Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ganesha811

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

Ganesha811[edit]

Final (153/1/3); closed as successful by — xaosflux Talk at 09:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to present Ganesha811 as a candidate for adminship. Ganesha has all of the qualities I look for in administrator: they learn from their mistakes, are trustworthy, and civil to a fault. A look through their talk page will show that they are consistently kind and helpful, especially to new users. They have substantial content creation: 3 featured articles, 5 good articles, and 8 did you knows, along with creating and contributing to dozens of others. Ganesha has a strong understanding of policy and I'm sure that they will be a net positive as an administrator. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I'm lucky to be co-nominating a fantastic editor such as Ganesha811 for adminship. Ganesha has a wide range of qualities related to content reviewing and displays a needed level head. A skilled and wise editor who has built an impressive content portfolio, Ganesha's contributions range from the featured biographies Li Rui and Mary Jane Richardson Jones to good articles like Lago di Bientina, the Dan Carkner collaboration Rahmah el Yunusiyah, and Josh fight. Key to this nomination, Ganesha has an eye for article quality with over 126 good article reviews and rigorous review of sources. An example of this can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#Can anyone verify these "last words" by Trotsky's assassin?, where Ganesha was able to remove an apparent historical urban legend. Edits such as these can be found throughout Ganesha's contributions, where they will boldly rewrite articles in a few large edits, particularly with the much-needed cleanup of biographies of living persons. This sort of attention to detail and care for article content will be essential to Wikipedia over the course of the next decade, and is something we need in the admin corps. I believe Ganesha will be an excellent admin and hope the community will join me in supporting. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination, with thanks to the nominators! I have never edited for pay and never will. Before creating this account, I did have a previous account which made about a dozen edits back in 2011, and which was subsequently abandoned and forgotten about. That account has been disclosed to ArbCom. Since the creation of this account, I have never edited under another username or as an IP. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I've noticed some administrative backlogs lately, and would like to help. I see need in WP:RFPP, WP:PERM, closure requests, and sorting out copyright issues and revdeletion. I believe I could also use the tools usefully at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. I do not see myself becoming involved in technical work, as I have little experience or interest in this area. It's my view that administrators should help out where they feel comfortable, and where they do not, spend time learning the ropes like any other editor.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am very proud of each of the articles I have brought to FA, particularly Mary Jane Richardson Jones, which I created. I am also proud of the GAs I have worked on, particularly those which involved close collaboration with another editor (such as Early life and career of Joe Biden and Rahmah el Yunusiyah).
However, I think my very best contributions to Wikipedia are actually in other, less-visible areas. My series of edits to Russo-Ukrainian War in the spring of 2022 helped bring it from a messy, disorganized, 480,000-byte behemoth into a much more readable 250,000-byte summary of the conflict. That work was done in concert with many other talented editors. We are editors, not just writers, and I believe that good editing often requires pruning and summarization. Sometimes, articles can be improved far more by the removal of content than by addition. In certain cases, simple reorganization and copyediting go a long way, as was the case on Arthur de Gobineau (in collaboration with Twofingered Typist, much-missed!).
I also really enjoy diving deep into the sources to try and verify a fact extant on the Wiki that I have reason to suspect may not be true. It bugs me when misinformation starts on Wikipedia and leaks into the mainstream, where it can become extremely difficult to expunge. This piece of citogenesis on Joseph Bazalgette was one such case; more recently, I have been working on the "last words" of Trotsky's assassin, Ramón Mercader, as one of the nominators mentioned, with assistance from members of WikiProject Military History.
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: Like most editors, I have occasionally found myself in content disputes on various pages. Almost every time, these issues can be resolved by discussion. I find that the most effective method to keep these conversations civil is to genuinely try to assume good faith. It's not always easy! But when you see your interlocutor as someone who is actually trying to make things better, just like you, you can no longer view them merely as an obstacle to be overcome. When I find that I have made a mistake, I try to acknowledge that and remember it, so I can avoid the experience in the future. In the most intense discussions, simply giving myself a day or two to pause, step away from the talk page, and then return with a clearer mind is also very effective.
I believe that admins should hold themselves to a very high standard to avoid ill-tempered and inflammatory remarks, but I don't believe that standard should be any lower for a regular editor. By avoiding rudeness and flame wars, we all make Wikipedia a place where people want to be and enjoy contributing. And that goes a very long way to keeping the encyclopedia healthy and growing.

