Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ferret

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 (104/2/4); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 15:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 15:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ferret (talk · contribs) – Sometimes one gets an inkling that a user who has been around a while, editing steadily in most areas, might be a potential candidate for adminship. I'd therefore like to help get the new Wikiyear off to a good start by presenting Ferret for your consideration for adminship. I’ve been watching Ferret’s work from the sidelines for over a year and now after realising he's been editing solidly for over six years and with over 20,000 edits he can certainly demonstrate that having the tools would be a benefit to Wikipedia. His subject matter is mainly video games, an area that needs a lot of regular attention but which is not to say that he is unable to turn his focus to more general issues at AIV and RFPP and page patrolling as the need arises. Ferret's work in this difficult topic area, as well as heavily contributing to articles outside his usual sphere of interest, not only compensates what might be perceived as a possible lack of article creation, which certainly meets my criteria (often criticised as being too severe) and with two GAs to boot, but it also reminds us that it is through this kind of work in a minefield of a topic that one learns all one needs to know about policies and guidelines. No one needs to have made a special name for themselves or excelled in any particular area to be an admin; the important thing is having shown sufficient commitment and gained the trust of the community. Temperament is also important for admins and he has the right one. Please join with me and co-nominator Sam to add Ferret to our corps of admins.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kudpung's nomination covers the candidate's suitability for adminship very well, so I will try not to overlap too much.

Ferret has been actively editing here for many many years, and displays a consistently high level of understanding of our policies. This is evident from their reports to AIV (133 of them) and their requests for protection. Ferret has a demonstrated level of civility and helpfulness, and a quick browse through their contributions to discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games show's they have some serious clue.

Ferret has a clear need for the tools through their activities at AIV and RfPP, and the common sense to branch into other areas when they feel comfortable. I hope you'll join Kudpung and I today in supporting a wonderful Wikipedian Samtar talk · contribs 14:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Thank you very much for your words and nomination. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have a primary interest in AIV and RFPP. Much of my editing is patrolling vandalism or pending changes. I think that keeping articles in a clean state is important. For something like CSD, I would initially keep to clear hoaxes or attack pages. I might also look into UAA, but I wouldn't dive into it immediately.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created a few articles and helped copy-edit or maintain several. Quite a few years ago, I was involved in a long drawn out effort to rewrite portions of Edge Games, involving an apparent COI editor. Ultimately, we reached a well sourced consensus. I've also tried a few times to fulfill requests from the project board WP:VG/R, including Desi Adda and Turbulenz. I was able to take Space Run from creation to GA, and recently finished getting Banished (video game) to GA. I've also helped maintain several highly visible templates and written modules. I assisted a Romanian editor with Maria Gheorghiu, by finding sources and copy editing. On my talk page, I try to be helpful, especially if I've reverted someone and they come to ask why. I try to explain the relevant policies and point them in the right directions for improvement, if possible.
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've been in a couple of more drawn out content discussions, like Edge Games mentioned above, and a similar discussion at PC Master Race. They could be frustrating at times, but ultimately were resolved in a satisfactory manner. I have rarely felt stressed by editing but I feel the best approach to take once you begin to feel overwhelmed is to just step away from the topic for a little bit and come back fresh a day or two later.

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

Additional question from Lourdes
4. Administrators are expected to encourage new editors and to guide them appropriately through talk page messages or edit summaries in the case of mistakes. Please explain the following reverts of some IP(s) undertaken by you without leaving any explanation either in the edit summaries or the IP's talk page; the IP edits don't seem like vandalism to me, and you've just missed breaking 3RR limits in a few cases (I might be wrong though; so awaiting your explanation, thank you).
  1. Star Wars: Republic Commando: [1][2][3][4][5] – 5 reverts of an IP's edit, without leaving any explanation either in the edit summary or on the IP's talk page, except in the first where you allude to the hounding of an editor by an IP... and four reverts by you just missing the 3RR line. The editor whose name you mention in the first edit summary as being the hounded one, has previous/old block messages and recent warning messages, all for edit warring on his talk page.
  2. Star Wars: Empire at War: [6][7][8][9][10] – Same sequence, and four edits almost missing 3RR..
  3. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II: [11][12][13][14][15] – Same story as above.
