Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ComplexRational

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 (175/0/1); closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 17:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


ComplexRational (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, it gives me great pleasure to present ComplexRational as a candidate for adminship. ComplexRational came to my attention with his content work on elements with high atomic numbers. His one Featured article and four Good articles undersell his contributions; he has put in considerable effort as a reviewer at FAC and Peer review on similar topics, showing a commitment to prioritizing content quality over personal milestones. He has also done useful work patrolling new pages and recent changes, and at Articles for Deletion. His edits across all these areas demonstrate a nuanced understanding of policy. Equally importantly he has shown the even-keeled temperament that is essential to administrators. I believe he will be an asset to the mop corps, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination statement

Today I am glad to support ComplexRational for consideration as an admin. Since registering in 2018, he has written on a variety of scientific topics, including taking up to Island of stability to good article and featured article status. The unifying theme I see in ComplexRational's editing is a common-sense and friendly commitment to high quality encyclopedic content. You can see this in his work reviewing articles at GA or FA but also in his work with recent change and new page patrols. Some who do this kind of work can fall into a mindset that is about keeping unwanted content and editors out. ComplexRational on the hand has, and please excuse the mediocre wordplay that is about to happen, a rational understanding of the complex nature of the project and acts accordingly in how he goes about doing the work. I think you will find him open to collaboration and feedback, with a good sense of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and with an understanding of what their limitations are and what that would mean for them as an admin. I hope you join me in supporting them here for adminship. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm glad to accept Vanamonde's and Barkeep's nominations and thank them for their kind words. I have never edited for pay or other forms of compensation. I have a legitimate alternative account, User:RationalSock, and also years ago, I had another account that I abandoned for concerns of privacy and inexperience; I have disclosed it to my nominators and ArbCom. Complex/Rational 16:12, 14 December 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Much of my behind-the-scenes work on Wikipedia is in new page patrol and recent changes patrol. These are two areas that are fundamental to maintain a high content standard, with which I have gradually gained experience. Although they have a number of dedicated editors, they could always benefit from having more active administrators. I would primarily focus on WP:CSD and WP:REVDEL (mostly RD1) within the scope of NPP and address reports to WP:AIV, especially when said noticeboard is backlogged. I'd also happily offer assistance at other venues as needed, though I intend to limit my use of the tools in less familiar areas. Complex/Rational 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My primary motivation for Wikipedia editing is content improvement, so I'm most proud of the Island of stability FA. This subject matter has always been a niche interest of mine – which also led me to do substantial work on similar articles such as unbihexium – and I had accumulated sources over many months to expand and refine the article. I began cleaning up a few sections, then decided to aim for GA, and was encouraged to keep researching and press on to FA. I was naturally proud to see it as TFA in March 2020, and I don't think I would have succeeded without the help of WP:ELEMENTS and feedback given at each stage of the review process. As far as behind-the-scenes work, I'm most proud of my contributions during the July 2022 NPP backlog drive. Although my final review count (127) is modest, I focused on doing thorough reviews rather than quick reviews, and learned a lot about its finer points. In doing so, I also discovered and cleaned up some less-than-clear copyvios (e.g., a word-for-word translation of a copyrighted foreign-language source), another important aspect of maintaining encyclopedic integrity. Complex/Rational 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Conflicts are inevitable in almost all aspects of editing, and I have disagreed with other users on occasion, but I have never been in a serious conflict. One close encounter, though, was a time I was called out for confusing two (closely related) technical terms; my response was to ask politely at said user's talk page, focus on content rather than the contributor, and disengage when there seemed to be a risk of escalation. In this and a few other cases where I felt frustrated or unable to resolve a matter, I found it helpful to take a break and mentally regroup. Such an approach works well for me in the vast majority of cases, and I intend to continue doing so, as staying focused on the specific (content) issue at hand and avoiding escalation are of paramount importance. Complex/Rational 16:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Optional question from User:Lightburst
4. I am happy that you have disclosed a previous account and I understand why you do not want to share the account name. However can you share with us exactly what year when you began editing on Wikipedia? My question is, roughly how much editing experience did the other disclosed account have? I noticed that your first days of edits on WP demonstrate Wikipedia proficiency. Day 4 reverting vandalism, Day 8 warning editors, Day 10 nominating an article for GA, Day 43 making a complex argument at AfD. Also thanks for volunteering.