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 Dreamy Jazz

4. Thanks for standing for RfA. I noticed that in your answer to question 1, you talked about WP:PERM. What would you do if you were responding to a request for the account creator group where the user wants to create accounts for an edit-a-thon?
A: For edit-a-thons, the 'account creator' group has been superseded by 'event coordinator', so I would urge the user to modify their request accordingly. The instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator/Administrator instructions provide a useful guide to next steps; the key thing is to check that the account has no history of issues and is likely to use the permission in a productive way. Assuming that there are no extant problems, if the user has a newer account, I would verify the existence and date of the edit-a-thon and grant temporary permission as 'event coordinator' for those dates, and keep an eye out for any issues that may arise. If the user has an established history of hosting previous events without issues, I would grant the user right permanently. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Paine Ellsworth

5. Just a little curious and confused, so I thought I'd ask about alternate accounts. Above, after disclosing your 2011 account, you say, "Since the creation of this account, I have never edited under another username..." On your userpage you say, "I have one alternate account, Ganesha811-Alt, which was created to test certain user settings," which was created in April of 2021. Not a big deal, just seems incongruous – am I missing something?
A: To clarify, I considered the alt account as part of this username, since it is named Ganesha811-Alt and has always been disclosed on my talk page user page. I created it to test some settings, but have never used it much - it's only ever made two edits. Since 2013, this has been my only account (if you count the alt as synonymous). —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thought it was something like that, so forgive my asking. And thank you so much for running for admin!

Optional question from EggRoll97

6. How would you approach an area that you have not worked in before, but have the technical ability through the administrative toolset to perform advanced tasks at?
A: In almost any administrative area, there are useful guides and internal pages to read through. Before starting to work in the area, I'd want to make sure I understood those thoroughly. I'd also seek out advice from an admin I respect who frequents the area. They might help point out less formalized customs and practices. When I start taking actions in that area, I'd try to be especially careful and double-check the steps I take to avoid making rookie mistakes, and own up to any that I do make. Like any new area of the project, I wouldn't expect to know everything automatically, but treat it as a learning process. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from EggRoll97

7. How would you, in your own words, explain copyright to a new editor?
A: Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, but we have to write it in our own words. While we can quote from other people's writing, and from the sources we use, those quotes have to be relatively short and clearly attributed to their author. Copying other people's writing is a copyright violation, and can expose Wikipedia to legal issues, as well as simply being unoriginal. Take a look at WP:COPYPASTE, which is a helpful essay that covers the topic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Renerpho

