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

### Extraordinary Writ

Final (248/2/2); closed as successful by ϢereSpielChequers at 23:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

#### Nomination

Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Extraordinary Writ for adminship today. Since registering in 2020, he has been a regular contributor to a number of parts of the project. Most notably has been their work on legal articles, amassing 2 featured articles, 3 good articles, and a handful of Did You Knows. He has also helped out in a number of project related places, including all three kinds of deletion (speedy, PROD, and AfD) and by serving as a mentor for new editors. I want to draw particular attention to his work as a mentor on his talk page. I think you'll find knowledgeable and friendly answers to questions from newer editors. It's for this combination of skills and disposition that I ask you to join me in supporting Extraordinary Writ. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

#### Co-nomination

It is an honor for me to be able to co-nominate Extraordinary Writ for adminship. He has shown a good eye for content across various levels of article creation and assessment, including up to the featured article level. Whether at FAC, FAR, in guiding new users, or in closing discussions, he has demonstrated good sense and judgment, a calm and understanding demeanor, and an understanding of what it means to build and encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ has the right combination of demeanor, good judgment, and experience to make an excellent administrator. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to Barkeep49 and Hog Farm for their kind words. I've never edited for pay, and I've never edited logged-out or from any account other than this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

#### Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: In short, because I often find myself in situations where having the tools would enable me to contribute more effectively. The number of admins continues to fall, and I want to help counteract that trend by working on administrative tasks in areas where I can be useful. In particular, I'd be willing to work in fields where I already have experience as a non-admin, such as by closing AfDs, actioning WP:PRODs, dealing with inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA, and responding to requests for speedy deletion. I may end up branching out to other areas as well, but in all cases I'd move cautiously, frequently consulting policies/guidelines and listening to advice from other editors.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of my work on articles about justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, including two featured articles (Wiley Rutledge and Melville Fuller) and three good articles (Thurgood Marshall, David J. Brewer, and Howell Edmunds Jackson). Writing about these oftentimes-controversial figures in a comprehensive and neutral way can be challenging, but the fact that real people can benefit from that work makes it all worthwhile. My userpage also lists a number of other (mostly law-related) articles that I've written, many of which have appeared at DYK; although they may not be as nice and shiny as my GAs and FAs, I'm proud of my work on them nonetheless. In projectspace, I'm most proud of my work involving deletion, such as nominating pages for speedy deletion, PRODding and dePRODding articles, and contributing to AfD discussions.
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: I typically don't find editing to be too stressful, but there have certainly been times when editors have disagreed with my closures (example) or other actions. When that happens, I always try to recognize that the other user might just have a point and to find for a mutually agreeable solution. If that isn't possible, I look for other ways to defuse the conflict, such as explaining my reasoning in greater detail, getting input from uninvolved editors, or simply taking a step back.

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 JPxG
4. Got anything else to say about the whole deal of it?
A: I'll probably have some more thoughts once everything is over and done with, but for now I'd just like to say that I'm very grateful to everyone who's taken the time to weigh in so far. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional questions from Idoghor Melody
5. Thanks for volunteering, will you be open to recall?
A: Yes, I'd be willing to use User:Worm That Turned/Recall process, which I think strikes a good balance between accountability and fairness. Now, I do think optional recall is a poor substitute for a standardized community-based desysop procedure, and I'd be happy to support any such proposal with appropriate safeguards, but until that happens I don't have a problem with using WTT's process instead, which I think is at least better than nothing. And if I ever felt that I'd lost the community's trust, I sincerely hope that I'd resign the tools on the spot, even if the recall procedure hadn't been invoked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Are there any Wikipedia policies or guidelines which you disagree with? If so, why?
A: There are a few little things (for instance, like many RM participants, I'm not too fond of WP:USPLACE, which in my view leads to non-concise titles for very little benefit), but generally speaking I'm fairly happy with our policies and guidelines as they stand: we've been debating many of them for the last twenty years, and that's led to an equilibrium where most policies are at least reasonable, even if there are minor things I'd change. Although I'll advocate for changes to policies and guidelines that I think could be improved, if I become an administrator I'd do my best to follow consensus even when I disagree with it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Sarrail
7: As you are dealing with inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA, will you be also willing to participate at WP:AIV if possible?
A: I have less experience at AIV than I have at UAA and other places, so it isn't an area I'm planning to focus on (although I'm sure I'll block a vandal or two every once in a while). If I ever decide to get more involved there, then (as I said in A1), I'll be sure to move slowly, check relevant policies and guidelines, and be especially receptive to feedback. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from JPxG
8. Now this one is very optional. You are minding your own business, looking at some recently-created user accounts, when you see the following: "DSFARGEG", "Tingas Pingas", "My Sweet Neko Ass", and "Jimothy Sniffingsworth at Raytheon LLC" (who has a COI template on his user page). What, if any, actions do you take in this situation?
A: Points for creativity. Assuming all these accounts have already edited, and with some help from the Urban Dictionary:
• DSFARGEG – seems to be a meme that was used for spamming purposes back in the day. I wouldn't block based on the username alone (probably just a humorous reference), but I'd keep my eye out for any vandalism/trolling/other problematic behavior that might warrant action.
• Tingas Pingas – from what I can tell, seems to be a mildly unflattering nickname for a certain basketball player. If the account was editing constructively I might warn or soft-block (some new editors don't realize that we're stricter than most other sites when it comes to usernames), but I'd probably hard-block if there was any whiff of disruption.
