerk trainers; and a kind, caring friend, this vote of strong support would still be a no-brainer. He is ubiquitous at SPI, keeping afloat a beleaguered critical part of our anti-abuse infrastructure. He already probably does more admin-level work than most admins. I think the perfect administrator is one who has both grit and empathy, and he surely has both in spades. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Net positive, support this user becoming an admin. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Happily. Always had good experiences, even when we disagree. Vexations (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Strong support Blablubbs has been my go-to resource for anything relating to SPI or proxies for some time now and has been unfailingly patient and helpful. No question whatsoever that he will use the tools well. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support, good work at SPI--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Will clearly do well with the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support I believe Blablubbs would be a good addition to enwiki's admin team. All my interactions with Blablubbs were without any issues. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support - Not a jerk, knows what they're doing. A little surprised they aren't already an admin. Pronounces ANI correctly. — GhostRiver 19:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support Obviously; it's about time! — Berrely • TalkContribs 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support I've already come across some of their contributions and kinda thought they were an admin already – which I think is a good sign. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Absolutely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support - Has the right temperment, is trustworthy, and has done stellar work re: SPI and COI/UPE. Would make an excellent admin. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support - excellent SPI clerk and fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support- No issues at all as far as I'm concerned. Good Luck.-   Aloha27  talk  20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support – here's a mop as a thank you for your work at SPI and WPOP ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support - Blabb is another "why aren't you an admin?" editor, and I'm glad he's finally gone and run. Best of luck, my friend, and prepare to be miserable for the next six days. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Of course. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Absolutely, seen you around in the past, hope to continue seeing you around as a sysop! Leijurv (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support A fine candidate, good luck JW 1961 Talk 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. per comments in Neutral section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support, one of those people who I thought was an admin already :) --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Glrx (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support. Great candidate, trusted noms, clear need for tools. Speaks native German, Swiss German and French level 2? Party, Bonus! Welcome to the wild, wild world of mops. BusterD (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support. Absolutely in the category of Surely They Are Already?! Fantastically conscientious and useful editor who will be a great admin. DBaK (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support, yeah per the many "are you really not yet?" comments. ♠PMC(talk) 21:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Clear need, clearly trustworthy, clearly has the right disposition. Excited to be able to offer this support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Yes please. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Great work at SPI; I genuinely thought he was already an admin. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Kirbopher2004 support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support Very pleased to see this pop up on my watchlist. What took you so long?! Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Superbly qualified, greatly enthused by their work at SPI. Great chap in general! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Finally! S0091 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support Great work at SPI! NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Strong support – I could write about how he'd be a fantastic admin, but I'd be wikt:preaching to the choir. Short version: somebody give this guy a mop. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. I've checked a random sample of this user's contributions and I didn't find anything of concern.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support: To quote George, MOP ON and CU JIMMIE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support Great interactions with this user. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support Excellent candidate. scope_creepTalk 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Has done good work, should do more work. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But I'm disappointed by Q5: Ah-knee is correct for German speakers. So only 99.99998% support :) —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Scandinavian languages crowd in to support Kusma. It has always been a melodious Ah-knee in my head. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    I felt lonely with this pronunciation down at #General comments. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    22:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support I've had very cordial and professional interactions with Blabubbs at SPI, where they do great work. Seeing the other things they do here, how could one say no? Additionally, I thoguht they were already an admin. --- Possibly 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. The only thing I can say that's negative is that they blew me off when I tried to nominate them earlier this year. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support. Awesome technical knoledge that I can only envy. Will be an even greater asset with 'the tools'. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Aye ~ Amory (utc) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support, there does not seem to be any reason to oppose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support, excellent editor, great SPI work. The one oppose outstanding at this time is entirely baseless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support, seems like a really good candidate. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support, looks good. Dracophyllum 00:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support. — Goszei (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support — No reason not to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support, strong candidate with activity in places that need help and measured discipline. Kuru (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. (edit conflict)Support for reasons given by nominators and several supports above. I'm not a big fan on judging AfD participation by "agreement", but I have checked participation there, and Blablubbs consistently provides well-explained, policy-based reasons for his !votes. I am particularly impressed in a case where the close was opposite of his !vote, involving personal attacks against the candidate, which Blablubbs handled calmly and rationally. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support. Adminship would greatly benefit the work Blabs is doing at SPI, where he's always been positive and helpful. He even took the initiative to fill the admins in on some information I left out of my report. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 01:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support. This user was a major help in getting m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura drafted. Face-smile.svgMJLTalk 02:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support Definitely. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support really strong candidate. Cavalryman (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support. Looks like a very qualified candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support - Absolutely qualified candidate who is a pleasure to interact with; Blablubbs' having the toolkit would be a clear benefit to the project. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support lomrjyo (📝) 03:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support excellent candidate. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support Yes, please! The more help at SPI and AIV, the better! Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Wait, you're not a sysop yet? --pandakekok9 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support. -- King of ♥ 05:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support No issues with temperament, two nominators, experience with SPI and other technical projects, doesn't like Nazis. Check, check, check, and check. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support Well-rounded user who will benefit the project with the tools, has my trust. SpencerT•C 05:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support, Blablubbs has the need to see deleted contribs and the SPI backlog will be greatly reduced if Blablubbs will do the admin actions on all the many cases he handles instead of requesting administrator assistance.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support with a little surprise, I thought you already were an admin. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support, I've only noticed good things from this candidate. Graham87 06:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support: Even aside from the incredible work at SPI, Blablubbs having the tools would be a major net positive for the project. They have demonstrated an ability to work well with others in disputes, to handle responsibility with advanced toolsets, and levelheadedness that sometimes seems in short supply. Waggie (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. A candidacy long overdue. I've long held the view that Blab is the best candidate for sysopship that we currently have, and am overjoyed to see him run at last. All the best! JavaHurricane 07:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support. Clearly a good candidate. We need more admins. --Bduke (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support. Great candidate. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support I have no doubt I will not agree with all of his decisions but even an admin is a human being and so am I. There is a lot of work to do and I have trust in you. The Banner talk 08:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support - Overqualified :). Full trust. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support I have every confidence he'll make an excellent Admin, just as he's been a great SPI clerk. I've been looking forward to his RfA - meant to vote yesterday but forgot, great to see so many supports already. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support. In a relatively short time Blablubbs has mastered some of the most vital but technically difficult areas of the project. Apart from his main work at SPI, I've found his comments at AfD to be very well-considered, even when the consensus goes the other way, as are the handful of closes he has made, and would have no qualms about him also working in deletion as an admn. I have no idea why he would be worried about his content record, either, which just shows a commendable focus on quality over quantity. I have no doubt he will prove just as adept with the mop, and with his SPI experience I hope he will put himself forward for CU as soon as possible. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 10:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support shares my beliefs on IP masking. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support Blablubbs has done loads of creative behind-the-scenes work with the tools already at his disposal. It's hard to imagine a stronger candidate for the admin toolset. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Without question. Would probably have nominated if asked. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Though I do have some reservations about someone who doesn't pronounce it "Annie". GMGtalk 12:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    🎶 Annie, would I lie to you? 🎶 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Annie...are...are you okay? GMGtalk 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Annie, get your gun! WaltCip-(talk) 13:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. The oppose votes convince me that my positive impression of the requestor is sound. —JBL (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Rcsprinter123 (comment) 12:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support - should make a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Opposes not convincing. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support After reading the questions and support opinions I felt the need to support this candidate. Then I read the opposes and I was even more convinced! Delete stuff that needs deleting? checkY - No nazis? checkY - Block open proxies? checkY! HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support Has a clue not a jerkThanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support My interactions with the candidate have only been positive, and Blablubbs should be given the tools to help his work. – Anon423 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support, Seems to have a clue, no visible evidence of being a jerk. No convincing opposition. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support for many reasonsParadise Chronicle (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support all the way. Tfess up?or down? 14:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support - Does great work at SPI, an area where we need (much) more admins. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 15:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support - Definitely deserves the green name... I mean adminship on enwiki! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. I've had only good interactions with the candidate whenever I've encountered him. He seems extremely competent and is a good fit for the tools. Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support gladly. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support Eminently qualified. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. ...absolutely. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support I see no issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support Seems good. 18:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  179. Support Good record of contribution and a good fit for the role in my mind. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support Thanks for all your works at SPI. Next is getting the Checkuser perm. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 18:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support - shows a need for admin privileges investigating sockpuppetry, and a good track record with the right mindset for the job (good interactions with other users). Bibeyjj (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support, to paraphrase a few of the comments above, per the "oppose" !votes below. I had positive interactions during the Wolfspam cleanup a while back, and nothing raised here has shaken that impression. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support. Persuaded by the oppose section (so I appreciate those who responded.) Have also had limited but positive interactions with the candidate and trust KevinL. Thank you both for your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support – no concerns regarding misuse of the tools or temperament. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support I've had the pleasure of working with Blablubbs in several different areas and have no concerns. Also per JayBeeEll. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support - I rarely vote on RFAs, but Blabubbs is clueful, an asset to the project, and has good reason to need the tools. SnowFire (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Blablubbs, is overqualified, they possess the right temperament, have a near perfect knowledge on our PAG. This honestly has been “about time” Congratulations mate. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support: the work I've seen from them, mainly at SPI and ANI, has been excellent. I've seen them ask for help in a complicated situtation – exactly the temperament I want to see in sysops. I join those above in rejecting the oppose vote rationales so far as being variously irrelevant, inaccurate, and abhorrent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support User doesn't seem like a jerk; seems to have a legitimate use for the tools; and looks like they can be trusted with them. The opposes are so farcical that I'm better to keep quiet for fear of saying something unbecoming about those who posted them (seriously? opposing because this user supports WP:NONAZIS?), so no issue there, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support - great record, and no concerns from me. Loopy30 (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support; I've been waiting for this. My interactions with the candidate at SPI have been universally positive, and he has been diligent and hard-working. Given a clear need for the tools and recommendations from respected CheckUsers (who would obviously work with him far more than I), I see no reason to oppose. His stance on pronunciation has only increased my willingness to support his candidacy. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support Looks good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support, passes my RFA criteria. Clovermoss (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Strong support; Blablubbs' work in SPI and UPE investigations is of such magnitude that it took me a while to figure out how he could do that and not be an admin. There is a clear need for the tools, and I can't think of a more reasonable person to have them. jp×g 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support. Their work on SPI and the like suggests that they could be trusted not to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support per all of the above––especially TNT's glowing praise: "has an abundance of clue (and a refreshing deficit of jerk)"! Knifegames (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support. Having administrator tools will make Blablubbs' SPI work easier. Not convinced by any of the opposes so far. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support, solid candidate, with tools will aggregate a lot. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 08:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support. Solid candidate, certain they will make good use of administrative tools. Good luck. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Support EN-Jungwon 09:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Not only do I see nothing to make me believe that Blablubbs would abuse the tools if given, I trust them implicitly. SQLQuery Me! 09:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Support I was going to ask some more questions, but given how stressfull RfA's already are and the satisfactory responses from candidate so far, I'm happy to already express my support. Clear need for tools and willingness to learn in areas less familiar with. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  203. Support If reading the Q&A hadn't convinced me then the oppose votes below convince me that this is a great candidate. Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Support I have seen brilliant work by them in SPI and AIV. Certainly someone you can trust with the tools. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support per everyone above - I see no red flags here. The opposes don't concern me. Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 11:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  206. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. Support - I've had the fortune to observe him for a few years now. He's always been helpful, courteous and dedicated to the project. He will make a great admin. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Support, no probs here at giving them a mop. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. Support. Not personally familiar with this user (not that I can remember), but the people vouching for them say a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  210. because the answers to the questions are very sensible and also because some of the oppose arguments are risible. Spartaz Humbug! 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. Support passes my RfA criteria. Nick (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support His SPI contributions are awesome. I already thought he was an admin! codingcyclone please ping/my wreckage 18:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support - User seems rather competent.--Catlemur (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  214. Support. I see no issues. --Kinu t/c 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  215. Support - Net positive for the project.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  216. Support I agree with the dissenters that we need more admins working in SPI like we need another remake of Zorro. I accept that it is complex and obviously fulfilling work for some. As a disclaimer, I should also state that I once blocked someone for being a Nazi after a discussion on ANI in which we could were uncertain as to whether we were dealing with a Nazi or a troll, but blocked on the basis that the disruption was the same either way. In this case I am convinced by the quality of the work in Q11, and by the endorsement of Risker. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  217. Support - Excellent candidate! I think they will do great! -- Dane talk 23:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  218. No concerns evident from a quick run through of this page and user's contribs. Good luck! Daniel (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  219. Unconditional Support - Love this editor! Will be a good admin here on Wikipedia! Heart (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  220. Support good content work and hard worker at spi, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  221. Support I trust the CUs/clerks and VRT members who have worked with him, as well as the answers to the questions. Also echoing the sentiments of above editors who found the opposes rather lacking. eviolite (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  222. Support Appears to be a good candidate. → Call me Razr Nation 04:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  223. Support welcome. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  224. Support -ink&fables «talk» 04:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  225. Support Seren_Dept 05:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  226. Support. Seems like a competent, respected editor with a need for the tools. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  227. Support There are plenty of good reasons to support, but the one I'd like to highlight is the quality of the four oppose votes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  228. Support. No issues. —Yahya (talkcontribs.) 10:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  229. Support - absolutely no issues, especially given they pronounce ANI correctly. Anarchyte (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  230. Support - very much qualified for the mop. Roniiustalk to me 11:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  231. Support. It's clear to me that this nominee is ready to take on administrative duties and will be a good administrator. Comment: I notice that Blablubbs has been actively editing just a few months longer than I had been when my RfA passed in November 2007. – Athaenara 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  232. Support Especially in view of the latter part of the answer to Q12. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 12:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  233. Support per nom. Grandpallama (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  234. Support seems like the community would benefit from them having the tools. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  235. Support A huge aid to the SPI stuff. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  236. Support per nom. Polyamorph (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  237. Per noms and the correct answer to Q5 Wug·a·po·des 19:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  238. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  239. Absolutely, it was only recently that I realized they weren't already. Star Mississippi 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  240. Support Per nom. --Enos733 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  241. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Opposes not a concern, and happy to pile on. Miniapolis 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  242. Support. Interesting oppose rationales; however, I think this candidate will do well with the tools, anyway. Best to you Blablubbs! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  243. Support. This is a clear yes. Sockhunting is important, and the admin toolset is fully appropriate in this case. The oppose rationale that WP:NONAZIS is disqualifying seems to be based on the notion that right-leaning editors will get falsely swept up in the blocking. The actual advice that I see in the essay (particularly its section on what to do if you encounter a racist) boils down to a narrowly tailored version of report-problem-editors-that-tenditiously-edit-to-advance-their-personal-beliefs; this isn't a convincing reason to oppose. I'm not particularly motivated to deny or support someone's access to admin tools based off of whether they are an inclusionist or a deletionist, since I'm not exactly experienced in the area of deletion. All in all, Blablubbs looks as if he will make the community better off if he gets the admin toolset, so I'm all for it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  244. Seems to have clue. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  245. Support More admins at SPI are most definitely needed. FDW777 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  246. Support for meeting my mins and no big deal. Nothing in Oppose section concerns me. Ifnord (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  247. Support Escpecially because of what was said about SPI and NONAZIS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  248. Support, an ideal candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  249. Support Blablubbs seems like a great candidate for adminship, I'm very much in agreement with his opinion about Nazis on Wikipedia.-Tax Fraud! [she/they] (talk | contrib.) 18:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  250. Support Great to see individuals with such a broad skillset contributing positively and constructively to the project.