8. Looking at the AfD's that you have participated in, a number of your deletion nominations have been withdrawn or have resulted in speedy keeps.[1] Your voting behavior has been characterized as "overwhelmingly deletionist" in your RfA candidate poll. Would you agree with that characterization? How do you approach the question of whether an article should exist or not?
A: Good question! There was some discussion about my AfD work at the ORCP, as you note, and I found the feedback I got there helpful. As I mentioned then, I sometimes go down the list and try and find articles that I believe should be deleted, but where no other editor has yet weighed in. I don't think it's very useful to be the sixth delete !vote in a one-sided discussion (and equally vice versa in a one-sided discussion headed towards keep).
As for my AfD nominations, I generally try to be bold, and when I think an article should be deleted, won't hesitate to nominate it, even if I expect it to be a marginal case. The community consensus can and will surprise you, either way, and there's no way to know what other people will think until you ask them. However, there are certainly a few cases where I clearly erred. For instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warriors characters (2nd nomination) was not in violation of policy, even though I thought it was; once I learned about the policy, I withdrew the nomination. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task & Purpose, I simply did not do a thorough-enough WP:BEFORE, and again withdrew the nomination when 'keep' commentators persuaded me the topic was notable. Most seriously, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise Bar. This I regard as one of my biggest editing mistakes - although I felt (and actually still feel) that the article should have been deleted per policy, consensus was clearly the other way. But I nominated the article after insufficient communication with the creator, and (egregiously!) while the article was on the front page as a DYK. I had no idea of the poor timing, but still feel very guilty about it, and apologized to the article's creator on their talk page.
Whether or not my voting behavior is "overwhelmingly deletionist" is a matter of opinion, though I tend to disagree myself. I will say that my Wikipedia philosophy actually leans towards inclusionism, and I tend to think that the more articles we have, the better, even if many of them will never progress beyond stubs. There are exceptions, of course. I hope this is helpful! My AfD record is certainly imperfect, but I try to approach each discussion with a fresh eye and not let my personal views interfere with assessing sources and policy. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the answer and your helpful explanations! Renerpho (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Robert McClenon

9. Can you please give one or more examples of your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia, addressing either content disputes or conduct disputes?
A: Sure! Though I have closed a few RfCs, requested moves, and AfDs, I don't remember any of them rising to the level of outright conflict which I would have had to step in and mediate or resolve. Therefore my examples will cover disputes in which I was a party. A typical example of a content dispute that I've experienced is Talk:Jack Schlossberg#Overdetail. I made an edit, it was reverted, we entered into discussion per WP:BRD, and came to a reasonable consensus through discussion and editing. Most editing conflicts can be resolved this way. Sometimes, though, you hit an impasse, in which case WP:3O can help ease the way forward. I remember a discussion at Talk:Gold ground#Section headings which fits this description. In that case, although I was not entirely satisfied with the resolution, I accepted it as reflecting the consensus of the discussion. Very occasionally, though, disputes rise beyond content and shade into conduct issues. Probably the most intense discussion I have taken part in during my time as an editor involved another user who I felt was displaying clear WP:Ownership behavior over an article. The discussion started with content, but grew heated. In that case, I felt myself getting emotionally invested, and decided to step away for a few days to let myself (and the other editor) cool off. The discussion eventually went to WP:3O, which helped us reach a workable resolution to the content question. On conduct, I gave myself a few more days, and then brought up the other editor's behavior with them on their talk page. In the end, they apologized, and I accepted. Looking back, I had some share of the blame as well, for not communicating clearly enough.
Most content disputes I've experienced are like the first, and can be resolved through simple discussion. Over time, I developed the principles I laid out in Q3 above, which have continued to be helpful to me in resolving disputes.
A) Assume good faith
B) We're not in a rush
C) Assume good faith!
Were I an admin, and more frequently called upon to resolve disputes among other editors as an uninvolved third-party, I would try and apply those principles consistently to others as I do now in cases where I am involved. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Fermiboson

10. A recent Signpost article noted that active administrators and administrator activity is at an all time low. In your opinion, what significant causes are there to this phenomenon and how would you propose to overcome them?
A: I'm not sure I have anything to add here that hasn't been said before by others, and quite recently. Our changes to the automatic desysop policy have led to a winnowing of the admin corps down to those who are actually continuing to perform administrative duties, which I think is a positive thing. Adminship shouldn't be a legacy status marker—the vast majority of great editors are not admins and will never be admins—it should be a reflection of willingness to carry out the operational tasks we need to keep Wikipedia healthy. I also believe that better bots and tools have led to a lessening of the technical burden and fiddliness required to carry out administrative duties, which means we can get away with having fewer admins than we used to. However, I do think that RfA serves as a filter which dissuades some editors who would make excellent admins from wanting to do so. One of the ideas I liked during the recent round of RfA reform was to have a few "admin season" periods every year, maybe every 3 months, in which a bunch of users could be nominated and assessed simultaneously (but separately). This might create a regular cycle of admin promotions and lessen the scrutiny on each individual nominee. However, this idea was not adopted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Lourdes

