Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery

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 (195/71/9); ended by Maxim (talk) at 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Bureaucrat chat closed by Primefac (talk) at 18:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pppery (talk · contribs) – For my second-ever RFA nomination, and first since 2016, I present Pppery, who coincidentally registered their account just a couple days before I started that April 2016 nomination. Since then Pppery has amassed over 66,000 edits (~top 1500 by count). His clean block log, lengthy user log (over 1800 pages moved and 600 pages patrolled) and drama-free talk page attest to his pleasant and civil interactions. Gerda thought he was Precious after only four months of editing! Administrator's Noticeboard search finds just 48 unproblematic items, many relating to him providing technical advice, and some where he reported 3RR violations that resulted in blocks. His top-notch technical abilities caught my attention long ago. He's been very helpful with my merge bot's task 2. I told him he was ready for this back in September 2021. He's been saying he wants to be an administrator since March 2019 and I trust that it's finally time for the community to say that his adminship has begun...wbm1058 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I'll second what Wbm1058 said above. And I'll also add that in my view, the editor clearly meets my criteria for adminship. I should also probably point out that they are already an administrator on MediaWiki, and a patroller on Commons (Special:CentralAuth/Pppery). And as for "need", they are very active, well, on my watchlist, active nearly everywhere, lol. But in particular, helps out a lot in the more technical side of Wikipedia. And has been helping out at WP:CFD, where there has been an ongoing backlog of late. All in all, a worthwhile candidate. Please hand them the mop so they can get to work : ) - jc37 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 31 July 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 first expressed interest in becoming an administrator in March 2019, following a spree of fully-protected edit requests to templates and interface messages (most of which were eventually granted, after week-to-month long delays), thinking I could save the admins processing my requests effort. Although my specific interests have moved on, and I was in hindsight not ready to run for adminship then, the underlying motivation, that I want to be an admin because I find myself making regular requests for admin action of various sorts, has remained the same.
To answer the old version of this question: What administrative work do you intend to take part in?, specific examples of venues I will likely work in are Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and Category:Wikipedia fully protected edit requests, all of which have relatively few active admins or have had relatively few active admins at some point in the past. I tend to dabble a bit everywhere, and will likely do the same as an admin.
The one area I do not intend (at this time) to regularly work in is blocking - if I run into a blatantly disruptive account or IP that needs blocking, I will probably block it, but I don't intend to make that a regular occurrence.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This is difficult to answer because I work in many areas that are difficult to compare to each other. If you are looking for significant content improvements, see Magic: The Gathering rules, which I took from having lots of unsourced content to the current state of every single claim being sourced and almost every single claim having a secondary source.
If you are looking for significant tech projects, see Template talk:Tfm/Archive 1#TfM in template documentation (2016), where I fixed a longstanding bug causing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion notices to display incorrectly in some cases, Module:XfD old (2019), which implements the backlog table shown at the top of deletion discussion venues, or the major rewrite I did to Module:Authority control in 2021 (discussed at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Discussion example of the new look after the RfC).
Another way one could answer this question is to look at the 13 barnstars I've earned from other users over the years, listed on my userspace.
Personally, though, I think my best contributions are not any of those but rather the many little things I've done: 18,000 mainspace edits, often to obscure articles no one else is editing, 600 edits to Wikipedia:Help desk and 550 to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), often providing technical assistance to another user, etc.
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: First some really old stuff: I did behave disruptively and in hindsight possibly should have been blocked in 2016, and also was a major player in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13/Archive#08 April 2019 and some other silliness from around that time.
Moving on to more recent times, I'm a regular participant in deletion discussions, which naturally involves people disagreeing with me from time to time, and have been in my share of routine content disputes, as my talk page shows. I don't think I've gotten into anything more serious than that recently.
When I get stressed out over something or other, I tend to take a wikibreak for a few days, which happens fairly regularly. This pattern will probably continue as an admin.

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 Barkeep49
4. You call Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13/Archive#08 April 2019 "silliness". It's not clear to me what part of all that you find silly nor what you have taken away/learned from that experience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: What I am saying was silly is how that one interaction led to a lot of drama on both sides which wasted a lot of energy, and almost made me quit Wikipedia, but in practice didn't amount to anything in the end. All that was really going on was back in early 2019 was that RexxS and I disagreed over some technical stuff. I probably should have respected that disagreement more and pushed my own point of view less. After the RfA, although I continued doing some of the same cleanups, I tried to reduce my level of interaction with RexxS, and haven't (to my knowledge) gotten into any kind of conflict of that sort since.
Optional question from AirshipJungleman29
5. How do you pronounce your username? Is it "peepeeperi" or "peepeepee-eri" or just "peri" with a really explosive "p sound" or something else?