A: These IPs are from a known IP editor (using BT, a UK-based ISP) who has been hounding Eik Corell for several years, reverting him with the text "rv v". The related AN/I discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#Range block needed - LTA IP editor who reverts Eik_Corell, and many older cases can be found in the archives. This has resulted in repeated range blocks and an edit filter being setup to combat the editor. The removed content (by Eik) was on the basis of WP:V, and repeatedly being restored by clearly related IPs without any new sourcing. Each IP was blocked, then resumed activity under another, hitting the same 4-5 articles. My familiarity with the case and the pattern is why I took the actions I did. I believe my contributions show a record for issuing warnings, leaving edit notes, and replying to editors who ask about the reverts, during my day to day patrolling.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify (and apologies for the unnecessary attention this has caused). I have a follow up question, related to the above diffs and to the statement in your answer, namely, "I believe my contributions show a record for issuing warnings, leaving edit notes..." As my question has a focus of your unexplained reverts of newbies, similar to the above reverts, I've additionally noticed the following unexplained reverts of newbies by you in the last four or five weeks of your editing. These again don't look vandalism to me, on the face of it. I'll request you to provide explanations for why have you not provided any explanation to the newbies for the following reverts you've made in the past four-five weeks. Apologies once more for the unnecessary attention. Thank you. Lourdes
  1. General unexplained reverts of apparently good faith edits by newbies: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
  2. ESports: On 7 December, an IP changed the capitalization of the term Esports and gave this link (now relinked here) as the reference. It was reverted by another editor, and subsequently, after another IP added the change again, your reverts were as follows: [23], [24], the first one with no edit summary, the second one with the edit summary "Yet again". You had also notified an administrator with the statement: "Esports is due another prot. Multiple drive by editors in the last month pulling the eSports -> Esports edit against consensus." The page was protected (again) soon after. If possible, please do provide an explanation for your lack of explanation to the newbies.
  3. "No need to get peacocky about him", while reverting a relatively inexperienced editor who added the sentence "multiple world champion" in front of Lewis Hamilton. This seems a snarky comment targeted at a not so experienced editor. Why would you have said that? Thanks.
(A gentle ping to Ferret for the response. Lourdes 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC))Reply[reply]
(In the interest of good faith reciprocation to SergeCross, who has communicated to me that the follow-up questions seem to cross the two-part question limit, while I would prefer the candidate answering all my queries, if the candidate feels the same way as Sergecross, I'm okay if the candidate responds to just the first part of my query, which refers to a series of unexplained reverts. Thanks. Lourdes 03:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)) Reply[reply]
A: I've made note of both supports and neutrals regarding more consistent usage of informative edit notes and taken it to heart. See also answer to 4bis below.
Additional question from Ritchie333
4a. While you are thinking about your answer to Q4, can you explain why you thought it was necessary to file a report at AIV relating to the diffs linked in that question, and where you thought the vandalism was.
A: See support below from KrakakoaKatie and talk discussion with Ritchie33.
Additional question from Class455
5. - You see the following usernames on the new user log and/or reported at AIV/UAA (when you do eventually look into UAA). What action do you take?
  • Jediyoda02
  • Emirates Airline
  • Nightfury Nordic
  • Southeastern
  • Schwede67
  • Eurovision2017
  • Londonbuses407
  • Whyamihere
A: I would err on the side of caution in most cases here, as the only data for the question is the name itself, not their actions.
  • Jediyoda02 - Nothing immediately wrong. Suggests the user is a fan of Star Wars, possibly check for inappropriate Star Wars related edits, but I don't see a clear username policy violation.
  • Emirates Airline - Potentially a promotional or shared user username for the airline of the same name. Block and leave {{uw-ublock}} or {{uw-softerblock}} depending on contributions. If clearly acting in unredeemable promotional matter, {{uw-spamublock}}
  • Nightfury Nordic - Possible misleading username to impersonate Nordic Nightfury. I would review contributions. Both word are common fantasy (and historical) terms that someone might use independently. Outside of offending contributions, I'd err on the side of caution and let them edit.