• My Sweet Neko Ass – looks like sexual slang. I'd probably hard-block as an offensive username.
• Jimothy Sniffingsworth at Raytheon LLC – "X at Y Company" usernames are permitted under the username policy, and the COI template shows the user is at least trying to work within the rules. Based on what you've told me there's no reason to block; I'd probably leave Template:Welcome-paid to welcome the user, provide links to relevant policies/guidelines, and encourage him to make the paid editing disclosure if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from NYC Guru
9. Looking at unblock requests, do you think admins tend to be overly cautious when they deny these requests for the most part? Many of these are users that are new to the site.
A: With the caveat that I don't have a ton of experience in this area, I think the small number of admins who patrol CAT:UNBLOCK generally do a very good job at what can be a very draining task. That said, I don't doubt that some meritorious appeals are incorrectly declined: you can never know for certain how a user will behave when unblocked, and it's often easier to err on the side of caution since a bad unblock can lead to a significant amount of disruption. There's no easy answer, unfortunately. I do think we can sometimes afford to be a bit gentler when it comes to inexperienced users (vandals, folks with promotional usernames, etc.) who make a reasonable-sounding unblock request: giving them a second chance tends to be fairly low-risk since it's easy to reblock if disruption resumes. Ultimately, though, striking the right balance in this area can be really tricky, and I have only respect for the admins who are willing to work there on a regular basis. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Robert McClenon
10. What experience do you have in trying to resolve any sorts of disputes between editors?
A: The honest answer is that mediating disputes between other editors isn't something I have much experience in: I haven't spent much time at, for instance, WP:30, WP:DRN, or WP:ANI. I will say that I've closed discussions that stem from disputes (this one comes to mind), and when I do that I try my very best to write a statement that both sides of the conflict can respect. As an administrator, if asked to help resolve a dispute, I'd first look for any conduct issues that might require intervention; if the issues were purely content-based, I'd look for possible compromises and, if necessary, point the users toward relevant steps in the dispute resolution process. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from HelpingWorld
11. Which parts of the project are you going to do most of the work in? I regularly see you in AFD, is there any other Discussion-related projects you intend on working on?
A: I think I answered most of that in question 1, but please feel free to ask a follow-up question if there's something else you're looking for. As for other discussion-related projects, I'm fairly active at requested moves and hope to continue some of that work as an admin. I might occasionally venture into other areas (for instance, I closed a number of CfDs earlier this year when the backlog had gotten especially bad), but AfD and the other places I discussed in Q1 are probably where I'll be spending the most time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from PerryPerryD
12 What do you wish to achieve with the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Project as a whole?
A: To improve, both directly (through content creation) and indirectly (through maintenance processes), the value that readers get out of our encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from HelpingWorld
13 How long do you think you will be a administrator? After, do you think you will continue editing less then you usually do?
A: I think I'd give the same answer to both parts of the question: although I don't know how many months or years or decades I'll spend editing and, if this RfA is successful, administrating, I do know that I only want to be doing those things for as long as I find them meaningful and enjoyable. "He who kisses the joy as it flies / lives in eternity's sunrise." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

#### Discussion

• Edit summary usage for Extraordinary Writ can be found here.

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

##### Support
1. Editor writes content, seems to have the temperament for working in a collaborative environment, and has put in a significant amount of both article and administrative work. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
2. As nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
3. No issues from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Support extraordinarily! DanCherek (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Support No issues. Sarrail (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Support Strongly. --Enos733 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
8. Support. Don't be ridiculous, he's been an admin for years. BD2412 T 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
9. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
10. Support. Thought they were already an admin! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
11. I've read some of the articles that E. Writ has worked on (Particularly Thurgood Marshall), and I have to say they've been pleasant to comb through. Also, a cool 8/9 on my RFA criteria. Happy to support. The Night Watch ω (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
12. Support - Significantly valuable quality content contributor, good temperament, has a need for the tools and knows where they want to help out, but intends on easing into the role, willing to help out new users, strong nominators and nomination statements. We need more editors like this taking up the mop! ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
13. Support one of those where I had to do a double take, because I thought Writ was a long time admin. Happy to make reality match perception. 23:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
14. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
15. Support. A name I recognize with positive associations, and the nomination statements/question answers give me no concerns. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
16. Support I've seen his mentorship work and thought he was already an admin. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 23:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
17. Support Good egg. Girth Summit (blether) 00:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
18. Support Seems fine. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
19. Support strongly. The candidate has excellent AfD stats and CSD log (I've encountered Extraodinary Writ at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter-Telling Stories and was impressed), significant content experience with two FAs and three GAs, new articles such as Shelton v. Tucker appear to be solidly written with little problems, and anti-vandalism experience (e.g., WP:UAA work) and participation in requested moves also are solid. VickKiang (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
20. Support Why not? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
21. Support NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 00:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
22. Support Has some great contributions to the project, impressive history of content creation and has a clue, not a jerk! echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
23. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
24. Support. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
25. Support Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
26. Support. Adding my name to the list of users that think this is a long time coming. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
27. Support. Clueful, quality editor. Endwise (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
28. Support no reason not to. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
29. Support WP:NETPOS, we need more admins. It's very likely we'll fall below a thousand by the end of 2022. Sheep (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
30. Support Looks good to me. Thanks for being willing to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
31. This community seems to have a solid mandela effect of thinking longtime users are admins... happy to support, despite an absolutely brutal chess shellacking he gave me :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
32. Support - Hell yes. Solid, knows the policies and guidelines. All-around asset.Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
33. Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 01:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
34. Support - is neither cumbersome nor worthy of disfavor. Beccaynr (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
35. Oppose already an admin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
36. Support - Easy support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
37. Support BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
38. Extraodinarily Written Support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
39. Support. I know this is old-school, but I've seen them around a bunch, they seem to do good work, and never seem to be in any trouble. Not to mention that they support the oxford comma. Those are the kind of people we need to recruit, retain, and promote. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
40. Support jengod (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
41. Support based upon interactions with the user. I was hoping to see this RFA at some point. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
42. Support I thought they already were an admin. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 01:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
43. Support Looks good to me Andre🚐 01:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