A: I'm not consistent, and have used several different pronounciations. The name is a corruption of Perry (given name) and is unrelated to "Peppery", if anyone cares.
Optional questions from Shushugah
6a. Tabs or spaces?
A: As someone who makes regular edits the module namespace, which uses indented code, this actually does have an impact on my Wikipedia edits. When editing modules written my other people, I try to stick to the existing convention. When I write modules from scratch like Module:RfX tally (actually used on this very RfA), then I appear to have used tabs, but I don't really care
6b. What is the most silly discussion you have participated or witnessed here and how did you engage?
A: I'm tempted to say "responding to this question on this RfA" :P, but in reality it's difficult to beat a meta-discussion about how to title April Fools deletion nominations, to which I suggested an idea that nobody else agreed with. And no, I won't carry out my suggestion if that RfA passes.
Optional question from Willbb234
7. You mentioned on 19 July that you were concerned about a lack of content creation coming up in your RFA. Do you believe that content creation is a good indication of suitability for adminship?
Obviously not.Not necessarily The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing. I believe have experience in the areas I intend to admin in. Perhaps content creation provides experience that would be helpful in closing AfDs, or in blocking people, or in some other areas of adminship, but just as importantly it doesn't provide experience in the technical aspects of adminship where I intend to focus.
Optional question from Reaper Eternal
8. What would you say is your best article? It does not have to be one you started (Lord knows we have enough random articles already!); just an example of one you put significant time into improving.
A: Definitely Magic: The Gathering rules (which I already mentioned in Q2). I have 18,000 mainspace edits, but most of them are small cleanups to large numbers of articles, not large changes to small numbers of articles.
Optional question from Trey Maturin
9. You don't use edit summaries almost a third of the time (getting close to half the time in some months). Why?
A: I would say the biggest reason is either that I am doing an utterly uncontroversial syntax fix, commenting on a discussion (in which case an edit summary doesn't mean much - the reply tool uses "Reply", which is obvious since pretty much every talk page edit is a reply - also note that the edit summary usage tool appears to count edits with only the automatic section summary as having no summary). The other time it happens is when I am doing some sort of mass cleanup, in which I have a habit of going a bit fast and thus not using an edit summary when I probably should. If someone is confused about one of my edits with no summary they are welcome to ask me and I will try to explain what it did and why.
I have now enabled the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" preference. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
10. You have created 62 articles out of which 42 are deleted can you please explain why ?
A: Because the Xtools deleted pages tool counts deleted mainspace redirects in the "deleted" list, but doesn't count undeleted mainspace redirects in the live list. If you properly include redirects, you see 1362 creations of which 42 were deleted.
Optional question from Floq
11. If you prefer to address my concerns about user category CFD/RFD closures directly in the Neutral section, please feel free. If you're aware of the RFA taboo against disagreeing with commenters directly below, I can't fault that at all, and so here's a place you can do so instead.
A: I can totally understand why you (and others) are concerned about this, and I am willing to agree to stay away from closing contentious user category discussions since, and this is a direct quote from WP:INVOLVED, it's a decision [...] about which I have strong feelings, and will instead participate in them.
Optional question from L235
12. Thank you for standing. This is a followup to Q7, where you wrote that you don't intend to focus on closing AfDs, or [] blocking people, or [] some other areas of adminship where content creation provides experience that would be helpful. As an administrator, you will come across a number of areas in which you can use the tools, even outside of those you originally intend to pursue. Do you intend to refrain from taking actions in areas where content creation is important experience, and how will you determine what those areas are? If you do feel qualified in the future to enter those areas, how will you approach that transition? I also invite you to expand on your answer to Q7 here, if you so desire.
A: First off, I was clearly wrong in the initial (now struck) version of Q7 when I said "Obviously not" - it's not at all obvious, and I should have known that. My thinking was on the lines of "if I thought content creation was a significant indicator of suitability for adminship, then I wouldn't run". On to the rest of the question, I do intend to refrain from taking potentially-controversial actions in those areas. Obviously decisions that make a direct impact on content count here, but I'm also aware of the implied social aspects explained at places like User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, or the concerns people sometimes raise about admins without content creation taking admin action against content creators, and will keep those in mind. I don't think it's possible to answer If you do feel qualified in the future to enter those areas, how will you approach that transition - I'll make that decision in the future, but it's really a matter of gaining experience, listening, and learning from what the other admins do. I could not have told you that I would undergo a significant namespace shift toward mainspace in 2021 at any previous time, for instance.
The one exception is that I will continue doing new page patrol in pretty much the same way as I already have been, since I held that right prior to adminship and have not (AFAIK) received any significant flak over that activity.
Optional question from Guerillero
13. Have you ever edited from or otherwise had access from any account other than the one currently at RfA? If yes, would you be willing to disclose them?
A: No. But I edited logged out for a while before creating my account.