A. I appreciate you rephrasing this question, as I do have privacy concerns. I'll answer both of your questions in a single response to Q5, seeing as they are two sides of the same coin. Complex/Rational 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Without disclosing anything that might connect the old account, can you share what your editing experience was like under the old account?
A. My previous editing experience comprised a few hundred edits within the span of a year or so. As I alluded to in my disclosure statement, I stopped editing because I realized I lacked skills and knowledge in several key areas for contributing to an encyclopedia project. Prior to registering my current account, I did brush up on basic WP policy, and waited to give editing another chance until a time when I felt I had a decent grasp on how to contribute formal, well-researched, encyclopedic prose. Complex/Rational 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from Sarrail
6. Thank you for choosing to be a candidate. As you are primarily focused on WP:CSD (per A1) are you also goin' to focus on WP:PROD as well?
A. Most of my deletion-related experience is in CSD, so I intend to focus primarily on that, though I might also work CAT:PROD from time to time. I have a relatively low number of WP:PROD taggings because in my experience with NPP, the creator is very likely to object (and is perfectly within policy to do so), so I generally prefer to go directly to AfD and seek community consensus if no CSD applies. Complex/Rational 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(7.) withdrawn
Optional question from Helloheart
8. What would you do in this scenario as an administrator: You look at an AfD discussion about an article about a book and only two people have commented on it. One of them !votes "Keep" and says "We can always find more citations. I found one (gives link to the citation)" and the other person says "Delete per nom." The nominator says, "Not enough citations to show that this article is notable." You look at the article and see that the book has been mentioned on the New York Times, but nothing else. You have to close the discussion. What's the verdict?
A: I don't see consensus formed in this scenario: the keep !vote relies on weak logic ("sources may exist"), with the onus on the !voter to provide such sources if they do, in fact, exist; the delete !vote, meanwhile, brings nothing new to the discussion. Closing such a discussion would thus be a poor use of admin tools and reek of a WP:SUPERVOTE, so if admin action were required in this case, I would relist the AfD. Alternatively, I would take no administrative action, research the subject, and cast my own !vote. Complex/Rational 15:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Helloheart
9. What would you do in this scenario as an administrator:

An editor with over 2,000 edits nominates twenty important WP: namespace articles for deletion. Then, there is a consensus to delete those pages for no good reason. You're pretty sure that the editors that !voted "Delete" are sockpuppets of the nominator, but you don't have any evidence at all except for this deletion discussion.

A: To my understanding, this question appears to ask about 20 project pages nominated for deletion (presumably at MfD), for which a "consensus" for deletion forms. I think this highly improbable because important project pages would not be deleted "for no good reason" – a deletion discussion is not a vote, and the lack of consensus-building arguments is a red flag. As such, there would likely be a rapid influx of keep !votes from established editors and so the discussions would close as WP:SNOW keeps before this scenario would come to pass.
Nevertheless, such a voting trend does appear suspicious, especially if it occurs for project pages with weak arguments. A closer look at behavioral evidence and the accounts' edit history (i.e., clear evidence on which to base any accusations) would be required to potentially open a case at WP:SPI, however. Complex/Rational 17:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Lights and freedom
10. Suppose you see an account that is editing in subject(s) very similar to that of an indefinitely blocked editor. For example, chemical reactions, Nigeria, and NASCAR. The blocked editor was blocked for something that does not call into question their subject-related competence, such as incivility or Manual of Style errors. The new account is not demonstrating any of the negative behaviour that got the other editor blocked, and is making uncontroversial, constructive edits. What would you do in this situation, and if there is nuance involved, what factors would you consider in deciding?