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  251. Support No concerns. We could definitely use more admins with expertise in fighting sockpuppetry and long-term abuse. Tag on the noms from two functionaries, I have no doubts Blablubbs will excel as an admin, and perhaps one day also a functionary :) MusikAnimal talk 18:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  252. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  253. Support for at least two reasons. First, I have seen their work in dealing with sockpuppets, and I know that they know when to block them. Second, I have seen the Oppose votes. If the opposition comes only from trolls, socks, and fanatics, that says something. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  254. Support No objections. wikinights talk 00:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  255. Support. Kurtis (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  256. Support, great editor, no concerns.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  257. Support - happy to agree.--Jorm (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  258. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  259. Support. Net positive. I especially appreciate his SPI effort. — kashmīrī TALK 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  260. per Risker. — Ched (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  261. Strong Support Have seen Blabblubs around, and they're a great candidate for admin. FlalfTalk 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  262. Support - doing the lion's share of work at SPI these days and highly clueful to boot. None of the opposes are even remotely convincing, and some are pretty obviously spiteful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  263. Support. Having worked in SPI, I know it is a magnet for sockpuppets, meatpuppets and trolls (plus a few joe jobs) but the community rarely express its gratefulness to those that work there. It's a thankless yet crucial job. I wish the candidate success and continue his work in this area. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  264. Support. I honestly thought that he is already an admin with the work he has been doing! SunDawntalk 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  265. Support Great candidate! 100% support. 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJay (talkcontribs)
  266. Support. Trustworthy noms, candidate is highly experienced in the administrative areas they intend to participate in. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  267. Support. Has shown what an admin needs. oknazevad (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  268. Weak support. Highly skilled and civil editor who does a vast amount of valuable work. On the other hand, I share some of the oppose concerns, especially BrxBrx & TOA. I recall the candidate voted to permban the good hearted moderate conservative editor BusStop. The candidate's user page says Wikipedia has a "huge impact on what the world believes". Thats correct, but not largely in the way the candidate seems to imagine. Hardline 'NoNazi' type views, amplified by Wikipedias effect on the wider media sphere, risks accelerating civilisational collapse. Two reasons why this balances only to weak support & not oppose. Several editors I've admired for years also voted to permaban BusStop, so perhaps it was warranted for reasons I'm not seeing. And the hard-line NoNazi thing is perfectly reasonable as an individual rule, its only dangerous because its becoming the dominant view across the liberal thought bubble. So can't really blame the candidate, though may decide to indulge in a little rant on the talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  269. Strong Support I promised you I'd support you if you ran. I don't understand the people who opposed him based on his support for WP:NONAZIS. Support for WP:NONAZIS is such a harmless opinion because the ideology is so extreme and destructive. He is also one of the kindest and most patient editors I have ever come across. Every time he comments in a tense situation on ANI, he calms the atmosphere a little. I am honored to support him. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  270. Stephen 00:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  271. Doing my part to cancel out some of the more ridiculous oppose votes below. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  272. Support: a trusted contributor with a demonstrated need for the admin toolkit. Thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  273. Weak support per FeydHuxtable. I have concerns, but not enough concerns that it should affect our appointment of a new admin. Stlwart111 05:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  274. Support No concern. A good and skilled candidate. --Assyrtiko (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  275. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 10:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  276. Support per noms. Don't usually pile on but the oppose statements lack both high-quality and nuance, such that they help drive open support. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  277. Support as tools will help with SPI work. TSventon (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  278. Support I come out of a bit of an editing break to see this RFA. Pleasant surprise! I've known Blablubbs for some time now and can safely say that I am comfortable with them having the mop. Working at places like SPI and WPOP is a thankless task that, while largely being behind-the-scenes work, is quite essential in protecting the project from harm. I'm glad to see an admin candidate that actively works in these areas, where the mop would benefit them the most. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  279. Support, Good candidate. signed, Iflaq (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  280. Support the correct answer to Q5 is of course "drarmer baud", but otherwise an excellent candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  281. Support so that you reach closer to WP:300 -- Parnaval (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  282. Support. Steve Smith (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  283. Support not an jerk, has a clue, has content experience, what's not to like? Welcome to the Corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  284. Weak support. Not someone I was familiar with, so I had to do a bit of digging, but I think they'll be a net positive with the toolset. My support is "weak" because I would expect somebody with the same level of support at RfA as Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328 to have an incredible track record of kindness, compassion and friendliness that's easy to spot. I can see evidence of good collaboration in places like Template:Did you know nominations/Hannibal (network) where Blabubbs worked well with the very much missed Yoninah, but much of Blabubbs' activity is deleting drivel and telling trolls and spammers to "jog on". Blabubbs, I would strongly recommend you work towards being a good all-rounder, working in both content and administration. Don't spend all your time handling disruptive editors, because you will burn out and either quit or get hauled off to Arbcom on trumped-up charges. I see Ashleyyoursmile has already quit the project; don't let the same thing happen to you. :-( As Observations on Wikipedia Behaviour put it: "Trolls, banned editors, and mental defectives will try to annoy you, if you are an active contributor. Do good work anyway. Avenge yourself on your enemies by not becoming like them". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  285. Support - no concerns here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  286. Support per nom. Hankiz 12:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  287. Support - Good work at SPI and overall as well. Long time trusted editor and a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  288. Support I have no concerns. 200 in base twelve! PJvanMill)talk( 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Absolutely NO for a deletionist.--RZuo (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    well, the following record speaks for itself. deletionists congregate and succeed in deleting such videos as an interview of a US member of congress: c:special:redirect/logid/315900656.--RZuo (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The only significant interactions I can find between these two users is c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lusccasdeutsch. Is cleaning Commons of softcore pornography really "deletionism"? And does it have anything to do with this RfA? – bradv🍁 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. where are the "penises and porn" in File:Gloria Sol beautiful model with red skirt on Bir Hakeim bridge for my photoshoot in Paris by night.webm and File:The beautiful model Gloria Sol on the Bir Hakeim Bridge in Paris by night for my photoshoot.webm nominated by this user?
    2. why did this user vote to delete a lecture from Yale, an interview of Bwalya Sørensen and an interview of Ilhan Omar?