Optional question from Danbloch
14. What does it has begun... mean?
A: "It" originally referred to "a new era of editing after the drama relating to the RexxS RfA". Since then I liked the signature and saw no reason to change it, even though I have moved on.
Optional question from Paradise Chronicle
15.If elected, would you support a block if someone questions your actions?
There isn't really enough context to answer this question. The best I can say is that questioning my (or other admins') actions is a normal part of the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia and not something one would block over.
Optional question from Lightburst
16.Almost 16% of your edits have been deleted. It looks like many admins are well under that percentage and I am under 7%. Can you tell us why you have a high number of deleted edits?
A: It looks like the main explanation is that I do a lot of deletion tagging (both for speedy deletions and for deletion discussions), which results in a lot of deleted edits.
Optional question from Z1720
17. Thank you for volunteering for this process and added responsibility. One of the areas you want to work in (as stated in your response to question 1) is CFD, where admin close discussions and determine consensus. In a discussion with multiple viewpoints (where consensus is not obvious) what process will you use to determine a CFD discussion's consensus?
A: This sort of question is very difficult to discuss in the abstract, especially since "with multiple viewpoints (where consensus is not obvious)" is a rather broad descriptor. So far when non-admin closing CfDs I've been thinking in more of an I know it when I see it style rather than following any specific process. At least early on I intend to close CfDs in a similar way to my NACs of mostly uncontroversial cases, and will gradually develop a specific process to follow and branch out to more controversial areas as I become more experienced.
Anyway, CfD (at least from a quick glance of the current unclosed discussions) tends not to get that many especially controversial situations, and well, if in doubt or unsure, don't close.
Optional Conflict Resolution questions from Maile66
18. Admins often have to deal with conflicts between editors and other admins. In these two scenarios, the editor being complained about is someone you've worked well with, or otherwise have developed a productive editing relationship with. As an admin you would be pulled into some of the incidents. As an admin, you can block other editors, and even block other admins.
A. User BravoBee is someone you respect, or just plain like working with. They have complaints filed against them at WP:ANI for ongoing combative behavior towards other editors. BravoBee's friends chime in to defend him, while on the other side editors are listing and sourcing specific incidents. Other admins hang to the rear and try not to be involved.
B. ANI failed to resolve BravoBee's behavioral issues, so a case is opened at ArbCom. Things get worse while the case is divided between those who list specific incidents, and BravoBee's friends who defend his behavior.
How would you deal with these two scenarios, either as an admin or just as a friend of BravoBee? — Maile (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: As an admin, I should not take admin actions in either scenario - in the second one ArbCom or ArbCom clerks are capable of handling whatever problems may be occurring itself. In the first case, first I'm arguably WP:INVOLVED, and even if I'm not I expressed disinterest in using admin tools in conduct-related matters in Q1 and Q12. As an editor, in theory of course I should try to be neutral and not let my prior experiences taint my evaluation of the case. In practice, when events similar to this have happened I tend to just not engage with the disupte at all, in part because it's difficult to engage productively and not let that happen.
FYI - I'm guessing you haven't been involved in much over at ArbCom. The clerks are there to assist running the project, etc. They really aren't referees in disputes. See WP:AC/PR. ArbCom has more serious consequences than AIV etc., in that these are individual cases, in which the editor who is the subject of the complaint, can be banned from given situations, or even banned from participating in certain projects. The ArbCom committee members are elected and currently are only 14 members. As a rule, they generally are uninvolved until they do the recap and make a decision. Sometimes they intervene, but mostly let it play out among those who filed a given complaint. The process is one where everybody involved in the case has a chance to air their perspectives, much like AIV. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Mitch199811
19. What questions would be the easiest and hardest for you to manage at the WP:Teahouse and WP:Help Desk and why? ✶Mitch199811 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question really doesn't make sense to me - one doesn't "manage" questions, one answers them, and I'm not (and have never been) a regular at the teahouse. At the help desk, the questions I find easiest to answer are the ones more technical in nature like this one, or questions asking for something that I had already memorized (like this one) and I often leave the questions focusing more on social aspects to other contributors.
Optional question from ToadetteEdit
20. I've seen a lot of your moving activity recently, so is moving articles your hobby on Wikipedia? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not say moving articles specifically is a hobby, it's more a consequence of a general hobby of "use some tool to find articles in need of attention and attend to them". In recent months I've worked on WP:Name (acronym) and WP:Acronym (name), and articles titled in all-caps with disambiguators also in all-caps as spin-offs of that hobby, and thus done a bunch of moving.