44. Support. Per above. 02:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
45. Support - I trust them to determine and implement community consensus. casualdejekyll 02:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
46. Support. Bumped into them in a few places, mostly AfDs, RMs, and Featured Article Reviews. As a participant or as non-admin closure, their contributions have been thoughtful and knowledgeable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
47. Support. I have had the pleasure of briefly interacting with ExtraordinaryWrit at DYK, and it was truly a pleasure! I am totally in favor of this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
48. Support. Yes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
49. Support: Sort of familiar with his name, and nothing bad there; very impressed with the other supporters. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
50. Support, one of those people one assumes is already an admin. ♠PMC(talk) 02:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
51. Support I fully trust the judgment of the two nominators. Also I reviewed EW's GA nomination for Thurgood Marshall and found EW's work to be thorough, and found EW to be thoughtful and responsive. Ajpolino (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
52. Support – I've seen EW around and they've always seemed like they were an admin already :P . ♠ 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
53. Support Have had a few encounters with Extraordinary Writ over the past couple of years, all positive, and their article creation work is very good. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
54. Support This user has my strongest possible support. Curbon7 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
55. Support, no problems here. Graham87 04:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
56. Support. Have seen the editor around. Ovinus (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
57. Support Looks good to me. Complex/Rational 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
58. Support Gusfriend (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
59. Support - Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
60. Not a jerk, has a clue, and uses the serial comma. The three most important adminship qualities after all. J947edits 05:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
61. Happy to support a strong RfA candidate. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
62. Support --Ferien (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
63. Support Per noms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
64. Support Barkeep sums it up nicely, great contributor already, also has the attitude and temperament that shows the candidate will be a helpful and excellent administrator. Donner60 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
65. Support after seeing their content creation and reviewing their AN/ANI comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
66. Support Legoktm (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
67. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
68. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
69. Support based on what I’ve seen at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
70. Support. Good candidate. More like EW please! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
71. Not a jerk, has clue Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
72. I have no problems supporting this user in my first ever RfA vote. Schminnte (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
73. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue, all the rest of that malarkey. Good luck and welcome, and let's have more candidates like this to restock the admin room!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
74. Support. No red flags = ok to hold the mop. — kashmīrī TALK 10:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
75. Support. They've been doing great work for 2+ years without significant conflict and showing good judgment. Easy call for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
76. Support. I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said. This guy clearly knows what he's doing. jp×g 10:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
77. Support Strong candidate with a focus on admin tasks as well as writing quality articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
78. Support As above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 10:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
79. Support, I thought he was an admin already. Ticks all the right boxes. No such user (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
80. Yes. Just over two years active editing, yet has achieved in that time what takes most users much longer, and some never do. Good involvement in high level content creation as well as community and policy issues. Good range of Barnstars awarded. And was approached in March about becoming an admin, though decided to wait, which shows clue, patience, and caution. Damn fine candidate. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
81. support I thus far have no less than pleasant encounters on the project. Should be a valuable and fine addition to the admin corps. – robertsky (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
82. Support. --Zlata Night (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
83. Support EW is an asset. I've seen his tremendous support at the RMT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
84. Support Without a doubt. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
85. Support of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
86. For the reasons I stated in October and in November. The candidate is competent. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
87. Support seems like they will be a good admin to me. Terasail[✉️] 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
88. Support -- EN-Jungwon 12:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
89. Support good candidate, has a clue KylieTastic (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
90. Support Thought they already were an admin. (Seems I'm not the only one with that thought.) Good candidate and thanks for stepping up! Cheers! Geoff | Who, me? 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
91. Support - fine with me. Deb (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
92. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 13:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
93. Support: Absolute no brainer for me to support. They do good work and I have no concerns about them picking up the mop. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
94. Support Obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
95. Support - yep, the obvious. Don't let it blind ya. Atsme 💬 📧 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
96. Support as co-nominator. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
97. Support. I've been impressed with what I've seen of this editor myself, plus he's co-signed by nominators whose judgment I trust and he clearly has the chops for content work. All-around great candidate for the mop. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
98. Support Good candidate, should make a good admin Josey Wales Parley 15:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
99. Support Excellent and trusted user. Thingofme (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
100. Support Seems to be sensible and reasonable. I trust the candidate with the tools. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
101. Support Good candidate, best of luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
102. SUPPORT: EW has no blocks, over 60k edits throughout all projects, 3,367 pages created, and 347 new pages patrolled. Search history shows knowledge of WP policy and procedures. It's me... Sallicio!${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$ 16:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
103. Support Excellent candidate who demonstrates both competence and kindness in their edits and interactions.-- Ponyobons mots 16:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
104. Support without hesitation. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
105. Enthusiastic Support Easy call here. Best of luck! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
106. Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
107. Support, although I guess this makes me Ordinary Writ. 19:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
108. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
109. I've been anticipating this request to the extent that I added it to my watchlist while it was still a red link. I've been consistently impressed every time I've seen EW around. Impeccable qualifications, sound judgment, even keel, and an all-around excellent editor. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
110. Support - Will be a net positive to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
111. Support No big deal. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
112. Support, and it's about time too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
113. Support - I thought they were one already! Patient Zerotalk 22:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
114. Extraordinary yes! El_C 22:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
115. Support for a trustworthy editor with trustworthy noms. Miniapolis 23:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
116. Support content creator with two nominators I trust. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
117. Support: per nomination(s) --Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 01:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
118. Support, would be a great admin. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
119. Support – solid content creation and knowledge of policies. I took a look at EW's talk page and was impressed by his helpful demeanor when responding to his mentees. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