  • Southeastern - Could refer to numerous companies, but no clear indication of a promotional tie. Note this is an actual user registered for over a decade, though inactive at this time. No immediate concerns on principal/policy.
  • Schwede67 - Possible misleading username to impersonate Schwede66. Like Nightfury Nordic, reviewing contributions would be in order. I would probably be more skeptical here, doubly so under the assumption Schwede66 passes RfA. If clean, I'd leave a message suggesting a name change due to closeness to a (probable) admin. If anything suggests impersonation, I would block.
  • Eurovision2017 - Potentially a promotional username for Eurovision Song Contest, possibly just a fan. Would check contributions and behavior. If no promotional contributions or editing to Eurovision, suggest a name change on their talk page. Otherwise, a similar course as Emirates Airline.
  • Londonbuses407 - Appears to be a reference to a London bus route. Could possibly indicate promotion or shared used, or just a hobbyist/fan. A review of contributions would be required. I would likely not leave a suggestion to rename, without some clear organization/group to reference it back to.
  • Whyamihere - Nothing immediately wrong from my view, many users have phrase based names. Would probably check contribs to see if the name indicates "temporariness" because the user is engaged in something that would lead to a block, but thats above username policy.

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional question from Deryck C.
6. Thanks for volunteering to become an admin with RFPP responsibilities. When you handle an RFPP, in what circumstances will you apply indefinite protection? Feel free to answer in terms of level of disruption, type of protection, what the requester has proposed, or any other factor you deem appropriate. Deryck C. 17:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: In article main space, I see indefinite as somewhat "last resort". Escalating lengths of protection should be used first. I believe typically seen lengths are 3 days, a week, a month, 3 months, and eventually up to a year if the issues (Return disruptive editors, vandalism) continue. For many topics, after a year attention to the topic may have died down and nothing further is required. I do not think indefinite should generally be considered until longer (temporary) terms have been attempted. The issue with indefinite is that it can fall off the radar (out of sight out of mind) and still be there years later after any real efforts to disrupt or vandalize the topic has long passed. I'd rather be caution here. Protection should be only as long as needed. My primary exception would be cases like highly visible template pages, as covered by WP:TPROT.
Additional question from Espresso Addict
7. Your content contributions appear rather specialised. Aside from Maria Gheorghiu, mentioned in Q2, can you point to any substantive work on articles not related to video games/similar? To what degree would you envisage working in an admin capacity on articles outside this subject area?
A: 7a: I do not have a particular article outside of VG area that I have done heavy dedicated work on, but I have spent some time reading other areas, and make small improvements and adjustments as I come across things that might read awkward or lack sourcing. 7b: Pending changes, edit requests and recent change patrolling often takes me away from my hobby interests. In working AIV and RFPP, I expect to see interaction in areas outside of VG regularly in the same fashion.
Additional question from Espresso Addict
8. If you'll grant me an additional question after the above, I'd be interested in your opinion on any potential issues surrounding your creation of Turbulenz?
A: I decided to view this as a third question.
Additional question from Tigraan
4bis. Breaking the numbering because this does not need an answer here. I would appreciate if Lourdes' point 2. in follow-up in Q4 above - re "yet again" revert on eSports in the face of a link - was answered despite the questions-per-editor limit.
A: The edit note should have noted the established naming consensus and that the link was not a reliable source. I've taken note of all the advice in this regard and already begun a focus to tighten my notes up.