Optional question from Barkeep49
21. I have been thinking about Ritchie's oppose. I don't think Ritchie has given you enough credit for the dipolomacy you've displayed at this nomination and which feels to me like what you would do when acting with your admin hat on. How, if at all, would passing RfA change how you approach interactions where you are not acting in your admin capacity? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I don't think it will change my interactions in any concrete, clearly-defined way, but I will of course remember having gone through RfA, and am listening to people's feedback here and trying to do better. Am I aware of the implied social status granted by adminship even when acting as an editor and will I remember it in the future? Yes, and I also think it shouldn't exist. Can I make any specific commitment to approach things differently? Not really. In some sense, every experience one has changes the way one approaches future interactions
Thanks for your answer. I have my own complicated feelings about the social status of admins. To be clear, this question was more aimed at your interpretation of WP:ADMINCOND, which you've given but which I admit runs counter to my own. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from EggRoll97
22. What would you do in the event an action you make as an administrator is subject to challenge by another editor?
A: This obviously depends a lot on what the specific administrator action is and why it is being challenged. First off, it's of course possible I'll agree with the challenge and revert my own action (I'm not perfect), or decide to self-revert even if I don't per se agree in the interest of avoiding an unnecessary conflict. If that doesn't happen then, well, I will of course fulfil the requirement of WP:ADMINACCT of respond[ing] promptly and civilly and try to reach some sort of agreement.
If no agreement can be reached then, well, it may end up at one of the formal processes for contesting administrator actions and the action in question will either be endorsed or not.
You can see a recent example of someone challenging an administrative action I made before this RfA at User talk:Pppery#1970s assassinated South American politicians.
Optional question from Hawkeye7
23. As noted below, many content creators aren't conversant with Lua. But some of us are and regard it, like the admin toolkit, as part and parcel of the content creation process. The {{authority control}} has been rewritten since 2019, but looking at your version version I am struck by code like
if not id:match( '^%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x$' ) then
    return false
which is repeated several times! Can you tell us how this code could be improved, and how you would write it today? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: First off, I did not write that code, it was present in the page before my refactoring. Especially when doing changes that are contentious enough already (as the authority control edits were), I tend to only implement the minimum changes needed to achieve my goal and not do unrelated refactorings.
I'll answer the question anyway: the Lua pattern to validate the ID has to exist somewhere, and it has to be written in that repetitive-seeming way since Scribunto patterns do not support the generalized finite quantifier, so one can't write it as %x{8}%-%x{4}%-%x{4}%-%x{4}%-%x{4}%-%x{12} which would be more readable. It would be possible to address the fact that every single one of the p.<ID>link functions start with
if not id:match(' <REGEX>' ) then
   return false
by moving the regex upstream to p.conf and checking it in p.authorityControl. The current version of Module:Authority control has gone further still and eliminated the separate function for each type of link, instead storing all of the relevant data in a table in Module:Authority control/config. Even if I were doing this today, though, I would probably still not do that refactoring myself (if I were starting from the same slate I did in 2021) - it introduces more potential for errors to creep in. I might have written the MusicBrainz code in such a way that
	local cat = p.getCatForId( 'MusicBrainz release group' )--special cat name
	if label then
		return '['..url..' '..label..']'	
		return '[[MBRG (identifier)|MusikBrainz]] [' .. url .. ' release group]' .. cat
didn't have to be repeated three times, but don't see any other obvious things I would have done differently.
Optional question from Peter Southwood
24. In what circumstances is an edit summary actually required, as opposed to a thing a lot of people think you should do because it makes their work easier in some way? Also, in what circumstances is it really useful to everyone to leave an edit summary when it is not strictly required, and what should it contain? A conceptual explanation should be sufficient.
A: I don't think an edit summary for any one individual edit is ever strictly required by policy, although as a general principle using edit summaries (as well as some other forms of communication) are. The time it comes closest to being required is when reverting a good-faith edit made by another editor, because not clearly communicating why one is reverting something makes it much harder for them to go through the discuss phase of the BRD cycle. Otherwise, it's especially useful when either the edit is doing something especially significant (like Special:Diff/1168289549, which proposed an article for deletion), or it's unclear from context and a quick read of the diff what you are doing or why you are doing it (like Special:Diff/1168102329, where if I didn't provide a summary every watcher would be confused as to why I had removed an apparently valid entry from the list). In particular, removing content often falls in this category. The more obvious, and the more minor, an edit is, the less useful and less necessary an edit summary is, although of course it always adds some value. For this edit in particular (although I will provide an edit summary for it), context would make it pretty obvious that I was answering this question even if I didn't explicitly say so in my summary so one isn't especially important.
Optional question from User:Coronation Crown
25. Have you ever been involved in any activity or disputes involving political, cultural, or otherwise controversial discussion? Would those opinions or beliefs influence your administrative choices? Feel free to describe what you believe, here.