A: Having interest in similar subject matters is not enough evidence in itself to make accusations of sockpuppetry or block evasion, especially in the absence of repeated problematic behavior. If there isn't an obvious behavioral link, reason to suspect abuse, or a request for advanced permissions, there's no reason not to assume good faith and nothing would be actionable based on clear on-wiki evidence. Per WP:SPI: When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. – if there's no concrete evidence, SPI is not the way to go.
However, if there is reason to suspect abuse or block evasion, I see several important nuances worth considering, namely the timespan between the implementation of the indefinite block and the new edits in question, the exact reason for the block, and details outlined at WP:Signs of sock puppetry.
If a longer time period passes before the new account edits and there's no sequence of possibly connected accounts, CheckUser would be essentially useless, so any conclusions would be drawn on behavioral evidence alone. Such an evaluation is best done by a team of experienced users, and assuming there are no WP:BEANS to spill, best done on-wiki. A first step would be to reach out to the editor and kindly ask whether they had previous accounts, especially if some of their habits might resemble the blocked account's behavior. Specific habits also must be considered because, for instance, WP:CIR issues are to my observation much more surmountable than chronic civility issues. (If civility were the reason for the block, lack of incivility would probably be evidence against block evasion, unless there's reason to believe said editor is exceptionally skilled at deception.)
In a more urgent case, such as an RfA when there's reason to believe the candidate is a block-evading user, off-wiki communication with ArbCom or the CheckUser team may be necessary to avoid a repeat of this happening. And, were block evasion discovered, the standard offer is applicable in most cases after six months have passed without further socking. Complex/Rational 15:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Wugapodes
11. RfPP's backlogged and you decide to help out since you've got some spare time. You see a request for protection of wildly specific article relating to parity in mathematics. The request cites the typical "repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced information" boilerplate. You look through the page history and see two editors (neither are the reporter) reverting back and forth. The history breaks down something like this:
  • Editor A inserts the claim that all square numbers are the partial sum of the arithmetic series of odd numbers (without an edit summary)
  • Editor B reverts with the edit summary rv unsourced claim
  • Editor A reinserts the claim, and adds a textual description of the geometric proof for the claim with the edit summary proof
  • Editor B reverts with the edit summary rv original research
  • Editor A reverts with the edit summary WP:SKYBLUE isn't OR the proof is trivial
  • Editor B reverts with the edit summary you must provide a reliable source
  • Editor A reverts, then B, and so on and so forth in a relatively slow-moving edit war (1 or 2 reverts per day for the last few days)
My question is how you would evaluate this situation: what options would you consider to stop the disruption and how would you decide among them?
A: I see two technical options worth considering here: temporary full protection of the last stable version before the edit war, provided that said version does not contain policy-violating content, and temporary partial blocks from that article for both users. I should also note here that because of the slowness of the edit war, 3RR does not apply.
My inclination is to implement the requested protection. Considering that this is a "wildly specific" page, it probably is edited very infrequently, so short-duration protection would probably have minimal collateral damage in preventing constructive edits from uninvolved users. Additionally, my understanding is that blocking should be reserved for more severe cases to prevent disruption, more so when there are behavioral issues at play, which appears to not be the case here. After the protection is in place, I would contact both users at their talk pages and attempt to follow dispute resolution. If outside feedback is required (especially from uninvolved subject-matter experts, as this is primarily a content dispute), WP:WPMATH would be the logical place to ask, or alternatively WP:3O might be worth a try.
In the case that protection and/or dispute resolution fail, partial blocks would be the next step, though at this point I would consider myself WP:INVOLVED (for having attempted mediation and already taken administrative action) and so bring the matter to another administrator's attention – at WP:DRN if it remains primarily a content dispute, or at WP:ANI if user conduct issues enter the picture. Complex/Rational 14:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from User:Paradise Chronicle
12.Thanks for volunteering. My question concerns deletion discussions. A deletion discussion is on and so far all voted delete. An editor appears and expands the article significantly and votes keep. You appear at the scenario and the vast majority has voted delete before the expansion happened. Do you decide to keep the article, delete the article, leave the discussion running or do you have another solution?