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

  1. Support as per my co-nom -- Samtar talk · contribs 15:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Obvious net positive, deserving of the tools. JAGUAR  15:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support, net positive--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support. No objections if the user is backed by Kudpung.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Strong Support - I've worked extensively with him for multiple years now, and I believe he'd be an immense asset as an Admin. Content-wise, he's got a great understanding of the core concepts - I've never seen any issues with his writing, sourcing, POV, etc. He calmly and correctly discusses any issues as he should. Beyond that, I truly believe he's ready for the tools. I open my talk page up to editors who don't like the the bureaucracy or waiting of the various noticeboards, and his reputation for reporting vandalism, sockpuppets, and suggesting blocks and page protection has been impeccable. I'd say I've agreed with his conclusions 99% of the time, and the other 1%, were merely times where I personally disagreed, but his stance was equally valid. Considering I have no history with controversial blocks or page protection, it seems like that would be a good indication of where he's at. He's ready. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Kudpung has some of the toughest criteria for supporting a candidate that I have ever seen. The fact that they are nominating this user is enough for me. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support as a fellow 'member' of WPVG, I encounter Ferret frequently. WP:NETPOS. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support per nom and co-nom. Joshualouie711talk 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support I've come across Ferret in his technical work on templates associated with video games, where I found him competent, collaborative and eager to learn. Comparatively few admins are comfortable working with templates and Lua modules, so I'm delighted to be able to support someone with those skills for a change. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. (edit conflict) Support: in pillar 2 of my RfA criteria. Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support, and the only word in my mind for this RFA is "obviously", but that's probably because I've run across Ferret from time to time while editing. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - I may be biased in favor of Ferret due to our semi-extensive interactions around WP:VG, but IMO he has demonstrated a very high quality of administrative judgement through his reports to AIV (and Serge's pseudo-AIV :p). His work with templates & Lua modules also shows competency that may be useful in improving sensitive FPP'ed pages like MediaWikia or high-risk Templates/Modules · Salvidrim! ·  16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. (edit conflict) Support. I don't know Ferret well enough, but a cursory review of his contributions records shows that he is trustworthy enough for admin tools. His technical expertise is also a big plus, as is his anti-vandalism work. Content creation looks good as well. epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support - Kudpung's recommendation holds a lot of weight, and Epicgenius' points are spot on. Net positive to the project. Onel5969 TT me 16:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. I get the feeling that the first 50 supporters are all going to edit conflict with each other in their eagerness to support this. It's a strong nomination and a strong candidate. I can't think of single negative experience I've had with Ferret. Talk:Kotaku is an example of when Ferret been both helpful and informative in a contentious discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support great nom. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 17:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support. Fully qualified candidate. With regard to the oppose comment, my review led me to the same conclusions that WJBscribe reached, and I note that the AIV report that was mentioned did in fact result in a block. It's for the candidate to explain in more detail in response to the questions, but I would gently suggest that when one has posted a question asserting misconduct by the candidate but acknowledging that one might be wrong and asking for an explanation, it would be better practice to await the response to the question before posting an oppose !vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support more admins willing to work at AIV is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support The Elk Corell harassment issue is a real one. I've rangeblocked and proposed edit filters and nearly torn my hair out over this, though not to the extent that Elk Corell has. Reverting these edits is an exception to 3RR as reverting the edits of a blocked or banned user. Ferret absolutely did the right thing by reporting to AIV, which is where we handle immediate, urgent cases of block evasion. I have no concerns about his ability to identify what is and isn't vandalism, and I have faith in his judgment. Katietalk 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support I've worked with Ferret a few times in cleaning up vandalism. I trust his judgment, as Katie said above, and fell that he would make for a sound admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - has a use for the sysop tools, and every indication of enough competence to use them well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support. There have been lots of good things said about Ferret, and I agree with them. The Q4 thing isn't a problem, as it's been explained fine and supported by others who know of the incident. I'd say Ferret's help for a fellow editor is more of a reason to support than oppose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - Clear netpositive, and no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Babymissfortune 02:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support candidate will clearly be a net positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support - I have no concerns with this candidate and see them as a NETPOSITIVE. -- Dane talk 05:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support: I have encountered Ferret several times while editing. He is calm, nice, and has extensive knowledge on various guidelines and policies. He is a great editor who deserves the admin tools. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support The stuff re Q4 appears to be a one-off incident with no other concerns. I'm not happy about it, but I'll follow this up on his talk page when I've got a mo, and I'm sure it will be received in the right manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Kudpung and Samtar as noms pretty much wrap it up for me, but AfD is clueful too. Have also seen Ferret at AIV a few times, seemed to be on the money. No reason not too, basically. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Trustworthy and experienced candidate. lNeverCry 09:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support I can't say I understand the full bureaucracy of admin requests (never supported or opposed anybody before), but personally dealing with ferret (we're both active WP:VG members), I can vouch that he is knowledgeable about Wiki policies and has never been an issue to deal with when working together. Ideally, he is what Wikipedia admins should be, so I fully support. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support. Worked with this man quite a lot while I was writing some of the Fallout 4 articles. Easily a net positive and will be a great admin. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support - no issues. It's great to see so many great editors running this month. Patient Zerotalk 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support: This candidate is calm, polite and balanced. He is also knowledgeable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Jianhui67 TC 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support- Per answers to question 5 I am confident Ferret will make a good addition to the team! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support no reservations. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support excellent candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support per nom. WJBscribe (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support, as Gamingforfun365 has not seen this user majorly flawed in any way. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support we need more people to run RFPP and AIV, and I think he would be a good admin. The Opposostions aren't very major IMO, seeing as Admins do not have Ultimate Power.L3X1 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support as I don't see any red flags and user is a net positive. —MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support - Although I never heard this user a lot, a flash of his contributions and logs seems good for handling a mop. A great candidate! NgYShung huh? 04:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - I have seen Ferret's work occasionally and it has looked good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง as nominator should be convincing enough since his standards are high and we can count on his review of Ferret's contributions and demeanor as being thorough. Ferret has concentrated on a subject in which contributions to articles can spark contention and handled his interactions well. Good temperament. 2 GAs. Has worked in some administrative/maintenance areas. Good answers to questions related to possible areas of administrative work so far. I think Ferret's trustworthiness has been well established and he will be a net positive as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - no real concerns. GiantSnowman 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support. The nominator's judgment is good enough for me. Deb (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support. No apparent problems, good nomination from Kudpung, good answers to my question and other questions. Deryck C. 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. [1] Nominated by Kudpung is an excellent recommendation; [2] my (brief) research has found nothing; [3] the oppose, while undoubtedly in good faith, seems to me to be poorly based; [4] another trustworthy admin to reduce workloads/backlogs is a good thing. Happy days, LindsayHello 12:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support, likely to be a net positive. I do agree that reverting unhelpful edits from IPs without explanation is a poor habit (one I've fallen into as well at times) but I'm confident the candidate can take feedback on board and adjust behaviors as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support. As per above being nominated by Kudpung is an excellent recommendation. Happy to support with a new mop. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 15:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support. Clear net-positive, good answers to questions. I can see no reason why this user should not be trusted with the tools.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. 'Support- He has contributed significantly and demonstrated the ability to lead. CLCStudent (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - I trust the user enough to see them with a mop. GamerPro64 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support The neglected RFA at the moment. While ideally I would like to see a slightly broader focus of subject matter nothing in their contributions jumps out as being overly inappropriate. Happy with the explanation about reverting the ip edits. Having a mature and grounded admin involved in video games articles may even be good as they are often the target of disruptive or misguided editing. AIRcorn (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support. I haven't crossed paths with the candidate because we edit in different topic areas, but I am supporting on the strength of the noms, the absence of any convincing problems here, and my own review of user talk page comments. Looks to me like a clear positive. (But do ferrets eat fish?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support - While not necessarily the most prolific editor on Wikipedia, Ferret nevertheless appears to be an exceptional contributor in his own right. I suspect he will prove to be an exemplary administrator, which is why I can support him without reservations. Kurtis (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support - Great editor, WP:NETPOSITIVE. J947 04:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - A very good, net positive editor. No concerns. YITYNR My workWhat's wrong? 