I don't really understand the question. If you are asking whether I have been involved in editing areas related to off-wiki controversies, then I've gnomed that sort of article like any other but otherwise tend to stay away from that area, and I'm unlikely to take admin actions in that area which could be seen as depending on my off-wiki opinions. If you are asking whether I've been involved in on-wiki controversies about anything, then see Q3. And I see no need to take up the vague offer to describe my beliefs. If you have a question about something more specific, then feel free to ask a follow-up question.
Optional questions from User:Firefangledfeathers
26a. Could you explain how some of your more technical work has been supportive of or useful to content creators?
It's true that the larger tech projects I've done have largely been deep in the weeds and had little direct impact on content creators, but looking through my recent contributions to answer this question I was reminded of Module talk:DartsRankings. In that situation, I responded to a complaint from the creator of an article that a convoluted template set was erroneously linking to that article and fixed it. There are also examples of responding to template-protected edit requests or help desk reports that came up during the content creation process, like possibly Template talk:Infobox designation list#Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2023 or (a really old example but one I happened to remember) Template talk:Infobox medical condition/Archive 1#+onset always, or Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2022 December 28#Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist - Google, which eventually was incorporated into Buller River#Bridges.
26b. Do you anticipate using the admin tools on any technical work which would be supportive of or useful to content creators?
The set of areas on Wikipedia fitting all three of those qualifiers (requires admin tools, technical, supportive of or useful to content creators) is sufficiently small I can't think of that many areas in it at all. Will I be willing to do things like User_talk:HotArticlesBot/Config.json#Protected edit request on 4 August 2023 (the one example I could come up with) if they come up in my work? Yes. If you have some specific process in mind here, feel free to ask a follow-up question.
Optional question from User:Snow Rise
27. There has been some suggestion here that you have occasionally adopted an abrupt or dismissive tone with regard to other editors in content discussions (the few and very obliquely referenced examples seem to pertain mostly to AfD). Some have gone as far as to question whether you have the right temperament for the tools and, though there seems to be consensus that you are a civil editor by and large, the implication seems to be that you can be overtly dismissive and non-collaborative, when you have your druthers up in certain areas.
That said, I'm finding concrete examples here are passingly few, and though I've attempted to explore your edit history for clarity, your contributions to talk space seem to be an exceedingly small part of your overall edits, so I have not had much luck establishing or dismissing the veracity of these suggested shortcomings. Based on what I have seen of the discussions I did follow up on, I am inclining towards believing these shortfalls are less pronounced than they might be appearing here, under the RfA lens. However, at the same time, I consider civility, poise, restraint, and coolness under pressure to be, bar none, the most important cluster of traits for an admin.
So can I get your honest self-assessment as to whether or not these concerns have any basis in reality, beyond the usual level of occasional snipeyness that even the best of us succumb to here once in a blue moon? Can you give an example (beyond the ReXXS matters, which I already reviewed and did not find problematic enough to throw my support), of a situation where you could have been more gregarious, and how you would approach that situation today? Do you subscribe to the same perspective as I do that, as an admin, you can reasonably be expected to comport to a more highly disciplined standard of conduct when it comes to civility, even in situations where your administrative role and tools do not come into play and/or where even a reasonable user might find their patience being testted? And that this higher standard exists to demonstrate your worthiness of community trust and because your status as an admin and access to blocking tools make disputes with rank-and-file community members a more intimidating exchange for those less-empowered parties?
Answering the last part of the question first: I assumed above in Q21, which discussed some of the same issues, that my behavior was already within the standards expected of admins, having not received significant criticism about temperament before. Given that so many people seem to think otherwise here, it's probably becoming my duty to make a more conscious effort to moderate my tone, although only time will tell how effective I am at sticking to that goal and that's hard to do without being told what specific behavior is thought problematic. On the other hand, I've been in my share of disagreements with admins, and don't in any way find the process inherently intimidating.
For the first part, I could certainly dig up some diffs of my own uncivil behavior if I felt inclined, but IMO it's nothing more than a few moments of exasperation from time to time. I have no idea what specifically Nosebagbear is talking about - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Magic: the Gathering Standard (Type II)? Overall, I think this goes to show that different people interpret tone in different ways and that things I write sometimes seem harsher to other reviewers' eyes. And that's part of the spice of life.

Optional question from Adumbrativus

28. I'd like to hear your self-assessment in hindsight about an interaction which I saw at your talk page. The topic was an editor's concern about a CfD which you had closed. In my reading, it seemed clear that the editor was making an argument (and I'll borrow a phrase from WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) of the "significant additional information" type, while your response seemed to be misdirected toward an argument which the editor was not making – i.e., not arguing that you had wrongly determined the original consensus. I feel like it should not have taken the editor saying "I am officially challenging the closure" to understand what the editor was trying to challenge. To your credit, your resolution of the issue was productive in the end, and also by the way your responses were extremely quick, so I'm not suggesting that you did an oppose-worthy job. Do you think you could have approached understanding and communicating with the editor more effectively? (I am inexperienced in CfD so if there is important background about CfD procedural practice that editors unaccustomed to CfD are likely to miss, you can clarify as well.)