11. Thank you for applying Ganesha. You have expressed your intent to man the AIV desks. Listed below are all your past reverts of vandalism of this year along with my query. I thank you in advance for taking the time to review these:
  1. [2][3][4][5][6][7] - In all these reverts of vandalism, some of them BLP vandalism, you neither left a note at the reverted editor's talk page nor left any report at AIV.
  2. [8] - In this revert of a school IP that was perhaps in good faith attempting multiple times to add a wrongly edited line, you left two warning messages on the IP's page, the second one about ten minutes post the first, with the added line "Stop adding the phrase about hammers, which has been repeatedly reverted as uncited, ungrammatical, and misplaced."
  3. [9] - In this first vandalism attempt by the IP, you did not leave any warning message on the IP's talk page, but immediately reported them to AIV
Can you please explain how your response to these reverts could have been better? Thank you, Lourdes 05:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Happy to go over these, though I'll note that I don't think that they are *all* of my reverts of vandalism over the last year; for instance, it's missing this, where a bot could not fix the issue, so I did, and warned the user. I'm not sure what the total number is.
I'll keep it simple - in the cases where I did not warn the user, I should have. Weeks or months later, it's hard to remember why I didn't. As for the tool page, I think the messages were appropriate. Since having that page on my watchlist, I've noticed it getting spam or other non-constructive edits a lot, but as you imply, these ones were not particularly egregious. Neither warning accused the user of vandalism; one mentioned test edits, the other simply said that the change was "not constructive". I just added some text to be direct, since the pre-built messages are pretty non-specific. Finally, in the case of Wow, I will say that the page had been repeatedly vandalized and I suspected this user might be the same as prior vandals. In retrospect, they probably weren't, but they certainly weren't here to build an encyclopedia, and an admin subsequently protected the page based on my report.
When editing as a regular user, it's easy to see reports to AIV and RfPP as a way to bring a clear issue to the attention of administrators, who can then decide on the appropriate course of action. Of course, not every vandal should go to AIV (as the guidelines at the top of the page say), so in many cases when I see vandalism, I simply revert it - and I will be sure to add a warning every time going forward. Were I to become an administrator, I would be very careful to follow policy scrupulously when protecting pages or blocking vandals. It's a very different thing to actually perform the action, as opposed to saying "Hey admins, maybe someone should take a look at this?". —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from JPxG

12. Anything else you wanna say?
A: I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world is one of our best and most valuable essays. Wikipedia has a tremendous influence on people and society, especially in the English-speaking world. I sincerely believe that what we do here matters. This is not an obscure project compiled for our own amusement. Diderot's description of an encyclopedia from 1751 rings deeply true to me, and keeps me mindful of the importance of this incredible place. We are all hobbyists here, but our hobby is read and relied upon by tens of millions every day. For all the travails we go through, Wikipedia is worth our time, and I want to keep it that way. If being an admin gives me a little more ability to help, I'll be glad. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional questions from Smallbones

13. This is a very optional question - I just don't like putting my main question in as number 13. Do you have any comment on today's desysop of User:Lourdes?
A: No. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14. Have you ever given paid advice about Wikipedia matters? (You've likely seen the totally huge RfC at WP:VPP)
A:. No. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]