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support Net positive, trustworthy noms, good answers to questions. We all make mistakes, and we all learn on the job. Miniapolis 14:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Will do well with the mop and help out the project. SpencerT♦C 15:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support - Great candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. Looks good. I'm not too concerned about the IP reverts. Even if that was a mistake on Ferret's part (note the IF), then I expect him to learn from it. No reason to oppose for me. Yintan  20:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support: Volunteering to do work that needs to be done and has shown more than reasonable clue and knowledge.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support agree with noms and above. Another editor overdue for adminship. Gizza (t)(c) 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support per noms and Laser Brain. VegaDark (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Helpful and knowledgeable editor. --Jennica / talk 11:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support Ferret has shown the right competence, attitude, and patience needed for the admin bit for the various interactions I have had with them on the VG project and related articles. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support - Concurring with the comments of the nominators. Risker (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support A convincing nomination and overall good candidate XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support I've always had good interactions with Ferret, and have no concerns. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Soild, long-committed editor, trusted and balanced thinker, strong dedication shown through significantly advancing one project, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, and WP:AIV and WP:RFPP involvement demonstrate familiarity with administrative work. --JustBerry (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support No red flags + solid record = net positive. The sole Oppose is not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support. I think the editor will continue to be an asset to this project.   Aloha27  talk  01:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support. Excellent nomination. We continue to need more admins. Bradv 04:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support an editor who has a clear use for the tools, and the trust of experienced nominators at least one of whom was aware and obviously unconcerned about events related to Q4. I see nothing disqualifying, but there are lessons to consider. Net positive, clearly. — soupvector (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support as user appears trustworthy and clear about where and how his adminship tools will be used to benefit the project. I am also persuaded by this user being backed by Kudpung, who follows a strict policy related on whether or not a candidate is suitable for adminship. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support. Seems like a net positive. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support I don't see any issues with this nomination Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support. I'll hop on the bandwagon of editors who will support a candidate nominated by Kudpung. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support No problems. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support after a modest review of contributions, Q&A. --joe deckertalk 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88talk 03:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Good "proto-admin" work against vandals and trolls and 'puppets; high-quality content creation, even if not a firehose of it, quantity-wise; competent template and module work; even temperament for the most part. I agree with the unanswered long question's point, that some of the responses to noobs could have been better. But I also think that's something an admin is more likely to keep in mind than an average everyday editor, and I haven't seen anything that gives me real concerns. Understanding of policy seems solid. And I like the caution with regard to indef protection. The username-related answers were both well-reasoned and well-researched.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree (...) that some of the responses to noobs could have been better. But I also think that's something an admin is more likely to keep in mind than an average everyday editor - ok, but one could argue whether it is correlation or causation, and if causation which way it goes (maybe we will see Lourdes2, Lourdes3 etc. through Lourdes100 pile on the opposes on that base, which will prevent an admin promotion that would lower the correlation factor). (I will not be showing my hand on the bottom of the matter until "my" question is answered, but that is a point of logic.) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support. A safe candidate, Ferret has over 20,000 edits, rollback rights, a good enough record at WP:AfD, and lots of positive interactions with other Wikipedians. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support Per my simple RfA Criteria: a) Quality and quantity of contributions gives the distinct impression of a net positive for adminship, b) Demonstrates kindness. AlexEng(TALK) 23:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. I will admit that prior to this RfA going live, I'd never heard of Ferret; however, I agree with Bearian that Ferret is a safe choice for adminship. Appears good for the role; let's have another animal admin and get them to WP:100 in the process. ;) Acalamari 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support I see no issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support Seems bona fide based on records. Jupitus Smart 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support TheGeneralUser (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support - WP:100.  — Yash talk stalk 06:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support. No evidence that this user would misuse the tools. Appears to be a net positive. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support—per above; there doesn't appear to be any reason to not support. —MartinZ02 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 14:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support dealt promptly with ex O#3 when they saw it. Fine.Leaky Caldron 14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose Post my question, Ritchie's question makes it quite egregious. If I was an admin manning the Request for permission desk, I wouldn't grant Ferret the rollback right, leave alone support adminship, until they showed at least a month or two of correct reverts along with appropriate messaging guiding new editors. The easiest way to drive off newbies is exemplified above. If Ferret needs my support for adminship, I request them to spruce up the revert issues and reapply in a couple of months or three. Of course, Ferret, I'm absolutely open to changing my oppose stand here if you provide a reply that justifies questions no 4 and 4a. Thanks. Lourdes 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand the problem with 4 and 4a - especially as the questions are yet to be answered. The AIV report is pretty clear: "Vandalism/disruptive reverts, block evasion. IP was editing as two days ago, and as and yesterday. LTA editor who follows Eik Corell around." If it is right that the IP is someone who under different guises follows around a contributor edit warring with them across multiple pages, isn't that a textbook example of sockpuppetry/hounding/edit warring? I see that the AIV report resulted in a block [25] and - as I have no reason to disbelieve Ferret's report - the block looks correct. It seems to be the inference behind your opposition that you do not believe Ferret's explanation for the reverts/AIV report, but I don't understand why. A search through the WP:ANI archives shows a number of threads supporting Ferret's position that an "IP hopping troll" targets Eik Corell (see e.g. [26] [27]) and tends to use the edit summary (Rv v) when doing so. WJBscribe (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many ISPs will automatically allocate a new IP address after some time, sometimes on a 24 hour cycle, and/or after any period of inactivity of length x for some value of x. Phrases such as "IP hopping" and "sockpuppet", when referring to IP usage, should be used with care. Samsara 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (ec)Let's be clear that "IP hopping" is my phrase (borrowed from the title of one of the ANI reports) not the candidate's. It appears to be an accurate description of the user behind the edits that were reported. If: (i) a user's IP is blocked; (ii) during the duration of the block they are assigned a new IP; and (iii) they continue editing (especially doing so disruptively) that is sockpuppetry regardless of whether or not the change of IP was intentional. If changes in IP (intentional or otherwise) are used to enable a pattern of hounding and reverting the contributions of a particular editor over many months (maybe years - the ANI reports go back a long time), that is a serious conduct problem. WJBscribe (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If: (i) a user's IP is blocked; (ii) during the duration of the block they are assigned a new IP; and (iii) they continue editing The problem with that regrettably widely-used logic is that afaik mediawiki does not currently track whether or not warnings or block notices were actually seen (no cookies). So one could edit one day as an IP, become inactive, get blocked, come back the next day unaware, edit again, become inactive, get blocked, etc. ad infinitum - especially if IP and blocking admin follow a consistent daily pattern of activity. Wikipedia now plays host to a subculture obsessed with catching "IP hoppers" and "socks", and I'm not always impressed with that culture's grasp on technical aspects or probability theory. Samsara 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not going to !vote at all until Ferret has answered the question; I also think Lourdes was premature to oppose and to then say "I might strike my !vote if you give me a convincing explanation" isn't particularly nice. TBH it looks like the sort of question I would put on his talk page as a matter of course. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with !voting "oppose" if the information available at that moment leads you there, not when a dozen or so people show up and immediately !vote "support" for almost any RfA, and when we have people !voting "support" with summaries like "Why not?" and "My default position". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see everything wrong with Lourdes jumping the gun without giving the candidate a fair crack at the whip and the less than friendly tone of the comment - one can oppose without launching into what is little short of a PA. This is archetypal of the kind of participation at RfA that discourages not only potential candidates of the right calibre from coming forward, but also those of us who are actively on the search for new admin material but are wary of the risk hanging nice people out to dry. I'm rather disappointed at this because I was beginning to think that Lourdes had the makings of a responsible Wikipedian. Still, everyone's entitled to their opinions - I suppose, BMK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I would suppose that everyone's entitled to their opinion, but my observation is that if one's opinion amounts to opposition of a candidate, many people will take umbrage at it, while few (close to zero) people do the same to those who support. The upshot is that oppose votes are effectively suppressed, as people naturally don't want to put themselves in a position to be criticized. I don't see anything "irresponsible" in Lourdes' actions, nor with Ritchie333's choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose per missing answers to questions by Lourdes, Ritchie333 and Espresso Addict. It appears that the applicant received some valid criticism in some of those questions and as a result of those questions, and rather than using the opportunity to respond and explain their apparently valid reasoning, leaving the questions unanswered opens the applicant to editors inserting their own interpretations of those actions. There was a flaming pitchforks incident at AN not very long ago over an administrator making a controversial action and then going on a break for several days without responding to questions at all, it's not a good thing for administrators to do. It's obviously too late for this comment to make a difference in this RfA so please take this comment as advice: as an administrator you will be asked many more challenging questions than this, but you will be expected to answer them. (Also, you will inevitably give the wrong answer no matter what, but any answer is better than no answer). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not bothered about my question not being answered; circumstances have made it redundant. I addressed the issue directly on Ferret's talk page, and he answered it. WP:ADMINACCT does not mean when somebody picks a fight with you and demands a pound of flesh, you fight back. Often you will find that if you have already justified your actions and somebody is spoiling for a rumble at ANI, other editors will naturally come to your defence without you needing to exacerbate the situation. There is the third way, but you really shouldn't try this one at home. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let me hasten to add. I'm perfectly okay with Ferret not answering my queries. I agree with Ritchie's views here. It's the candidate's choice finally to answer questions or not; I wouldn't hold that against them. Lourdes 14:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#Oppose Failure to answer reasonable questions after a reasonable length of time while continuing to edit pet subjects is a reason to oppose for me. Either they are not paying attention to their RfA or regard the questions not worthy of a response. It could indicate a disregard for community concerns or that they questions are too difficult or any number of reasons. It is extremely rare in my experience for questions not to be answered and can be regarded as an implied requirement - if not an absolute one. RfA standards apply to all participants. Being 104 to 2 ahead makes no difference to me. If the questions are no longer relevant that is a very simple answer to give and all the more reason to give it. I will review this !vote if the questions are answered. Leaky Caldron 14:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be fair, of the questions "unanswered", Ritchie mentions above that they hashed it out on his talk page, and Lourdes was criticized for going well past the 2 question limit, and rescinded much of the questions as a result. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That might well be fair, but it takes very little effort to place a suitable remark in the blank space. No one should be required to traipse though all the TL:DR to discover a non-answer answer. Just put a cross-reference in. This is what candidates should do to ensure that their RfA is up to date. Blank As draw attention. Leaky Caldron 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral: The same reason as mentioned in a opinion poll. Here's an archive of the poll: [28] KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If it's not too much trouble, it's generally helpful if you could summarise or copy and paste a comment you have made elsewhere, so the closing bureaucrat doesn't have to follow the link and find your comment. It may seem like a small thing, but if everyone just gave links to other discussions, it'd make closing RfAs pretty unmanageable. WJBscribe (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is the comment he posted at the opinion poll: "3/10: You only created 4 articles and a little experience at NPP. I doubt anyone to the path to adminship who created 5 or more articles per Kudpung's RFA criteria which I use the same RFA citeria as well [sic]." —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is a rather bizarre stance to stick with considering he was nominated by Kudpung. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From memory, there was another RfA where Kudpung supported a candidate and KGirlTrucker81 opposed per Kudpung. Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I know what you're talking about: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Boson#KGirlTrucker81's oppose. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would just like to point out, @MartinZ02, KGirlTrucker81, Sergecross73, and DaGizza:, that where I am honoured that people use my RfA criteria, the items on it are not like a pilot's mnemonic pre-flight check list. The Wiki won't crash if I'm flexible with them, which I also state there as being. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Oppose per X's criteria" ≠ "Oppose per X". It may well be that the plain meaning of X's written words are better than what X's interpretation of them at the time, or that X has gone crazy since they wrote them. I still disagree with the premise (i.e., "5 articles are needed" is a golden rule that should be enforced mercilessly) but "per X's criteria" is not logically dismissed by "but X supports". TigraanClick here to contact me 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral per Lourdes' oppose rationale above. It's not sufficient to make me outright oppose, but it's enough to make me waver on supporting. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral too many edits to say no, but not so shure about supporting.--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral Per my RfA Criteria: a) Quality and quantity of contributions gives the distinct impression of a net positive for adminship, b) I see no real need for the tools. The candidate indicates that he will work in AIV and RFPP, but I see almost no activity in any of the AN* boards. c) Demonstrates kindness. Overall a tough decision between neutral and weak support, but unlike other candidates I really can't see a demonstrated need for the tools. Still, I have no objections if the RfA should pass. AlexEng(TALK) 03:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC) I've removed the offending criterion from consideration. Need for the tools is a weak reason to deny support. AlexEng(TALK) 23:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral - the big stain for me is the eSport thingie. A good-faith newbie coming here, being reverted twice and then discovering the page was protected with no explanation whatsoever would be seriously bitten. That is the only issue (Lourdes' "problematic" edits were in my view adequately explained by the socking issue, since we don't need gloves for quacking sockpuppets), and they somewhat promised in the Q/A to pay more attention in the future; if the RfA was in danger of not passing I would have supported, but I want to shot across the bow. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • A while ago, everyone was happy that RfAs became less intense, but it seems all it takes is one comment, and many would be willing to turn back the clock... Samsara 00:36, 5 January 2017 (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.