A: I was not trying to say that Thinker78 was claiming I had misinterpreted the original consensus there - I was interpreting Thinker78's arguments initial comment as asking for permission to recreate the category, and then saying I couldn't give that because it wasn't my responsibility, and I still think I would see Thinker78's comments that way. For context, it's a normal process at CfD for a small category to be merged to its parents without prejudice to a bigger recreation, which that discussion sort of was (although this category was in an oddball procedural limbo at the time would have made that process not really work). Perhaps I could have gotten the memo with the second comment with the quote from Wikipedia:Closing discussions, but it was too subtle a queue for me to pick up given my pre-existing mindset at that time. The specific quote But the discussion was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way could have been omitted perhaps, but it really wasn't a substantive refutation of Thinker78's arguments because I hadn't really followed them. So, no, I wasn't really knocking down a straw man in the way you describe, merely following a garden path (think garden path sentence) and needing more nudging than usual to be knocked off it.


@AirshipJungleman29 - You know, now that you mention it, I'm curious about that too. In my head, I guess I mentally read it as "Peppery". I hope that's been appropriate : ) - jc37 16:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it doesn't matter much in a typewritten environment; however, still, I prefer to adresss people (even in my head) by what they prefer to be called. So with at in mind - and with apologies - I stand corrected. "Perry" it is : ) - jc37 17:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn, I've now got the Perry the Platypus theme stuck in my head. First time anyone's ever said that in an RfA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
I feel like that can't be the first time. casualdejekyll 13:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my head I hear it similarly to 'pippery', but instead of a 'pip' I add a normal plosive. SWinxy (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking "Peppery" for so long, I don't know if I can switch! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Peppers are awesome. Why wouldn't you want to be associated with them? —Cryptic 03:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  1. Admin without tools. I hope FFF has selected a baton image. Courcelles (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note for the far future reader: Courcelles alludes to the WP:ADMINBATON. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. No concerns from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. What do you mean Pppery's not an admin? Whose idea was that? Folly Mox (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support: why not? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have read the concerns raised below by those opposing — they do not sway my position of support, as Pppery remains a solid WP:NETPOSITIVE. I would however suggest to them that should this RfA pass, they spend a moment reflecting on the constructive comments many have given. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support: thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. Another mop at CfD is sorely needed, and I don't see a reason not to trust Pppery with one. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support: Don't see a reason not to. (EDIT: Even after the concerns raised by other users, I still find myself in support of this candidate. While I understand the concerns brought up by some regarding their CfD participation, I don't think it's egregious enough to warrant an oppose, especially considering the candidate affirmed that they will stay away from closing contentious discussions. The lack of major content creation is a bit iffy, however, I doubt they will participate in areas where having an extensive content creation background would be needed, so not a huge issue.) ULPS (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support: Some less-than-perfect behavior seven years ago and less than a year into an editor's time on the project is more endearing than worrying. The SPI stuff is unconcerning. Good luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tracking the discussion and questions Pppery has responded to in this process has increased my confidence in supporting them. They aren't perfect, but they're exceedingly technically competent, show patience in difficult/ego-heavy editing quarters, and have reiterated a commitment to ADMINACCT. If this goes to a 'crat chat, I hope Pppery is understood for the fitting and prudent admin they will be. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support: Excellent understanding of policy and a great gnome. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I've heard of him before, and nothing too concerning as yet. Do heed Floq's advice if applicable, however. (EDIT: This support is greatly weakened, however, by the candidate's attitudes towards edit summaries and content creation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support - For some reason my memory failed me and I thought they were already an admin. Excellent candidate!--NØ 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support: outstanding technical work, excellent behind-the-scenes knowledge, and having the tools will augment their editing. Pppery is already familiar with the tools from MediaWiki. No temperament issues that I can see (if the CfD discussions are the worst of it then it's small potatoes). Edit summary usage is not a valid metric: the point of an edit summary is to explain the non-self-explanatory, not to write one for the sake of filling a blank box.