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

Support[edit]
  1. as nom. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support, seen the user around, no issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Not seeing any issues with this user - looks like a good candidate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Trusted noms. No problems I can see: No recent blocks, edit warring, etc. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 21:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I was beaten to the support on my own nomination again : ( Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But you're in the top five and that's all right. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. A qualified candidate from what I can see. We have a few RfAs going on right now. Anyone else care to step up? The Night Watch (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The Night Watch, you of all people should be the one stepping up and running for admin - I've found you doing some terrific content work as well as some nice work in RCP and NPP which IMHO, are traits that make a good admin. #prodraxis connect 22:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aww thank you Prodraxis. Though don't think I should run, I'm still quite new and have a few problems that are relatively recent. But there are certainly others who should try their hand! The Night Watch (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Admin accountability is always very welcome, a good trait to have... Schminnte [talk to me] 22:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support no concerns here Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Meets my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Not a jerk, has clue. jp×g 21:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support. Qualified candidate with no concerns. Also, it is great to have 3 likely to pass RfAs in a week. VickKiang (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Sufficient solid edits, and good AfD participation. I trust the nominators above and that always helps me to move forward with support. I checked out the candidate's contributions and I see GA reviews performed by the candidate and NPOV corrections. Decent ability to write good articles. They have positive interactions with others. I believe they will protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support From all I can see, they would make for a solid admin. No concerns here, plus the nominators I respect so that says something to the nominee's credibility. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. No concerns here. Good content, experienced, and trusted noms. ULPS (talkcontribs) 21:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Seems to be a good fit. Noah, AATalk 21:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Well okalie dockalie, we’ve got yet another candidate for Admin to review today. And gee gosh they’re a corker. Over 12,000 edits on the English Wikipedia alone and 58% of those are to main space articles. They’re not hiding out in the background here. But I’ve got some concerns, see they have all sorts of areas they edit in over the last 500 edits to the Wiki, but its all politics, literature, geography, and other trivial topics. Where is the Plantipedia editing, I’d like to know? I’m going to need you to start working on some wildflower articles right away or if you don’t I might just have to send you for some Re-Neducation. (Join USSSSS, it is BliSSSS) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I really like your vote. To answer your very serious question: They have contributed to Hawaiian Vaccinium, as well as List of rice cultivars and a few other cultivated plant articles. Does that count as a start? Renerpho (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support: Liking what I'm seeing here. Schminnte [talk to me] 21:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Heck, why not. Who else is running? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - nihil obstat. #prodraxis connect 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support. I reviewed the candidate's first FAC and they were well informed, receptive, and civil. The last not easy when an article into which you have put your heart and soul is being picked over by a stranger. Clearly has the temperament to make an excellent admin. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support as Ganesha811 is an editor of exceptional skill who also possesses great collaborative instincts. Their comments directed towards me in a GAN I nominated continue to positively inform my editing almost a year later. Absolutely the sort of editor I trust to be an admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support and best of luck Mujinga (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support: strong content contributor and can't see any reasons against. — Bilorv (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. I've had nothing but positive interactions with the candidate, who has reviewed some of my GANs. Content creation, temperament, need for the tools - all of these check out. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support. Pleased with your commitment to WP:V. Thanks for running. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support I liked the answer to my question. Good luck with the RfA! Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Very impressive contributions to the project. Skilled. Experience and interactions will be valuable as an administrator. Civil; Great temperament. Donner60 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support: no concerns; we need more maintenance admins and this user looks like they lots of experience in content creation too, which is always good. Edward-Woodrowtalk 23:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. rblv (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support why not? Excellent content creation–good luck! Tails Wx 00:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Frostly (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Stephen 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support. Is civil, measured. Wants to improve things. Has all the qualities an admin should have. A very good candidate. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support I have nothing to add about their conduct and the quality of their edits. What I want to comment on is their interest in fighting false information (and possible long-standing hoaxes) on Wikipedia. I believe we need more editors who are willing to do this. Ganesha811, you don't need the mop to do this, and I sincerely hope you don't get distracted from such important tasks by becoming an admin! Renerpho (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I voted before asking Q8. I am satisfied with their answer (so, no reason to change the vote). Renerpho (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support: No concerns, nice content work. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support All signs indicate that the editor will be a great for the project in their new role. Bruxton (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support -- 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Wow. I haven't checked the RFA page in a week. Now there are three suitable candidates. Ganesha811 is the epitome of why I prefer quality over quantity with regards to edit count. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. SupportKurtis (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support – Excellent content work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Joyous! Noise! 02:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support, Ganesha811 is already an adminstrator without the perms (what is the name for this btw?). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CactiStaccingCrane, an administrator without tools. I'm surprised there isn't a shorter and catchier term too. Clyde [trout needed] 04:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An awt? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support. Never seen this person, but seems competent, has content, has a need, no glaring issues. Clyde [trout needed] 04:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, 3 RfAs at once? It's a miracle! Maybe I'll make it four (joke, I'm a NOTQUITEYET) Clyde [trout needed] 04:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support - three times RfA, three times yes; they appear to be a very experienced and competent candidate, and their content creation record is outstanding! Brat Forelli🦊 05:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support. Another mop-qualified user! Outstanding move and wow, three RFAs at once? I guess everyone is in the Halloween spirit right now. Glad to see Wikipedia getting more admins. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 05:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. AryKun (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Sounds good to me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support. Have no concerns, and thanks to the candidate for a quick answer to my question! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support can be trusted with the tools. Polyamorph (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support Good temperament, well-rounded, and overall someone who knows their way around. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support, well deserved, roll out the red carpet to Admin headquarters. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support, no concerns. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support, three excellent candidates now? I'm all for it, and this is one I've been hoping to see for a while. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support per nom. --Minoa (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Pile-on support per nom and everyone else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Good score. 864 out of 1200. Mox Eden (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - not the best start to a RFA, but no real reason to oppose, and I'm sure will make a solid admin. GiantSnowman 10:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support Seems a reasonably decent candidate and will make a good admin. scope_creepTalk 10:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support thoughtful editor who I’ve seen around different Good Article Nomination backlog drives. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support. I've been impressed by their work and I think they'll make a fine admin. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. Insert witty comment here. Review shows no concerns for me. Alpha3031 (tc) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support - no other experience with the candidate, but had a great GA review experience with them. Has a clue. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. I've seen Ganesha around, and only remember good things. Head seems to be screwed on the right way. All the best, Ganesha811. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 13:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support No issues, also three RFAs at the same time?! Sheep (talkhe/him) 13:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. ltbdl (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support. I did some digging through the candidate's talk archives, and I'm impressed to see clueful and courteous responses even as a new editor. Clearly knows their way around a content dispute. One quibble: I don't like answers to Q3 that stick to generalizations; links to specific occurrences are far more convincing. But nonetheless, this is a clear support. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support. Nice content work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support. No black marks, lots of commitment, no reason not to support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Banks Irk (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support spryde | talk 18:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support Yay, happy to support an admin candidate who is interested in copyright cleanup! DanCherek (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support No objections on my end. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support, don't think they'll abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support--NØ 21:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - Content creator admins are always a plus. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support not a jerk. HouseBlastertalk 23:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support Has the right qualifications. I was impressed with the user's WP:ORCP, where a willingness to listed to feedback and acting on it came through. Just what we want in an admin. Schwede66 00:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support; per Reaper Eternal and review. Kierzek (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support Leijurv (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Not really too familiar with this candidate myself, but a lot of support from people I respect and trust. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support As with the immediately previous comment, i am not familiar with the candidate; i have taken a look at some contributions; i really like the answer to Q8, as that kind of self-awareness is not always present (or at least on display) among a lot of us, let alone among RfA candidates. Good to see another editor going to admin. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support, I don't know their work very well, but no red flags. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support - zero issues. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. SupportLooks good in all respects. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support Clueful. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. --Ferien (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support I particularly appreciate what I've seen of this candidate's eye towards addressing WP:PROMO in articles.  Spintendo  21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. I'm doing this because I don't wand to be coerced INFLUENCED again.[just kidding] The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support. No concerns and clearly a strong contributor to the project. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support. We need new admins and I see no reason not to support this candidate. Bduke (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support Good content work! No concerns. --ginaan(˵⚈ε⚈˵) 10:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support While i haven’t seen this user around, their immense content creation is an immediate support from me. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support Terasail[✉️] 14:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support - I see no issues. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support I've appreciated Ganesha811's great contributions to The Signpost! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support: After some research, I see no issues. (I'm also happy to see all the new admins coming on board!) It's me... Sallicio! 18:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Suppport no issues that I can see and should be able to contribute to the work admins need to do. Skynxnex (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. SupportMdsShakil (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support - I like to see editors with > 50% mainspace edits. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Loved Josh fight. Chlod (say hi!) 03:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Irrespective of their answer to my query, I trust the judgement of the nominators and hope that they can advise the candidate to learn the ropes before pushing the buttons. And the content experience of the candidate is very impressive, additionally. Should be a good add to our admin corps. Thank you, Lourdes 05:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Strikethrough of a vote by a sockpuppeteer. Best, Patient Zerotalk 01:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support - all good. Tolly4bolly 07:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 10:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support — ask, why not? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support. Nice to see that here they bothered to make use of an abandoned draft. Looking at their other work, I see competence deployed with good humour. Enjoy the mop! – Fayenatic London 15:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - a well qualified candidate. Thank you for volunteering. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support Experienced and well-rounded, trustworthy. SpencerT•C 16:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support They've done some great content work, and they seem willing and able to learn from their mistakes. No concerns here. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support - An excellent candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Davidindia support — Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 31 October 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support Legoktm (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support, well qualified and I am satisfied with all of their answers to optional questions. ZsinjTalk 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. I get where Sdrqaz is coming from, but on balance I'm still comfortable supporting. Good content availeth much, and genuine receptiveness to feedback (which comes across very clearly in Q11) availeth even more. If you follow the philosophy that administrators should help out where they feel comfortable, and where they do not, spend time learning the ropes like any other editor, you'll be fine. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support - trustworthy. Thanks for volunteering. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 05:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Pile-on Support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. No problem adding another support - Volten001 10:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support with no concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support Was very impressed by research into Trotsky's assassin, displaying fantastic commitment to verifiability. Otherwise seems to possess the traits I'd expect in an admin. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support - Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support. SWinxy (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support, impressed with their work on improving complex, high-traffic articles. Blythwood (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support - I'm impressed with the contributions this user has made, such as making good and featured articles. Wolf (talk | contribs) 01:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support Their content creation, specifically Li Rui and Mary Jane Richardson Jones is outstanding, and they have authored a large majority of both articles. I share with the nominee an interest in the assassination of Leon Trotsky (the murder weapon in my case), and their diligence in researching the assassin's claimed final words is impressive. The nominee has many positives and no convincing negatives. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support – I expect them to be a net positive, see no red flags, so sure, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support good work and good luck. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support - no issues noted. Loopy30 (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support He's ok, per "No big deal" Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support - great candidate.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support Another pile-on !vote. As has been inferred by others, unlikely to break the project. Good luck wielding the mop.   Aloha27  talk  18:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support - I almost forgot to !vote. Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support - Net Positive. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. support. my previous interactions with Ganesha811 have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support good work and good luck. --MP1999 ❯❯❯ Talk 06:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support despite they caused me/Wikimedia a harm by carelessly removing a big piece of long-time and properly-sourced content and replaced it with an unreliable and false sentence completely made up by them at the place. But I understand that some people make mistakes, especially in Wikipedia, this is normal. He wrote for Wikipedia Signpost, and that's good. He seems to receive big support from voters, that's also good. Let them be sysop. Sysops are needded and valuable. --ssr (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Strong Support - Trusted user, no concerns. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support. I am excited to see what comes of G811's adminship. I've bumped into them in a few places, and am happy with their content work, which includes expanding some vital articles in addition to the aforementioned FA work. I've also been pleased to see their reasoned non-admin closures of discussions. No red flags in my 'in the wild' encounters or review of what's mentioned here. I'm grateful for the reasoned oppose, but I am confident—based on their record in other areas, the trust of their excellent nominators, etc.—that they can learn the ropes at places like RFPP and AIV. The norms come with time, mistakes are visible and correctable, and many hands are needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support Fully qualified, well-vetted. Lots of reasons why this would help Wikipedia; not seeing any downsides. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support Good content creator, reasonable and kind in interactions with other editors. I'm not seeing anything of concern. Styx (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support: Thanks for volunteering and congrats in advance --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Part of being a candidate at RfA is having demonstrable competence in areas in which you intend to work, to allow for proper community scrutiny. Part of being an administrator is knowing your limitations.
    The candidate's first area of interest is page protections, but their last five requests go back over a year and last three go back eight months. Their penultimate request was for a page that had only experienced recent disruption from a single IP. Before that IP, the last disruption was over a month prior.
    Another area of interest is blocking vandals, but their track record is also unfortunately thin: the last five requests go back 11 months and last three go back over eight months. Their last report from March involved calling an IP a "vandalism-only account" after the IP was reverted by ClueBot NG once. That IP had received no other recent warnings. The report before that was for an IP that hadn't edited in over a day and had received no warnings.
    While it is commendable that they believe that "administrators should help out where they feel comfortable, and where they do not, spend time learning the ropes like any other editor", I have significant doubts over whether the candidate can follow core policies in areas they wish to work. I unfortunately cannot support. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. I have not come the nominee across, and it seems a large number of those voting Support have also actually not crossed their path with them. Sdrqaz's oppose has its weight, even as the issue for me doesn't go as far as to make me oppose. Hence, neutral. — kashmīrī TALK 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral. - Noahpeaslee11 (Talk) 3:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. If I knew the nominee better, I'd support them because we need more sysops, but I cannot give an informed vote nor speak to their character as an editor. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • Whoa whoa, there are 3 RfA's now? That's a lot more than usual... I think it's really that Signpost article from a few days ago that are making those folks run for admin. (And that's great, too, cause Wikipedia needs more active admins.) #prodraxis connect 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be clear @Prodraxis, this was planned a few months in advance and was scheduled to drop around this time— it just so happened that other people were running and doing well, so we thought it would make sense to go ahead with it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A coincidence indeed. Heck, maybe I'll run! [just kidding] Edward-Woodrowtalk 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wait, this was planned a few months in advance? Is there a secret plan? ;) Tails Wx 00:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Planned in advance or not, it's nice to see! Renerpho (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See Ganesha811’s optional RfA candidate poll -- 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 06:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, you know, you and Clyde have both been around for a couple of years now, when do you intend to let the cabal totally non-cabal editors press-gang you into service ( •̀ᴗ•́ )? [FBDB] Six months? A year? jokes aside, I haven't looked at RfAs much until recently, so I'm not much of a barometer of community sentiment, but hey, if you're willing, why not? Alpha3031 (tc) 13:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe, just maybe, one day... Clyde [trout needed] 17:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Once upon a time, RfA almost always had several nominations listed at any given time, many of which passed. This was prior to the 2010s, when community standards for adminship became much stricter. Back in 2005-2008, they'd pass the same number of RfAs in a single month that we would pass over the span of at least two years. Kurtis (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This frequency should be the norm, not the exception. We need new administrators fast. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While we do need more admins (to handle the immense size of the 'pedia) I don't think we should really be as laissez-faire in our criteria as the pre-2010s. No shade to admins elected in that era, especially if they've stuck around and grown with the project, but I see the higher standards we have now as a fool-proof against future accusations of "legacy admins" being behind the times. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 11:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What is this, London buses? You wait ages for one, and then three come at once. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As one who has waited for their fair share of buses in the Southeastern U.S., I can assure you that is a universal concept far from being limited to London! Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See bus bunching. SilverLocust 💬 00:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Same thing... The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:22, 29 October 2023 (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.