    does a careless deletionist only behave like that on a specific project? RZuo (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Ilhan Omar interview is an upload from The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth, a commercial series on Showtime (TV network). In my opinion, the odds that this is a copyright violation are about 99.9%. Why would a business like Showtime freely license their content? So, the uploader looks to me like someone with zero understanding of copyright restrictions and an obsession with nudity. Many of these uploads are very fishy, and it will take a lot of work to figure it all out. The notion that asking for the problematic uploads of a user like this to be reviewed on Commons makes this candidate a "careless deletionist" is utterly absurd to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The source YouTube video appears to be uploaded by the copyright holder, and the video info indeed claims it's licensed under CC-BY, so this is not a slam-dunk license laundering case, but it is nonetheless rather suspicious. — The Earwig (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, okay, so just on Commons Face-smile.svg for a second there I was worried it was on a project where he was running for admin! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Excuse my badgering, but what a daft oppose vote rationale - this appears to be something which has zero standing on Blablubbs's English Wikipedia contributions. Commons could do with a damn good scrub ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    His AfD stats suggest that despite having a lot more !delete rationalities than !keep, they are almost always in keeping with the community at large... Which is usually a good example of a trusted user Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    the exceptions prove the rule: all three are votes to delete but articles were kept. -- RZuo (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Number of AfD's where vote matched result (green cells): 51 (92.7%)". I rest my case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What rule? The 'rule' that they are a deletionist? ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've known Blabb for a little while and I would not describe him as a Deletionist. I would, in fact, describe him as a user interested in the quality of this Project, and this oppose as baseless. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Vami IV, er, the last five words seem to be unnecessarily personalising the discussion. Your point is as well, or better, made without them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a gentle reminder that it's currently 95-1-0. Those who think this is baseless can probably afford to ignore it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But then how will I consume my unnecessary drama? Izno (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My Commons experience with user RZuo has only been negative, with a number of WP:BATTLE situations. Here we see this again, unfortunately. Best to ignore. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    says the user who followed my edits and harassed me by trying everything to delete File:Yodel (company) logo.svg File:DFDS logo 2015.svg File:Harris + Hoole logo.svg File:Paysafe.svg etc. but failed in all attempts. i was too generous to not report this disruption, and now it is used for smear campaign against me.--RZuo (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose , user states that they agree with the page "WP:NONAZIS", however, that essay (which is not a policy or guideline) has actually been used to try to justify blocking right-wing contributors by calling them "fascist" and then when the right-wing contributor explains that they are right wing but not fascist, the "NONAZIS" supporter says "a fascist would deny that they are a fascist". TOA The owner of all ☑️ 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regardless of your opinion on the presence of right-wing extremism on the platform, is it really appropriate to blame the nominee for the actions of others based on a tenuous reference to some essay? /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:NONAZIS basically says that users should be blocked for their beliefs even if their edits on Wikipedia are in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The obvious problem with such an idea is that it leads to users accusing other users of being a Nazi and/or fascist and therefore deserving of a ban. If the candidate says they support such practice, then I believe it is reasonable to oppose the candidate because I oppose the idea of being able to be banned just because someone thinks you're a fascist. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 06:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The actual statement by the candidate on his userpage is "Nazism and similar beliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment and with the goals of a neutral encyclopaedia." Do you disagree with this statement? – bradv🍁 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That question is loaded. Most people don't believe that Nazism or similar beliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people should exist on Wikipedia. The question is always, who decides what meets the criteria? General statements like that are prone to abuse and being used to win content disputes.--v/r - TP 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, but at what point has the candidate attempted to use the beliefs surrounding his specific statement to abuse other uses and win content disputes? If this is something that happens frequently, you ought to be able to easily cite specific examples of this. WaltCip-(talk) 17:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've moved the goalposts. OP doesn't have to state specific examples, and neither do I, for the oppose to be valid. Candidate has signaled belief and support in the essay. That's all that's required here for OP's oppose.

    Frankly, I'm resistant to answer your question for fear of being attacked under this very idea. How do I know that any example I cite will be viewed with openness and not hostility? WP:AGF you say? We're in the middle of discussing a candidate that supports a view, that you're defending, that any subjective evaluation of comments that meets a vague definition of "downplaying the humanity of people" will earn a ban. How is it possible to even discuss this topic without the chilling effect of the topic weighing down the discussion? I'm feeling my own humanity downplayed by your objection to my comment, should you now be banned?--v/r - TP 18:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    As WP:NONAZIS says, "the only way for administrators to recognize this form of disruption is if these individuals make it known on Wikipedia." The essay does not advocate a witch hunt of innocent users whose comments are merely similar to what Nazi would say. WP:CRYRACIST, a section of the same essay, reminds users that they should not try to get other users blocked in a dispute by claiming they are racists. I would still expect editors to cry racist in disputes. TOA, I'd like to read some cases of blocks (or attempts to block) that you are talking about. wikinights talk 14:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Blablubs stated that users who support genocidal ideologies are incompatible with this project. Your !oppose nom claims that Blablubs is in favor of blocking right-wing contributors. As Kobe Bryant once famously said, that is a bikram yoga stretch. WaltCip-(talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The author of WP:NONAZIS has previously accused you of stalking his edits and engaging in a vendetta against him. Raising that essay here out of the blue, when it's not brought up by the candidate on their page Using a passing mention of that essay as an opportunity to rant about the essay seems like more evidence of such a vendetta than anything to do with Blablubbs. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please strike or reword the incorrect statements in your comment. 03:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    The facts Grandpallama brings up are true: you have been accused of stalking/vendetta by the author of NONAZIS. Do you object to "seems more like evidence of such a vendetta"? That seems reasonable, and I share the sentiment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is very clear in candidate question four (4) that the candidate themselves referenced the NONAZIS page. Candidate question twelve (12) involved the questioner referencing NONAZIS and with the candidate answering the question at face value. Therefore it is incorrect to say that I am "raising that essay here out of the blue"[3]. However I would have preferred that the user fix it themselves instead of you bringing more attention to their comment. 03:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Fair. I would support Grandpallama rephrasing "out of the blue" into something like "as a reason to Oppose". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, I'll fix it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not a little bit annoyed to see you opposing another RfA for the same reason you opposed mine. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strong oppose We need fewer rather than more admins addicted to the bloodsport of sock-hunting. Recklessly blocking open proxies and VPNs just because they exist has caused untold damage to the project; those who would contribute to it require not reinforcement but reeducation. With that in mind, the candidate's answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 leave me with no choice but to oppose. "[B]eliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment[,]" says the candidate('s user page), apparently. I couldn't possibly agree more! Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd say an individual RfA is relatively unsuitable for changing a local policy (WP:PROXY) and the global blocking procedure performed by Stewards (meta:Proxy). The opposition appears to be about policy-compliant contributions – okay, your opinion –, but linking these concerns to a text about Nazism seems wrong. I guess Godwin's law applies. I don't really expect it to happen, but it would be tactful to remove that portion of the statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just because an edit can be made—because it's technically not a policy violation—doesn't mean that it has to be made and neither does it mean that making it is a good idea. There are certain such edits that can be made that I don't believe should be made. If you make these edits that I disagree with all day every day, and you then apply for advanced permissions with the express goal of making these edits that I disagree with more efficiently, I'm going to oppose your application. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FWIW, I disagree with the claim that blocking VPNs and proxies has caused "untold damage" to Wikipedia. I am currently the target of a very dangerous LTA who frequently abuses a specific type of proxies. Having recieved threats of libel cases, criminal intimidation and doxxing on and offwiki, and having recieved some extremely abusive emails, I can safely say that Blablubbs's work in blocking those proxies has made life a lot easier for me and reduced the disruption caused by the LTA. Many such LTAs are at least partially prevented from disrupting Wikipedia and allowing users to concentrate on more constructive things than the game of whack-a-mole that has to be played with those vandals. JavaHurricane 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm happy to hear the candidate's contributions have made your life a bit easier. Unfortunately, in the big picture, preventing constructive edits through proactive IP range blocking causes more damage that it stops. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Iaritmioawp, describing SPI clerks as people 'addicted to the bloodsport of sock-hunting' is genuinely offensive. You're talking about people who volunteer their time to prevent people from abusing this platform. Some people use socks to vandalise our articles; some of them do it to create promotional content; others do it to harass and abuse our contributors, or indeed to harass people in real life by posting private information or vile commentary about them on wiki. You are welcome to disagree on the policy of proactive range blocks, but if you could see some of the horrible things that I've had to rev delete to prevent genuine harm to the project and its contributors, you might be less quick to castigate people who are willing to work in that area; if you think we need fewer people with the ability and permissions to do that sort of work and share the load, you are sorely mistaken. Girth Summit (blether) 14:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    hear. hear. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Girth, I wish I had extra thank buttons for this post but damn. I don't often swear on-wiki but fucking well done sir. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The majority users of those IP ranges were vandals, UPEs who tarnish the project's image and LTAs, and I don't see how blocking proxies has negatively impacted the project. We already have WP:IPBE for users with legitimate reasons to be on the IPs (e.g. editors from China, collateral damage in case of residential proxies, etc.). The blocking of those IPs has helped most users concentrate on other things better by reducing the effectiveness of the disruptive and unwanted elements. JavaHurricane 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do think Iaritmioawp makes a fair point about the harms of blocking open proxies in this matter. There are millions of blocks against ranges under the open proxies policy. These blocks obviously have side effects. Blablubbs is IPBE himself but he's an established editor; is someone from China who isn't able to start editing yet going to be able to meet the requirements at Wikipedia:IP block exemption (or even be willing to reach out in the first place, just to make a little change)? Probably not. I asked a question about this at meta:Requests for comment/Global IPBE guidelines but largely went unanswered. I think the enwiki consensus is that the benefits outweigh the harms, and personally I don't think we could handle the resulting problems if some of these ranges were unblocked, but that doesn't mean someone can't make a reasonable argument for the other viewpoint. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Iaritmioawp has now been blocked with an expiration time of 3 months and the summary "Logged out editing to avoid scrutiny; previous AN/I"; details can be found at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1042597788#Logged_out_editing. The opposition to open proxy blocks may have been influenced by their effectivity in enforcing transparency about such behavior. Thanks to those who block VPNs and open proxies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks - I was going to make the point that this oppose needed to be seen in the light of Iaritmioawp's extensive history of logged-out editing but couldn't find the AN thread to link to. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In that light, and with that context now stated, could this oppose be struck? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are not indefinitely blocked and their opposition is not flagrant, so no. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Primefac: There are those pun addicts among us who might offer that it is not fragrant, ether. You're welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose (Redacted) Silesian Charger (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Wingwatchers (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Wingwatchers: Why are you opposing? NoahTalk 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, this account has a mere 120 days of activity and no significant interactions. Unsupportted Opposes seem to be likely not in good faith without further explanation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Reluctant Oppose This is a difficult !oppose for me as clearly Blablubb's has made many helpful contributions on SPI and OTRS, and generally seems to have the right personality for adminship. I would have wholeheartedly supported Blablubbs if it weren't for the answers to question 4, 10, 12 and 13, which give me reason for pause. Whilst I appreciate Blablubb's pledge to avoid "purity tests", I can't help but feel that this may be in opposition to what was answered for q 12. I fear that by even having a no-nuance position as mentioned may cause future problems in more ambiguous positions - after all Nazis aren't exactly a sympathetic bunch, but what about a future controversy over (for example), the PKK, or Azeri/Armenian disputes, etc, whereby users on one side or the other are scrutinized for any possible unrelated positions, in the event that they may fall afoul of an extended NONAZIS standard. There's also the fact that NONAZIS is not a policy or a guideline - it is an essay with limited consensus that makes having a ironclad position as expressed in the answer for 12 concerning to me - our 5 pillars seem to make it clear that as long as one keeps their unproductive beliefs off the project, they should be welcome. We welcome avowed communists, dominionists, creationists and the sort on WP - all of which can be argued to be fringe (and even frankly genocidal) perspectives. Nevertheless, as long as they kept their nonsense off the project, they are welcome to edit. To use NONAZIS as policy (as Blablubbs appears to be leaning towards) without the full buy in of the community would also raise the question of what we should do about other editors with fringe, if off-wiki, perspectives. Nevertheless, it appears this RfA will pass handily - hopefully the community will be in a position to answer these concerns should they arise in the future.BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 07:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thought elaboration: For q12, the lack of knowledge on the PKK and the no consensus MfD is perhaps the distillation of my concerns. While Nazis are generally accepted as awful, groups like the PKK (or for that matter, ETIM, etc) are certain to elicit similar reactions. There is considerable rhetoric in kurdish and armenian communities comparing the turkish state to the 3rd reich - and for good reason. The arguments for NONAZIS could easily be applied to the Turkish state as well - yet one can only imagine the conflict doing so would result - not least as considering many muslim states consider the Armeninan Genocide and the oppression of the Kurds to be islamophobic smear jobs. If we were to take an unambigous NONAZIS stance to these disputes, what would our position even be? Blablubbs has wisely decided that this is probably not a good place to be if one wishes to be productive, and frankly I must concur. Yet if we apply NONAZIS to nazis, and throw out our 5 pillars, it will strengthen demands that we apply the same reasoning to other highly controversial contemporary culture wars/geopolitical mudflinging topics - a path that is highly unproductive and very likely to breed resentment and a cultural civil war. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As someone who referenced Q12 in my !vote, may i say that from my perspective his answer is very good. I understand him to be saying that he is not currently aware of the community's position on (in this case) PPK's status, and therefore he would not act; i further extrapolate the generality that he is prepared to be subject to the community's consensus and precedent for his actions. Thus, i'm not seeing a no-nuance position, i'm seeing a community-responsive position ~ exactly what i believe i am delighted to see a new admin take.. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 07:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think my understanding comes from No Nazis, Period - the concern I have is that this will create precedent for No X, period, where X can refer to other similarly construed positions on the basis that they are credibly accused of oppressive or even genocidal natures - for instance, let X be turkicism, or communism, or hindutva, or dominionism. The problem here is that creating consensus on these will likely be unbelievably contentious. Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey, for example, for refusing to censor our armenian genocide page. Suppose in the future, a large influx of editors come demanding that we do, and apply a NONAZIS-style "policy" to, say, armenian atrocities during the breakup of the ottoman empire. Such a course of action would be nominally supported by NONAZIS, even though it'd also be a complete misreading of the historical theme. That said, I have no qualms about Blablubb's otherwise mature and uncontroversial nature, and I do believe that Blablubbs will uphold consensus, instead of seeking to undermine it. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 17:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean, NONAZIS is not exactly a fringe position and the WP:BLOCKNAZIS section (full disclosure: I wrote that portion) isn't going to get anyone desysoped for following. Nor will any block be overturned because of it. You're of course free to oppose and you're correct that BLOCKNAZIS is not a policy or guideline in the formal sense (and because of the rest of the essay likely will never be), but at the same time, it de facto is one since many admins routinely block based on it and there's zero chance of any block based on it being overturned or an admin being sanctioned because of it. Ping User:MjolnirPants since it is in his userspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I addressed this earlier in my rationale, but certainly we agree Nazis are bad, and pro-nazi pov-pushing on the project counts as unacceptable disruption. My concern lay in its expansion - already we see when admins use BLOCKNAZIS as a rationale, calls for extending it to more murky areas follow, as the archives on NONAZIS's talk demonstrate. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, you can disagree with that. My point was more that admins acting in accords with that section of the essay is already accepted community practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with TonyBallioni that NONAZIS is pretty much the default position among most administrators who deal with fascists and other haters. If some anonymous Nazi can edit butterfly or asteroid articles without spewing hate, then we would have no way of detecting that. Once they rear their genuine head, any administrator can block based on hateful and divisive POV pushing. This would be the case even if the NONAZIS essay had never been written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think part of the issue is that "Nazi!" (along with "fascist!" and "bigot!") has become a common-use pejorative, often against people who are demonstrably not (see enthusiasm for "punch a Nazi" in relation to Trump supporters). When words are used bluntly, and misused, but you want your use of that word to be viewed as less blunt and more nuanced, it helps to make that clear. I think the candidate did quite a good job of that on his user page, and a less good job of that here by endorsing that essay. Stlwart111 07:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're right Stalwart. The essay, while admirable in and of itself, intensifies the issue by explicitly lumping in all sorts of racists under the term Nazi. Another part of the issue is it reflects a wider trend thats been intensifying for years, to treat all sorts of socially right wing views as deplorable & bigoted, in both article & project space. Cullens also right that this would be happening regardless of the essay, it reflects wider cultural change. Unfortunately, not really reflective of society as a whole becoming more progressive. But of a cultural elite being ultra progressive in a way thats perceived as self righteous and even hateful by a wide section of the population. All that said, I doubt either you or I would disagree with the vast majority of NONAZI blocks. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly right. And while it seems very unlikely that this candidate will make those blocks a focus of their work, I don't want my comments (and I imagine you're the same) to be interpreted as a suggestion this candidate shouldn't do that work upon being given a mop. We explore these things here because we understand they will have the ability to do so. Stlwart111 09:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do feel obliged to note with the civil, but fairly pile-on nature of comments above, that BrxBrx's view, while perhaps unpopular with a majority of the Community, is certainly not inherently unreasonable. As well as "it doesn't have policy backing, don't block people on even well-accepted essay grounds", which is reasonable, I mentally sit between the two viewpoints: stating you're a Nazi on your userpage indicates a position contrary to civil participation...but we should also only block people who actually attack someone/the encyclopedia. You could make both a moral and a policy-backed argument for either case, and BrxBrx's phrasing is the best of the opposes on these grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nosebagbear, If someone believes that Jewish people ought to be sent to extermination camps we do do not wait until they commence murdering. Vexations (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Vexations: Since we have no confirmation that these souls are not merely idiots, nor any indication that they would ever actually act on their position, that's dubious to hold up. In what might well be considered a subset of idiocy, most self-declared Nazis that I run across online, or (by god thankfully) vastly more rarely in-person, indicate beliefs that don't really line up with actual Nazi beliefs (though still not anyone you'd genuinely want to know), on functionally 90% of the belief set. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for engaging in such a thoughtful way Nosebagbear. Youre way of thinking seemed to be much more common 10 or more years back. These days, I'd tend to the view that a userpage Nazi declaration is so inherently disruptive it warrants a permaban on its own, despite your good points against that. This is just based on the sense allowing such an account to roam the wiki would now provoke feelings of intense outrage in many good faith editors. The concern some of us have with the NONAZI essay (at least now it's gaining informal policy like weight) is more on the ambiguity dimension, on how it risks encouraging treating non Nazis like Nazis. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FeydHuxtable, the argument that we cannot act until a crime has been committed is a hurtful fallacy. We have a moral obligation to the members of our communities to keep them safe. If someone denies the right of other people to peacefully exist, then they are a threat to our safety and they cannot be members of our community. It is not just about Nazis. Vexations (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is getting off topic for this RfA, but if you're really curious, the BLOCKNAZIS section was written about people who literally put swastikas and black suns on their userpage as a way of showing they are neo-nazis, and can be extended to people who support genocide and advocate for race war or burning crosses in front of houses. The scope is pretty limited (While I did not write the entire essay, I did write both the blocking section and the one about not using the essay as a way to win arguments by falsely accusing people of being nazis.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pending answer to Q5. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: Q5 was the most contentious question of all, but I think Blablubbs handled it well. #TeamPirate! Face-tongue.svg --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving to support, because:
    • I’m embarrassed to just now notice that User:WaltCip beat me to this joke by 15 minutes. 