120. Support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
121. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
122. Support will be a net positive to the project. 03:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
123. Support – Extraordinary, great candidate. --DB1729talk 03:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
124. Support Looks a sound candidate, not likely to go rogue. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC).
125. Support. LGTM. Chlod (say hi!) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
126. Support. Excellent candidate. Thank you for volunteering to take the mop. — 05:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
127. Support Leijurv (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
128. SupportAmmarpad (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
129. Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
130. Support. Looks like a strong candidate. No concerns. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
131. Support Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
132. Support Have encountered him several times. Great editor and very knowledgeable of our policies and guidelines — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
133. This was a very good day to check my watchlist. Vaticidalprophet 11:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
134. Support Can't find any reasons not to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
135. Support - they look like a great candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
136. SupportKurtis (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
137. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
138. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
139. Support Great job. Ruy (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
140. Support 14:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
141. Support No obvious red or yellow flags. Candidate has a clue and a solid track record. Clearly a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
142. Support Banks Irk (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
143. Support Thank you for volunteering. Self aware candidate and excellent community member ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
144. Support Obviously. A great editor whom I've seen do great job here and there. My personal interaction with him was when he helped me get some pages from a book at Resource Exchange. He is willing to go that extra mile to assist editors trying to improve content on Wikipedia. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 16:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
145. SupportMdsShakil (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
146. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
147. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
148. Support Worthy of a mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
149. Support I only recall positive times seeing the username and everything else seems good. Skynxnex (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
150. Support. I've seen the candidate around occasionally and have had a good impression of them. They appear to be fully qualified. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
151. Support Wait, they're not an admin already? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
152. Support This is the first time I've genuinely been confused at seeing at RfA due to thinking the user was already a mop-wielder, as cliche as it is. I've seen them around quite a few places and they've always struck me as a very responsible, and helpful, person. Perryprog (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
153. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
154. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
155. Support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
156. Can't see why not. — Trey Maturin 21:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
157. Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
158. Support One of those "I thought they were already an admin" candidates. Sufficient experience and content creation to earn my support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
159. Supportthe wub "?!" 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
160. Support. I've been particularly impressed with their work at SPI, where they have helped to bring down several sophisticated and highly disruptive UPE farms. Spicy (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
161. SupportPaul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
162. Support An excellent choice for admin. Muttnik talk 23:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
163. Support Looks a bit new and I don't have in-depth knowledge but I trust the joint support by Barkeep and HogFarm. Suggest / expect staying out of heavy duty stuff for a few years such as sanctioning experienced editors. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your support of EW and the kind words you said about me. I hope all the candidates I nominate have the self-awareness to know when to get involved in the deep end of admin business. That time is going to be never for some candidates but sooner for others. So I want to take this opportunity - since EW hasn't expressed much desire to do the kind of heavy duty stuff you're mentioning to note that "a few years" isn't necessarily the right advice/timetable to have out there. Several of my past nominees (and me) have done it faster than a few years, while I would expect others I nominate to never do that kind of work. Hopefully our mutual trust in EW will be rewarded with them starting that work when they're ready to do it (and the community's ready for them to do it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree. I intended it to be a guess at this specific pretty-new individual rather than a general statement. And even then it was probably an overgeneralization / metaphor...sorry! I promote that informal bifurcation in general.... not because there are many problems but because if it were more widely accepted, that would make it safer and easier to get/approve new admins at RFA. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
164. Support. Established and trustworthy user. Clyde!Franklin! 03:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
165. Sure. 04:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
166. Without hestitation. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
167. Support. Pays attention to details that others might miss. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
168. Support I took a close look at the edit histories of US Supreme Court justices Wiley Rutledge and Melville Fuller. This editor transformed these articles from mediocre introductory articles to Featured articles and I know much more about the history of these judges and that court than I ever did before reading them. Roughly 80% of the content in each has been contributed by the nominee, and these are obviously highly notable topics that needed to be improved. In addition, the editor is level-headed, friendly, calm and helpful. They have shown that they understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whenever I see them commenting in project space, their input is thoughtful and policy based. Support happily. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
169. Support -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
170. Support Very credible candidacy. DFlhb (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
171. Support Great contributions so far. Thank you for taking this step to further help the project. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
172. Support Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
173. Support. Although this would pass with or with my supporting, I don't see any issues. NYC Guru (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
174. 11:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
175. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
176. Support, has a clue. --Mvqr (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