A: I would leave the discussion running (relist it) because the article would no longer be in the same state as when the discussion began, and thus the original deletion rationale might no longer apply. AfD is not a tally, and articles absolutely have the potential to be improved as a deletion discussion is running. Conversely, with the only keep !vote being from the user who expanded the article, I feel that the discussion would benefit from assessment of the added content by other users, so as to provide a clearer consensus on whether the article's expansion is enough to justify keeping it. Complex/Rational 14:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
13. You've mentioned that you have an interest in handling WP:RD1 tags. To what extent would you plan to involve yourself with Contributor copyright investigations, Copypatrol, Copyright problems, or any other venues on Wikipedia where potential issues relating to copyright are frequently discussed?
A: I already have a bit of experience with copypatrol from NPP work, and would be willing to handle RD1 requests in CCI and copyright problems, so long as infringement is blatant enough to qualify for REVDEL. I have less experience with more sophisticated cases, and have not done so much in CCI, though I believe that those can benefit from multiple users working on them simultaneously, seeing as there may be less-than-obvious infringement and/or a large number of affected articles. While I would not single-handedly take administrative action in such cases (e.g., complex CCIs) with my current level of experience, I would be willing to offer some assistance within my capacity. Complex/Rational 14:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Quantum XYZ
14. Would you be open to recall? If yes, under what criteria?
A: I would be open to recall, though I don't believe that detailed personal recall criteria are necessary. Any editor is welcome to inquire on my talk page about administrative actions I perform, in line with WP:ADMINACCT. If there is widespread belief among established editors that I am no longer capable of exercising proper judgment or have lost the community's trust, I would resign the tools and/or stand for a reconfirmation RfA. Complex/Rational 14:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from Dreamy Jazz
15. Thanks for standing for RfA! Let's say you come across a user who has nominated a article for G5. You see in the history of the page that the user who created the page is blocked for using multiple accounts inappropriately. You also find that the article was created before any blocks were made on their accounts. What would you do in this situation?
A: Assuming that no other editing restrictions (e.g., a topic ban encompassing the article's subject) were in place at the time of the article's creation, I would decline the speedy deletion request. G5 only applies to pages created in violation of a block/ban – per WP:CSD#G5, page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked – not pages created by a now-blocked user or sockpuppeteer before the earliest block was implemented. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
16. Let's assume instead that the article was created after the first active block on one of their accounts. You also notice that a different person has improved the content added by the blocked account. What would you do in this situation? Feel free to skip these if you don't intend to review WP:G5 CSD nominations
A: Per WP:CSD#G5, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban with no substantial edits by others are eligible. In general, because the criterion only applies to pages with no substantial edits by others, the article described in this scenario would be ineligible for G5. The exact course of action depends on the extent of other (non-sock) users' edits to the article, though. A large-scale content expansion by another user – which I imagine is a fairly common instance of such a scenario – would mean that the bulk of the content is no longer authored by a block-evading user, so I would decline the request in this case. However, smaller improvements such as copyediting or addition of a couple of footnotes, which do not significantly change the page's authorship, would not save the article from a G5 deletion. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Kashmiri
17. When closing deletion discussions where you see a roughly equal strength of arguments between keep and delete !votes, which way would your closing statement go: Keep, because those nominating and arguing for deletion failed to prevail, or No consensus because, well, there was no consensus? — kashmīrī TALK 18:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: If both sets of arguments are indeed roughly equal in strength and solidly rooted in policy (and/or the discussion had already been relisted, such that a closure is required), I would close as "no consensus" because there is no clear consensus. While I'm aware that "no consensus" defaults to keep (status quo ante), such a closure would avoid giving the impression of favoring the keep !votes and suggest "no prejudice against a subsequent AfD" much more clearly than the alternative. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from FeralOink
18. I am impressed and pleased with your enthusiasm and expertise about chemicals & materials science. You have the template, "This user is busy IRL and might not respond promptly" on your talk page. I noticed that you responded to some inquiries on your talk page by mentioning that you were very busy right now and didn't have time to help further. I'm not being critical! I ALSO noticed that you gave careful, detailed responses regardless. Is being too busy due to other commitments an anomalous state for you? (For example, because of the time this RfA is occupying, the holiday season, IRL exigencies). My question can be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No" if you would prefer. Thank you!