    • It's not as funny when there’s now an actual oppose.
    • Q5 was answered correctly. "Annie" is grounds for a desysop.
    • I trust Risker’s judgement.
    • To counteract 1/4 of the oppose vote, which I do not find persuasive.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Pending unanswered q's BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Changed to reluctant !oppose. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 07:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • That might seem a little silly and/or irrelevant, but how to properly pronounce the username of the candidate? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Usernamekiran, the little voice in my head always makes it rhyme with 'bar clubs'. Girth Summit (blether) 15:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I typically read it several ways (and contact them in several ways) with "blah-blah-blubs" or "blah-blub". Perryprog (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suppose it's a better question than sleep schedules... GeneralNotability (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: lolol. That question was really super embarrassing. @Perryprog and Girth Summit: my mind reads it in a few different ways, but most common is "blu-blah-bloo's" (blu pronounced like blunt. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Usernamekiran: Holy shit but same, and I thought I was dumb for reading it like that every time. --qedk (t c) 18:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was always thinking the same. @Blablubbs: This is a geniune curiousity question that I don't think will hurt anything. Could you possibly weigh in? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I held off answering this because I was curious to hear how people pronounce it in their head – blu-blah-bloo's was an unexpected one – and because I was trying to figure out how to explain this because I unfortunately don't know the International Phonetic Alphabet (Tamzin might be able to help out?). When I created this account, I was probably thinking of the German pronounciation (Bl-ah-blubbs, with the U pronounced like a short "oo"); nowadays, I read it with a short, stressed A and a U that sounds similar to "cub"; that's also the way the few Wikipedians whose voices I've heard have usually pronounced it. Though given that the name doesn't mean anything, I'd say there's no "proper" way, really. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm no IPA expert (although it is what I prefer on the rare occasions I drink beer), but since you asked, I think the first pronunciation you mentioned would be /bla.blubz/ (assuming that by a short "oo" you mean something like the French "ou"), and the latter would be /blæ.blʌbz/ or /blɑː-/ depending on accent (I assume matching the trap lexical set). If this is incorrect, offended parties should forward all complaints to Blablubbs for trusting me to get it right.[sarcasm] -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the help! :) --Blablubbs (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given I was probably thinking of the German pronounciation, I would guess that the vowel of blubb was as in, say, blubbern, with the short "oo" of English book? That would be, at least phonemically, a near-close near-back rounded vowel /ʊ/. —2d37 (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about how they only have an ABYSMAL 99.8% of edits with edit summaries? Clearly, this lack of communication warrants some explanation.Perryprog (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Vami IV: in light of your question 10, I can't help but feel you may have misinterpreted this percentage. As of writing and per the link in Perryprog's comment above, a total of 69 edits are missing a summary, with 40220 edits having a summary. stwalkerster (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I uh. Fuck. I haven't had my coffee yet. I have reverted my edit to #Questions and leave this notice of that here. Don't joke around idiots like me, I guess. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I feel compelled to say this somewhere: ANI = annie. (Note: that's how I hear it in my head. If I had to say it out loud I'd pronounce the initials A.N.I.) – Athaenara 12:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fuggetaboudit, I practiced more in my head and realized that if, God forbid, I have to say it out loud it's going to be "the incidents noticeboard". – Athaenara 21:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sorry but I can't come to terms with the answer to Q12. Aren't we witnessing ethnic bias on the part of the candidate? At least six million people were murdered by the Belgians in Congo in a timespan shorter than WW2. Half a million civilians were killed by the US in Vietnam. Over a million Armenian civilians were murdered by the Turks. Hundreds of thousands were murdered by Stalin, primarily in Central Asia, and millions in Communist China. North Korea is a living hell, Gaza has been turned into a living hell by its occupying power. All of those millions of murdered people were victims of various ideologies.
Have Nazis been singled out by the candidate because their victims were white or were Europeans? What does the candidate see as "better" in the other murderous ideologies that he sees no problems with their presence on Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 08:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answer to Q12 is broader than your list.
"I believe that people who advocate for ideologies that inherently support violence against people based on their ethnicity, disability, religious beliefs, sexuality, gender, or nationality (that's not a complete list, just the first few things that came to mind) in any namespace inherently contribute to a toxic editing environment"
To carry forward your logic, should we read your support for the Khmer Rouge (1.5-2m dead) into their omission from your list? Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't about people "contributing to toxic environment". It was about people who, according to this future admin, will be possibly banned at sight by him. "no nazis, period." is the only hard line I can really draw. So my question stands: what was so exceptional about Nazism compared to other murderous ideologies that it will be treated differently by the candidate. — kashmīrī TALK 10:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kashmiri, your question is explicitly addressed in the second half of the answer you’re complaining about (albeit in the context of a different particular example). —JBL (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2021 (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.