177. Support I have seen this editor around the project. A balanced candidate with positive contributions. Bruxton (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
178. Support We need more admins. Harej (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
179. Support - I was going to say Yes anyway regardless of the answer to my question, but I thought the question should be asked. Also, a good job with the mop in cleaning up the message created by the sockpuppet at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
180. Support. I always see him in AFD. He works hard to save the articles, and hes very detailed in it. They deserve it.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
181. SupportEpicgenius (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
182. Support RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
183. Extraordinary Writ has an excellent temperament. They have made great content (barnstar-worthy). I'm never impressed by AfD stats, but by the actual detail and research in the !votes, which is very high in Extraordinary Writ's case; good to see their work around deletion, particularly de-prodding when more sources can be found. More than enough experience and competence to be trusted to act sensibly with the mop. — Bilorv (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
184. Support Uhai (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
185. Support without reservation. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
186. Strong support Bumbubookworm (talk)
187. Support Qualified and no qualms for me at this time. 19:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
188. Support No objections. We need admins smart enough to do the job and dumb enough to take it. Jacona (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
189. Has a clue, not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
190. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
191. Support Adondai (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
192. Support no red flags so far --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
193. Support Seems like an alright person. Musashi1600 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
194. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
195. Support Seen them around, and have confidence that they will do an excellent job as admin. Additionally, I'm very confident that there won't be another Extraordinary Writ before the community or the court. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
196. Support - per noms and most of above. Seen them around a lot, have come away impressed. There is not a single editor here, not even those whom I most admire, who I have agreed with 100% in all instances. (looking over a few edits of mine, that includes myself...) Overall I believe it is clear that giving EW the extended toolset is not just good for the project, but overwhelmingly so. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
197. Support - nothing that suggests they are likely to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
198. Support – Appears to be a trustworthy & a meaningful content creator. Net positive. 04:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
199. Grant mandamus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
200. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
201. JavaHurricane 12:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
202. No problem in supporting the candidate. Volten001 12:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
203. Support - would like to see even more content creation, but with that said, do not see anything to suggest they are likely to abuse the power and position. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
204. Support No reason to think this editor would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
205. Support, excellent! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
206. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
207. Support. Sensible responses, already does great work. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
208. Support. I remember this editor from several project pages, and I'm aware of their excellent contributions to legal topics. Shrewd, good-tempered, and sees the big picture. twsabin 21:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
209. Support - A solid, trustworthy candidate with a good disposition. Would make a great admin. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
210. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
211. Support: Candidate's response to questions suggests a thoughtful person that would benefit from the admin tools. Articles produced by the candidate are of a fantastic quality, suggesting a deft and committed user. I'm especially glad for a candidate who is unlikely to immediately use their new-found tools for anything other than the most necessary procedures. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
212. Obviously 00:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
213. Support I can't see a solid reason to oppose. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 06:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
214. Support. I see no reason not to support. Ks0stm (TCGE) 08:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
215. Per nom and personal knowledge over time. Easy support.--John Cline (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
216. Support. Safe pair of hands, clued-up, trustworthy. DBaK (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
217. Support. Jianhui67 TC 13:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
218. Support how can I get notifications for who is running for adminship? I have to search it myself for now. zoglophie 13:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Click on "Watchlist" and you'll see a message "A request for adminship is under discussion" (or "x requests for adminship" in multiple ones are open), this will take you to WP:RFA where you can see a list of open nominations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
219. Support No Brainer. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
220. Support. Unlikely to delete the mainpage. Very happy to support his clueful candidate. BusterD (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
221. Support Of course. I had a moment of confusion half a year ago when I couldn't find the admin topicon on their user page. Happy to see it'll be added soon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
222. Support, only experienced positive interactions with said user. I used to think that Extraordinary Writ was already an administrator so this RfA only makes sense. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
223. Support - After looking over everything, it all checks out. - Aoidh (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
224. Support Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
225. Support I miss seeing a fair number of RFAs because I don't check my Watchlist much any more so I'm glad I caught this one. No reservations. Glad to support! Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
226. Samir 02:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
227. Support More support is not needed, but I add mine. Equineducklings (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
228. Support Valuable voice at AFD, no red flags. userdude 03:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
229. Support Extraordinary Writ has shown to be a been a valuable contributor and has demonstrated the temperament and expertise a sysop needs. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
230. Sennecaster (Chat) 11:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
231. Support No issues. Conlinp (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
232. Kusma (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
233. Support Great work at SPI, and I even thought they were an admin before seeing this RFA :) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
234. Support Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
235. Support: Meets my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
236. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