A: As per my userpage, being busy correlates with academic commitments. Over the course of a year, my free and busy periods are fairly predictable; I generally have more free time during break periods (such as the present) and less during the academic term. Moreover, when I have a lot on my plate IRL (which happens sometimes, but less predictably), it can happen that I'm unable to write a detailed, well-thought-out response for several days. Complex/Rational 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Ilovejames5
19. Have you had any warnings of vandalism in the past 6 months? If the answer is yes, please also inform on the amount of warnings you received for vandalism. Ilovejames5 13:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

  1. As nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support enthusiastically! DanCherek (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Enthusiastic support, the nominator statements have accurately captured my experience at FAC, FAR and PR with ComplexRational, who digs in to the very toughest reviews with solid judgment and feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Cabayi (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. As nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support, no concerns here. BD2412 T 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support No issues. Sarrail (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support: Meets my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. support Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support I've always had positive interactions with ComplexRational. Legoktm (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support good candidate, should make a good admin, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 18:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support I'm pleased to see a nomination for an editor with a sound grasp of chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Hmm, two concurrently open RfAs with two-word usernames; how many more can our nominators find? And, Support, certainly, on SandyGeorgia's recommendation in particular, and others'. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 18:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support will be a net-positive for the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. My decision to Support is rational, though not complex. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - I was familiar with CR through WikiNYC events before I recognized the name on-wiki. My impression is of someone with not just subject-matter expertise and skill at building encyclopedia articles, but of someone with the kind of judgment/approach to collaboration that would make for a good admin. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support We always benefit from more content contributors as administrators. ceranthor 18:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support We want more WP:NETPOS admins. Sheep (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support enthusiastically. Best of luck! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Trey Maturin 19:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Glad to support... Volten001 19:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support: Adminship is no big deal and I think this user would be a net positive. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support I think NYB took put it best ;). In all seriousness, NOBIGDEAL and not a jerk. HouseBlastertalk 20:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support: Nominee doesn't have the deepest record and isn't the most active contributor. However, their contributions are clearly beneficial and their expertise could be used best with with admin privileges. Thanks for giving a darn! Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Solid content creation experience and subject matter expertise, good NPP and AfD records, new article creations e.g., Piero Gardoni appear to be well-written, and overall certainly a WP:NETPOS. VickKiang (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 21:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. I have seen the candidate around and have been impressed by his contributions, especially to Long Island Rail Road-related articles such as Montauk Cutoff and East Side Access, but I've also noticed his contributions to element-related articles. I'm also familiar with CR through Wikimedia New York City. My impression is that he is trustworthy and that there's no reason not to give him the tools. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. LGTM Andre🚐 22:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. ComplexRational knows what's up, clueful and responsible editor. SnowFire (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support , per all above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support I am satisfied with the candidate’s answers to questions 4 and 5 above. My own requirements for admins are that they will protect content and content creators. I believe this candidate will do both, and I thank Vanamonde93 and Barkeep49 for nominating them. And apologies for the initial poorly worded question. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support jengod (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support. Being an admin should not be a big concern. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support. Checks all of my boxes, which consist of "probably won't break the wiki or go rogue" and "will probably make productive use of the tools." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support - Trustworthy, has my full support Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support per my faith in the nominators as well as the rationale set forth by them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support I put a lot of weight into the nominators who support a candidate and so I have no reservations if they don't. I am interested in seeing additional questions posed over the next week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support. All signs point to high quality. El_C 01:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. SupportClovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support, an easy decision. Graham87 07:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support:joining in the support concert now. The question was made mainly out of curiosity.