237. Support - I know I've seen Extraordinary Writ around, and by all indications he'll be a solid addition to the sysop ranks. --Sable232 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
238. Support We do need more admins—clueful admins. EW will be one of them. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
239. Support Not like this is even necessary, of course, nor that I have anything special to add. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
240. Support anyone who openly supports the Oxford comma on their userpage is alright by me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
241. Support Good answers to questions, no concerns. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
242. Support Welcome to the club. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
243. support; I find nothing in edit history or responses to these questions that would give me pause.~TPW 18:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
244. Support I understand the points made by the oppose and neutral !voters, but this is clearly a net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
245. Fashionably Late Support, nothing obviously wrong, no big deal —Locke Coletc 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
246. Stephen 21:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
247. Support - I've seen Extraordinary Writ's work over the past 2 years and I've always found them to be calm, helpful and a trustworthy editor. Their contributions in both content and administrative areas is good and they will be very useful and helpful to Wikipedia as an administrator. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
248. support. my previous interactions with Extraordinary Writ have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
##### Oppose
1. Extremely weak oppose: I once posted an RM/TR when I draftified an article, requesting that the said article be moved into draftspace without leaving a redirect. EW declined and recommended me to use a user script instead. While I do use the script, and find it quite useful, I don't think that EW should have declined my RM/TR, given that it my RM/TR is helping admins by relieving them of an extraneous R2. My oppose is weak because it relates to my personal experience - therefore slightly biassed - and extremely so since I am cognizant that I am a minority of one in a sea of 163. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Edited on 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) to clarify an antecedent. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, the diff for the RMTR I believe NotReallySoroka referred to is this. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
It is indeed this one. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
That does not at all look like a decline to me (more like a friendly recommendation to use a more proper venue); EW didn't remove the request until the article was sent to AfD (presumably by a user who wasn't aware of the RM/TR). eviolite (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Eviolite: If EW was like "Hey, NotReallyMoniak, next time you could use this" then I would agree with you on the friendly recommendation part. But in reality, EW didn't move the page, so I consider it as good as a decline. Also, I don't think that EW leaving the RM/TR up should be interpreted as anything more than a delay before the request was procedurally removed. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, I believe that my RM/TR should have been accepted because it satisfies WP:PMRC#6: "Moving a page from the mainspace to another namespace when appropriate (WP:CSD#R2)". NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Just because it meets WP:PMRC doesn't mean it was technically appropriate to be requested via WP:RMTR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
But is my request so harmful that it ought to be rejected? True as it is that my RM/TR request might not be "technically appropriate", since I made it there, it should have been accepted anyway. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I'm uneasy over Q8 & Q9 answers as they hint you might be a little more hard-line than I'm happy with. This alone would not prevent a support. You have the confidence of two outstanding noms; you've got FA & GAs; there's evidence you've been a much appreciated mentor, as Barkeep alludes. You've given excellent advise to more experienced editors, e.g. during GA reivews. But this is offset by your apparent pileon against the Colonel (Andrew D) in the Halloween purge thread. It doesnt bother me in the slightest if someone who's frequently been in opposition to the Colonel doesnt like him, as while I love his style, its understandable it might be annoying to some. But checking the AfD's you participated in prior to your apparent pile on vote, I only see a single AfD in which you've both took part. The Colonel's single comment in that discussion was excellent & illuminating. I'm not sure how it could have led you to say your own experience of the Colonel is that his deletion process participation "generates more heat than light". (If there's some evidence he declined several of your prods during his patrols I'd reconsider this vote.) It looks to me (Edit: though I'm likely wrong per VickKiang) that you might be the type to make thoughtless pile on comments to ban a ~15 year veteran of genuinely extraordinary encyclopaedic talent from one of their main areas of interest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been a year. Move on. Andrew may appeal his TBAN if he so chooses. This attitude of "this editor did one thing I don't like over a year ago, so I will oppose them forever" is exactly why people don't want to run for adminship. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Relevant quote is “Both the evidence above and my personal experience convince me that Andrew Davidson's participation in the deletion process generates more heat than light, and given the long history of problematic behavior I believe this is the only solution that has a chance of working. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021” … it’s a stretch to see your interpretation here as a fair reading of that comment, perhaps you misread it? ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I can understand your viewpoint and appreciate your insightful commentary, but the line But checking the AfD's you participated in prior to your apparent pile on vote, I only see a single AfD in which you've both took part is inaccurate- not according to this tool, they've frequently overlapped in AfDs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Coyle de Barneval, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eutropia (sister of Constantine I), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Häusser, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman). Sure, they sometimes disagreed and sometimes agreed, but Extraordinary Writ has participated in the same discussion with Andrew many times. Also on PRODs- I found Pleasant Hill Historical Society Museum where EW PRODed, this was the state of the artice when they looked at it, and Andrew D deprodded without an explanation except for per WP:DEPROD (there might be more prods and deprods between them for deleted pages not on the tool but I am not sure). EW then AfDed it, and later changed to merge (the discussion was split between merge and keep and was closed as keep by Barkeep). IMO EW's PROD/AfD was reasonable (though they could have considered an ATD, but overall their AfD record is IMO balanced), and Andrew's deprod could have an explanation which is encouraged, so overall EW and Andrew definitely disagreed frequently, so I won't say that's a pile-on vote, of course, it's just my personal POV. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
While I still somewhat disagree with your comment, thanks for your update to your vote (P.S. the AfD is probably because EW commented in 1841 AfDs and the sample size is 500, IMO). Let's respectfully disagree and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This "the Colonel" stuff is nonsense. The editor in question did not found Kentucky Fried Chicken and has a current user name, which is Andrew Davidson. Engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric like Halloween purge thread is ill-advised. That was the editing community expressing clear-cut consensus. If fewer editors spoke out, the editor's defenders would have said "no consensus". When more editors comment, the defenders indignantly complain about "piling on". Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