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC) And great answer to my question.16:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support No obvious issues. Gusfriend (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. An easy support, it ain't nuclear physics. No such user (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Leijurv (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support. No problems. SethWhales talk 09:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support as a trusted user and have GAN reviews, without any problems. Thingofme (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. SupportKurtis (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support per SFR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support. Looks like a decent candidate. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 11:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support per Matt Parker. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support. I see no issues. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Excellent contribution history, no concerns about giving them the mop. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support per much of the above, on review Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support - Net positive, have seen good things.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Solid contributions. Bruxton (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support No concerns, trustworthy use with experience in content creation and areas of need. SpencerT•C 20:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support because we need more administrators to take wikibreaks...(joking of course). Support per the nominators, and ComplexRational's potential adminship seems to be a net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support. Seems to have good judgment and has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Stephen 21:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support A solid candidate. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support - no issues. Net asset.Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support How can I not support someone who is both complex and rational? Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support - Helpful, clueful and trustworthy, good attributes for an admin. I have no doubts they will be a positive member of the mop corps. Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. No concerns. Miniapolis 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support per nom and based on responses to date. ZsinjTalk 01:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support No concerns, a solid candidate. MB 04:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Looks legit. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support No concerns. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Good job.Ruy (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support. Looks qualified. No concerns. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support. As per noms. Loopy30 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. I agree with the person above me, including the person above that person and so on and so forth. It don't take nuclear physics to see he's got potential and could do some real stuff soon enough Angerxiety 17:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support. --Zlata Night (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support. Great answers to questions, great contributions to articles. Here's a mop :-) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support – no concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Great answers. Wug·a·po·des 23:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support - Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support Wikipedia could always use more qualified admins. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support No concerns as per noms and Q&A. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael
  103. Support - After reviewing the editor and their answers I have no problem supporting them. - Aoidh (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support - no concerns. Girth Summit (blether) 11:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support, excellent candidate in the areas that matter, and who gives a damn about the stuff that doesn't? jp×g 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support – Solid candidate. Best of luck! DB1729talk 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support, no worries. Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support - Fully qualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support - No concerns, best of luck! --Malerooster (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Solid editor with plenty of clue and no red or yellow flags. Clearly a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. SupportPaul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support per noms ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Would Make A Good Admin! Im Following The Username Policy 19:50, 17 December 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support While I don't believe I've interacted with him before, I came across his RfA candidate poll a few weeks ago. It shows that he's a well-rounded and mature editor. And almost 100% edit summary usage? Sign me up!HelenDegenerate◆ 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - All the best! User:TwentyTwentyTwo2022 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support: excellent content creations with a wealth of expert knowledge in their preferred subject areas; no temperament concerns; and plenty of experience and competence in backlogged areas like NPP. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support: Candidate seems level headed and articulate, which are both great admin attributes. Happy to support. — Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support Lots of good, credible supporters; wasn't totally familiar with him but the editor interaction tool (for which I am grateful for the link) shows we have common ground on antivandalism and other work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support Gave good answers to both of my questions. ComplexRational obviously has a lot of experience on Wikipedia and I've seen this editor around. Also, a while back I created an article titled "List of s-block elements" and ComplexRational had it converted into a redirect. [1] I wasn't pleased at first, but I see this was the best thing to do. This editor would make a good admin. Helloheart (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support A great editor with great contributions in different areas. Will do good with the sysop toolset. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support Good solid history. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support Good nominations, civil. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. SupportDaxServer (t · m · c) 12:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support Chlod (say hi!) 13:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support; I've seen them helping out around recent changes, quite often reverting before me — Schminnte (talk contribs) 15:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support I have observed this editors good editing and administrative contributions. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support Good choice. scope_creepTalk 21:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Obvious support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Per noms. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support Glad to see another good candidate. Equineducklings (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support. Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support, generally a net positive to the community. Strong nominations and a strong candidate. Carolina2k22(talk)(edits) 08:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support, with thanks for the answer to Q17. A no consensus outcome leaves more room for a re-nomination, and is also my preferred way in such situations. — kashmīrī TALK 10:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support. trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support. unequivocally Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support- Absolutely. Solid candidate IMO. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  13:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support good answers to my questions and trust the nominiators. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support - Should've been an admin already! The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ) (chat) 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support Good answers. DFlhb (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support = Satisfactory answer to my question, see #18 below. Further rationale for support provided there.--FeralOink (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support I see sufficient content work, good experience with project-space processes, and a general indication of sufficient clue to support this candidate for admin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support Modussiccandi (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support It has been a long time since I last saw an RfA with this much unopposed support, Impressive PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support I wavered, because maybe there are too many reasonable people supporting and there's not even a single token petty and childish oppose, but eventually landed here. Seren_Dept 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support. I'm here for the excellent username, but the GA and FA content creation on highly technical topics is what really sold me on this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support. Good answers, good experience and will work in areas in which new administrators are needed to compensate for attrition. Proficient administrators in technical areas are always needed. Sandy Georgia's unqualified endorsement, as someone who has worked with the candidate and is familiar with the candidate's work is also persuasive. Importantly, the candidate appears to have the necessary temperament to handle administrative tasks and maintain civility. Donner60 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support I see no issues. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support We need more admins, and this seems like a fine candidate. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Let's make it unanimous! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support - Don't see why not. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support I trust this editor to be a fair judge and enforcer of consensus casualdejekyll 12:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support With the majority of users supporting this editor, i trust this user. Ilovejames5 13:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Salvio 14:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support I appreciate the reasonable answers. Never hurts to have one more admin with a good head on their shoulders. Blue Edits (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support No indication that they'll try to delete the main page /j or have temperament issues that could cause harm to the community. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support - No concerns. -- Dane talk 16:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. LGTM 👍 ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support Great candidate, great answers to questions. Net positive. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support All evidence is positive. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support Looks a good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support - No reason not to support, and reasons to support. This candidate was asked a lot of hypothetical situation questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support – thoughtful answers to the (many) questions. –FlyingAce✈hello 06:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support No doubts. Jingiby (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Unnecessary late support. —Kusma (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support - Another unnecessarily late support, but appears to be a very good candidate. VegaDark (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support - Great content work overall and a good demeanor as well.Wikipedia will greatly benefit from having admins like ComplexRational. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral. I never ran into this user before. I look at tons of articles per day but I've never seen this user. I would say support if I had seen this user in other parts of the project like AFD or Teahouse.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @HelpingWorld: In case you are curious, here is the list of all the pages you and the candidate have both edited: [2]. --JBL (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @User:JayBeeEll, you can clearly see all of those are popular places and the chances of me seeing them on it is really rare.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe you can check their AfDs participation using this tool and potentially decide whether you will support, oppose or remain noncommittal? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • Q4: "Please provide information you have chosen not to provide." Q5: "Please provide information you have chosen not to provide." Q7: "Please provide information that is completely irrelevant to adminship." [withdrawn, Merci] I guess it would lead to unnecessary drama if I just removed these, but it would certainly be an improvement to the question list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's more on Q4 & 5 on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ToBeFree, I thought I saw one of those hilarious, irrelevant questions on other RfAs, and it wasn't on the question list, (especially on the WP:RFA#Expressing opinions, so I assumed it was "legal" to post an unrelevant question. If it is illegal, am I going to court? Sarrail (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not saying it's forbidden, it's just pointless. And that is also fine with me personally in general, unless the list of additional questions is 3/4 unnecessary. That's annoying then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd be in favor of removing Q4. Q7, while pointless, isn't harmful. Q4 can be. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I sure hope it does not come to that kind of manipulation and gerrymandering. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand the desire to "protect" the candidate from questions. Particularly someone who appears to be a clueful confident adult; surely they have the gumption to politely refuse to answer a question, and not care if LB opposes? Indeed, on the rare occasion that a candidate tells a questioner they aren't going to answer, my opinion of the candidate usually increases. Plus, it's so much easier to ignore rude/dumb/prying questions than to amplify the silly behavior by arguing about it. Finally, are you all unfamiliar with LB? They will never change their mind. Just let the small stuff go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floquenbeam hey that is not true, but I am just not here to rubber stamp. And I want to support the candidate. I also want to know how much experience the previous account had, - apologies for the clumsy wording of my original question that got the hackles up on four admins here. if you think I was being rude and dumb I am surprised. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me it isn't so much protecting candidates from questions as discouraging large numbers of silly questions that, even if silly, still require time and thought and sometime research to answer. And while your opinion of a candidate who refuses to answer silly questions may increase, I suspect you aren't everyeditor. I've seen opposes because a candidate ignored or dismissed a question. If a candidate has some reason that large numbers of editors might oppose for but which they can't come right out and say is their reason for opposing, something as minor as that can provide the excuse for pile-on opposition. Sorry if that's clear as mud, I'm reluctant to be clearer. But I've seen it happen. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Valereee I thought my question was necessary based on the candidate's acceptance statement where they said they abandoned the disclosed account for "concerns of privacy and inexperience". When I saw the proficiency/experience of the new account I wanted to know how they got experienced. My initial question was clumsy and a discussion on the talk page was somewhat helpful. Floq's statement above is just Floq being Floq - snarly, dismissive etc. I told Barkeep 49 on their talk page that "...admins are of of smattering quality and some gleefully diminish other editors to make their points" But I appreciate admins like yourself and Barkeep49 because they do not diminish editor volunteers. Happy holidays to you and to CM! See you around the project! Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floq's statement above is just Floq being Floq - snarly, dismissive etc. I told Barkeep 49 on their talk page that "...admins are of of smattering quality and some gleefully diminish other editors to make their points" Just amazing. Bravo. JBL (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought, JBL, initially. I re-read and realized that Floq responded to LB with this, Finally, are you all unfamiliar with LB? They will never change their mind. Just let the small stuff go so LB defended themselves. Yet Floq is being 100% supportive of the substance of LB's original question of the candidate! I agree with the rationale for the question given by LB initially, and likewise, with Floq: I don't understand the desire to "protect" the candidate from questions... surely they have the gumption to politely refuse to answer a question, and not care if LB opposes? Also, I agree with Floq about this, on the rare occasion that a candidate tells a questioner they aren't going to answer, my opinion of the candidate usually increases. I welcome an instance of someone (Floq) taking a strong stance against coddling, i.e. by being supportive of both LB's inquiry and ComplexRational the candidate. I am dismayed to see the petty bickering ("casting aspersions"?) between two editors who are in agreement about substance... then others, who further stir the pot. I am not chiding you, JBL. Seems like there's a lot of unresolved resentment. It is discouraging.--FeralOink (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Q9 strikes me as a multi-part question that should probably be struck. See WP:RFA#Expressing opinions ("The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios)"). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What would you do in the following scenario?
    An editor asks exactly five questions masquerading as a single question at an RFA where they are limited to two questions, and have already asked one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Noting for the record that Q9 has since been changed to be a single question. Primefac (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ilovejames5, could you explain your question (Q19) to the candidate? It doesn't make any particular sense to ask an RFA candidate if they were ever warned for vandalism. Vandalism is not something that any good faith editor would ever engage in. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1. It seems like an unnecessary question. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ilovejames5 – Primo, you can check yourself all the warnings that the candidate has received by going through their Talk page history; and secundo, the number of warnings has zero relevance to the admin job, since any editor can warn any other editor at any time and an unlimited number of times. It's a different thing to enquire about past conduct, which however you have not done. So, better cross our that question of yours, or it may haunt you in the future. — kashmīrī TALK 13:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    it may haunt you in the future...? Is this sort of comment really necessary? Kashmiri, you have been acting like the overlord of RfA suitability recently, and it is not your place to do so, especially with inappropriate comments such as this. Please reconsider your attitude towards other participants at RfA in the future. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2022 (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.