"The Colonel" is used because Andrew Davidson has an alternative account, Colonel Warden. It doesn't have anything to do with WP:COLONEL, used to tell people to stop being silly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Strange how RFA participants want everyone marching in lockstep at an RFA. Someone posted a neutral and JayBeeEll attacked them and moved to strike their participation as "worthless". FH has a valid concern which I also expressed and participants descend to cluck their tongues. It should not be easy to get a lifetime appointment where one can run-roughshod over editors. This is just vetting being done by a very small group of editors who have perhaps watchlisted the RFA page. Editors like to refer to these handful of editors who follow the Bait ball as some sort of "community" - it clearly is not. And those of us who do not participate in the project's wilding events are decidedly not welcome. I did not appose this nomination because I respect the Barkeep49 and the candidate has many other positive attributes. I hope they become a good administrator, they clearly have the support of the "community". I too was concerned about the candidate's participation in that ANI debacle. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself and in general, some opposes and neutrals have more validity than others. Truthfully some supports have more validity than others too. RFA is supposed to be a discussion so the fact that people want to discuss things makes sense and that discussion is going to look different when 90%+ of the community has one opinion than when the community is more evenly divided. That said I try to prepare the candidates I nominate for the fact that there will be opposes. I think our best editors are ones who can keep the opposes, which can weigh on even the most grounded and stable of editors, in perspective. The ones who does this the best end up happier in the longrun and RfA is a chance to practice/build that skill. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you. Although I weak opposed for a vastly different rationale, and I disagree with yours, I don't think that gatekeeping everyone into agreeing into adminship bids (in general), as meritorious as the RfAs are, is the most advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
It's less about "how dare someone oppose" and more "how dare this editor use this RfA as a vehicle to lick "The Colonel"'s boots and re-litigate a TBAN from over a year ago". That's straight up unfair to the candidate. You'll notice nobody commented on your neutral, because you actually focused on the candidate instead of going off on a whole tangent about how much you love and worship "The Colonel" and he's the smartest person to ever live and so on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
It was good of you to take the time to share that perspective. I don't in fact desire to induldge in such proclivities. My underlying concern relates to how far the project has fallen from the original "encylocpedia anyone can edit" vision. Rising standards mean we're closer to being an encylopieda that only the elite few can edit, as discussed here. At least with well known editors, the community generally get's a chance to weigh in on any severe sanction. But lesser known accounts are effectively permabanned at the discretion of an individual admin & perhaps 1 or 2 others who review any unblock reqs. Sometimes this can be for an Exopedian who might have had editing as their main hobby for over a decade. I've known cases where this causes extreme distress and it's very hard to do anything about it. If someone can make an apparent pileon vote for sanctions even against someone like the illustrious Colonel, it stands to reason they might take a hardline stance against lesser known editors, especially if there are other indications they lean to a strict interpretation of policy. This said, I guess the project can afford losing even several hundred net +ve content contributors a month, whereas losing even a dozen admin class editors a month would soon be disastrous. So probably it makes sense the community seems to lean so strongly on the pro admin (candidate) side. Having slept on it, my 'pileon' concern is rebutted - it's understandable the candidate might see declining a prod sans explanation as a 'more heat than light' action. So withdrawing the oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the best eulogy for the Colonel's illustrious AfD career I've read. Submit it to the Signpost. — hako9 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate for an admin to make the project lose "several hundred net content contributors a month", and would like to make that very clear. Admins are subject to the same rules as everyone else, and arguably even more so. But it's hard to take you seriously when you say things like "the illustrious Colonel" - you come across as a shameless partisan. You're welcome to be Andrew Davidson's wikifriend, to be proud of his contributions, and to state as much, but comments like that are excessive. If you have real evidence that this candidate has a proclivity towards being unduly harsh to editors, please share it - I would find such a thing concerning for an admin candidate. But cherry-picking one example (and per the candidate's quoted statement from that example, not really an egregious example at all), and suggesting that is indicative of the candidate's general behavior, is not reasonable. In the discussion you link, you bring up MathSci - one of the most uncivil editors ever, who was given dozens of chances before ultimately being indeffed. I realize this is getting off-topic, so if someone wants to move this to this RfA's talk page I would not oppose it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per NotReallySoroka. Adibens (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting to note that your oppose is based on someone else's personal experience. Obviously it's your call, and you can base your views on whatever you want, but interesting all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but supports are also per others and per nom, and somehow it doesn't appear so interesting. — kashmīrī TALK 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. Kind of missed my point, but whatevs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
What is your point meant to be? The rationale 'per X' is used all throughout Wikipedia. It's particularly common at RfA where many participants will have had no previous experience with the candidate and thus have only other editors' experiences to base their !vote on. Adibens has practically never even crossed paths with Extraordinary Writ.1 Mr rnddude (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I am certain the closing crat can be trusted give each assertion its proper due weight. !voters here are permitted to say all sorts of non-injurious things. BusterD (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I must have missed the part where you made a point. You said it was interesting, but you didn't say why. It seemed like a pointless comment at the time, and it continues to seem pointless now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
##### Neutral
1. Neutral. I've never seen this user before and I'm too in a rush to look into all of this at the moment. I like the username, though. Panini! 🥪 15:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Neutral micro-participation in areas of conflict and limited content creation. I see that the editor ivoted with the lynch mob in the Halloween purge thread and that keeps me from support. I also recognize and respect that the candidate is nominated by a respected administrator. I hope the candidate will be a good admin that stands up for what is right and just and does not simply WP:PILEON as they did in the Halloween thread. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Rhetorical excess like lynch mob and Halloween purge thread is the worst form of divisive hyperbole that should be rejected on a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. Nobody dragged Andrew Davidson out of his house in the middle of the night and extrajudicially hanged him by his neck until he was dead. Instead, many thoughtful people concluded that he was disruptive in a narrow area of the encyclopedia. He was partially blocked with clear options for appeal. Lightburst, I for one deeply resent your charge that I and the other editors who were fed up with Andrew Davidson's long record of disruption partipated in a "lynch mob". Quoting Joseph N. Welch "have you no sense of decency?" Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The purge thread did feel a little like a witch hunt to be fair. That's doesnt mean I'm saying everyone who supported sanctions is a witch hunter. Welch was one of the most successful anti - witchhunters of the 20th century, so very amusing quote there! FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I have mad respect for you and your experience on the project. I have had many positive interactions with you. Regarding many thoughtful people...not really. It was a train wreck made worse by admins who let the mob run the threads. CaptainEek called it, "...one of the nastiest ANI threads of all time" - but yet they also said they "watched with baited breath". The editors that I work with are rarely found in the scrums that occur at ANI. And according to the record the candidate did not participate there. Which is why I mentioned that the candidate waited until the outcome was decided by the mob there and then piled on as the last "Support" in the AD thread. I hope you or the candidate never find yourself in the situation that these four volunteers were in. I would spit the question back at you and the others that allowed the mob to run the show, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?". I will call it the Halloween purge because that is what it was; I believe JPxG was the first to recognize that this occurred near Halloween. It was actually not a single purge, but a series of purges. And you are probably right that "lynch mob" is not appropriate: Witch hunt probably fits the Halloween purge theme better than lynch mob. Again I hope EW does better in their new volunteer role. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Extraordinary Wit
• the candidate has shown interest in UAA. Would someone kindly ask them the single question with 10-15 usernames per custom? —usernamekiran (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
No. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
aw. That's disappointing. The customs shouldn't be broken. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The "custom" of giving prospective admin candidates questions straight out of WP:CVUA's homework is silly at best. If you have a question for the candidate, at least put some thought into it and make it something that actually tells you about the candidate's personality and thought process...not just pop quizzes about basic antivandalism knowledge. If they've said they want to work UAA and you're concerned about their competency in the area, then have a look at their edits to UAA and do some math on how accurate they've been, or see what admins who patrol UAA have to say. I'm sure those are much better ways of determining suitability than asking how to deal with usernames like "~~~~," "Bieberisgay," or "ButtMcFartington69". GeneralNotability (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
um, ahkshually ~~~~ is not a valid username since [t]he requested page title contains invalid magic tilde sequence (~~~). 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4, it is indeed, but it's still on the list of usernames they ask you about at CVUA. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
🧠 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Wait, Bieber is gay? Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't actually know what we're talking about here... – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
bad RfA questions casualdejekyll 12:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Come on, GN, a bit of humour doesn't harm.kashmīrī TALK 10:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
See User:Valereee/RfA questions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, now that I look at my own comments after a sleep (I commented when I was sleepy/drowsy), I realised they didn't type out as I expected them to be. In short, what I wanted to say was "the UAA related questions are bound to be incoming when nomination/candidate mentions UAA (something like a custom), the questions annoying, 10-15 questions are disguised as one. We are on the same side regarding those questions, GN —usernamekiran (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• I look forward to things getting more confusing than they already are. c: Writ Keeper  03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Introducing Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused to a broader audience :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, I actually voted "support" thinking it was you. This was ten years ago already; I figured you had been dishonorably discharged and had started socking. Which I TOTALLY discourage, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I look forward to the many opportunities, when advised to be cautious as a new admin, for Extraordinary Writ to tell individuals to butt out with "you're not my keeper. Unless..." Nosebagbear (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what this discussion is about. Guess I'm not part of the club. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Then join it. I mean, this is Wikipedia, so if there is a club, it's joinable. They're referring to the RfA culture of some not super good questions that are asked to any candidate who mentions UAA. casualdejekyll 14:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Who's next to add their name to the "dizzy" list? :-) Sarrail (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm quite dizzy myself, but mainly because I've slept 5 hours the past two days. Panini! 🥪 15:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• What's with the "end of the RfA" bit below? Have I just not been paying attention or is that new? GMGtalk 14:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There's a monster at the end of this RfA! Writ Keeper  14:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
aaaaaaa! Run away! 'Cause it's the Cookie Monster! :-) Sarrail (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that means must thank us all with cookies! :D 17:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo: It's a technical measure to implement Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 48#RfAs should now be automatically placed "on hold" after 168 hours. –xenotalk 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Also known as "someone didn't notice the "DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE" message and, well, edited below the line. So yes, it is new, but it might become normal. The other option is to add as many stupid DO NOT EDIT messages as possible and see if anyone actually reads them. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if biting the bullet and relying on the hidden comment is a better idea. Long-term, new participants at RfA are much, much more likely to read directions on the page so they can figure out how to participate in the first place. We might have to fix the placement of some comments in the short term, but if we issue a gentle reminder about the new "don't edit below here" message when we fix it, people should figure out where to leave general comments fairly quickly. If it turns out we need the separate section, so be it, but I am not ready to conclude that it is necessary from a sample size of one. HouseBlastertalk 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Neither am I, but it helps to try out different things and then discuss afterward. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.