    I generally like to see content creation, and Magic: The Gathering rules is weak. Many sources are at least usable for uncontroversial content: Paste, Polygon, The Daily Dot, Screen Rant, Game Rant, Comic Book Resources. But I recognise Dot Esports as generally unreliable and there look to be many blog sources. This preprint from arXiv is not good for Wikipedia use (though I've encountered this body of literature before and it's extraordinary). Anyway, in Pppery's case I don't think the tools are going to be used in cases where content creation knowledge would lead to a different decision. So long as Pppery knows where their current strengths lie, I don't see an issue. — Bilorv (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a minor note, WP:VG/S treats Dot Esports as generally reliable and Screen Rant/Game Rant as less than reliable. Izno (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. * theleekycauldron * it has begun... 18:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    More seriously, I think this is a place where the general rules of thumb we use might fail us. If I took Izno at their word that the candidate has become less combative, and held the candidate to their promise of a limited admin role in usercats, I think what's left over (edit summaries and content) doesn't really bother me. If edit summaries and weak content work made the candidate a net negative to CfD, we would've found that out before at least one CfD admin decided to nominate Pppery for the same. If they move slowly and deliberately and stick to where they have expertise, I think Pppery will make a great admin. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 18:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, and I've been pronouncing it /ˈpipɜːri/ in my head :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 18:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Pppery remind me, if you would, but have we fallen out somewhere along the path? I've got a feeling it is so, but I can't find any trace of it if so. I was going to oppose "Per Q7" and the litany, but actually, I found it a refreshingly honest answer. While I do—as a "content creator" [where's my Kardashian-number of page watchers, guys?!]—understand (and appreciate) the ethos that an admin should know the pressures writers are under, and, concomitantly the policies that come with article writing, I also think that there's an exception to every rule, á la Rexxs, Trappist the Monk etc., whereby technical proficiency in needed areas—and no content creator can claim to not rely on many of those self-same same technical tools—can if not outweigh then match in lading that weight. Afterall, if I had to demonstrate technical ability before being let loose on a featured article, then Lua Modules and basic markup would leave as big a hole in my brain as the hole in my. The edit-summary thing is also bizarre. I mean, you indeed had it pointed out that a low e/sum. count could be a potential weakness before you lodged this application, but that you didn't rush to change anything indicates strength of purpose. Good. Admins need to have strength of character before they can start worrying about pleasing all the people all the time. After all, while the edit-summary prompt script is useful—I use it myself—since we allow (effectively encourage!) summaries so minimal that a noob might dwell in confusion ("r", "rv", "rvv"—!) than the usefulness of many of our edit-summaries compared to blank ones might be questioned in their efficacy in the first place. When push comes to shove, the only thing I could come close to as a reason for opposing might be, pace, your choice of nominators; a glance down the list of those supporting already indicates that you would not have had a problem finding others from the corps. But it's not so egregious a misjudgement that it suffices to affect my vote. Looking good, Winthorpe. SN54129 19:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd also like to re-affirm my position in support. I've followed the oppose section carefully, but, mea culpa, I cannot see anything to indicate that the candidate would misuse the tools, and that is the bottom line. Per RexxS, if we tool Pppery, will we end up at Arbcom within a year? I think not. And, while Pppery should certainly take on board what has been said (and, I note, has indeed started doing so), this should be to be taken more as a reminder than an observance and certainly does not undermine my support (i.e. it is not a guarded oppose). While I respect in the other column, I feel that even collectively, the issues raised are of insufficient weight to make me doubt this candidature. SN54129 16:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not aware of any falling out. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. All in all, Pppery is a good egg. He's dedicated, talented, prolific. Making Pppery a sysop will improve the project. Pppery, when you receive the tools, use them carefully and well, and keep in mind: as a sysop, you wield the tools wherever you go, even when you're not using the toolset. Indeed, this is often where being a sysop carries the most weight. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm somewhat wavering in this support and expect to switch to oppose. We might wish that sysops don't have the social influence that they do, but that's not the world we live in. It isn't the case that admins are admins only when they wield the tools, and understanding that is crucially important for any admin. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    L235, where do you get the idea that sysops have more social influence than non-admins? I'm a sysop who doesn't feel like my position gives me any special "social influence". If I had that, then my nominee wouldn't be teetering on the edge of the "crat-chat zone". Non-admins such as EEng and Tryptofish have way more influence than I do. I feel like Tryptofish's oppose has trypt up my nomination and is substantively responsible for causing the recent drop in the support rate. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I don't think it's that. I think it's that those in support are enthusiatically in support whereas those in oppose are taking several days to think about it, or are more generally reacting to the revelation of various skeletons (many of which are valid criticism of my actions) not Tryptofish's specific issues. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose with regret at this time, largely per Tryptofish above (diff). So far the only support to mention me is the co-nomination statement. I believe that Pppery's "social influence" on the project will be limited to a relatively small group of technically-oriented editors like myself. Obviously he has zero influence with typical self-identified "content creators". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It can both be true that admins get additional social influence because they are admins and that certain non-admins have more influence than you, WBM, or specific other admins. Additionally my experience on becoming an admin matches Kevin's comment below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adminship is merely an additional set of tools and responsibilities (much of which are laid out at WP:ADMIN). Admins are merely editors like everyone else. We do not have, and should never have, a different strata/tier for certain types of editors, regardless of the tools they carry. And definitely not: "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others". Adminship is not, and should never be, considered some sort of Social stratification or caste. If someone decides to treat you differently, that's their choice. Every editor is different. So I don't know if I would or even can, make generalisations, but I don't think I've experienced that myself. People were and have been just as friendly (or not) before adminship as they were after. I try to treat everyone with respect until they show that I should treat them differently, and even then, I try to be generally respectful of fellow human beings. And I would think that I'm preaching to the choir to everyone in this thread. People which I have have more than merely general respect for, and which has zero to do with whatever extra tools or responsibilities they've been entrusted with: adminship, arbitrator, whatever. After all, it kind of goes hand in hand. If you are trusted by others, then I would presume you are treated as trust-worthy. - jc37 17:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After I became a sysop, people seemed to: (a) treat me more nicely, (b) consider my suggestions more carefully, (c) engage with rather than dismiss my suggestions (for example, I could count on my RfCs not being speedy-closed even when they were a bit more of a reach), and (d) defer to my interpretations of policy more often. These changes all happened suddenly when I passed my RfA, and I had to quickly try to become more cautious of how much space I took up, especially with non-admins. I had assumed this is a universal experience among sysops (at least, after roughly 2012) and am quite surprised that you're not on the same page there. This is what I was talking about when, in my first comment, I wrote that as a sysop, you wield the tools wherever you go, even when you're not using the toolset. Indeed, this is often where being a sysop carries the most weight. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I felt a bigger bump in influence when my first bot was approved in 2012. By then, I was the de facto administrator of WP:Requested moves. However, whatever influence I felt I had tanked when a lousy 18% felt I was fit for Arbcom (barely more than a guy who later was caught sockpuppeting). The mass of signature graffiti on my RfA told me that I didn't derive any special influence from that (fortunately the two worst offenders aren't around for this one). And yet, years later none of my many administrative actions have registered any significant trouble on the noticeboards. Hoping that perspective keeps you in the support column. As a member of the Arbitration Committee, you have a lot of influence. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One more thing. I still avoid blocking extended-confirmed editors, something I believe Pppery has said he would do too. I'd be happy to see the ability to do that pushed "upstairs" to a select group (similar to checkusers). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support per my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Moved to neutral; my criteria have updated.Reply[reply]
  19. Support. I have concerns, per the neutral/oppose !votes below, but it's not as if adminship is a one way ticket with no process for counseling admins on their decisions or appealing these. My hopes for seeing the best of this editor outweigh my concerns. BD2412 T 19:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support - Worked with them before. We need people who are technical. No big deal. GMGtalk 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Normally, the dearth of content work would be a no from me. I don't care about lack of GAs. I had 0 GAs when I RfA'd. But understanding what makes a little-gee good article, and frankly the experience of writing one, is important for any content or user-conduct adminning. But this is one of those rare cases where the candidate says they intend to focus almost exclusively on an area fairly far-removed from content. And so the question is, does Pppery know what he doesn't know? That's implicitly the question for all candidates, but here it's particularly important. And my feeling is... yeah, probably. The candidate has his faults, but I don't think dishonesty is one of them, so I will trust his assessment of what areas he will and won't work in. So I'll support, a bit cautiously, with some advice: Don't block anyone over anything content-related until you've got a GA or at least a few DYKs. Listen to feedback from the regulars in areas you do admin, especially more experienced admins. And please use more edit summaries. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support. We've crossed paths before at AfD, where I found Pppery to be both civil and well versed in policy. I appreciate their ability to reflect on past actions and like that they've chosen to focus on admin areas that are underserved. I have no concerns and am certain they'll make an excellent admin. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 20:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Doubling down my support (emotionally, not numerically) following Q23, which I believe marks the first time I've ever seen a code review in an RfA, and taught me something new (and horrifying). Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 17:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support. Pppery is a great editor who I always just assumed was an admin already. The dedicated work in templatespace and modulespace makes me confident he will be a good admin. SWinxy (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - I see no reason to believe Pppery will misuse the tools, and it would be helpful to both them and others if they were an admin. I encourage the candidate to use edit summaries much more consistently going forward; this is especially important for an admin. With regard to content, I don't believe that content creation should be a criteria for adminship. There are plenty of administrative tasks on Wikipedia that are important and unaffected by the ability or desire to produce high-quality content. We need technical and back-end admins too! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support - answer to Q7 is a bit flippant, but nothing in the user's recent contributions suggest they would be unable to provide support to the ≈ c o n t e n t c r e a t o r s ≈. Good luck and thanks for volunteering! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - best of luck with the mop Mujinga (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support – I think it's OK to specialize in certain areas of adminship, if you will. Pppery has the skills and knowledge to be a great technical admin (an interface admin, even), and I trust that he is aware of the areas where he is not as strong and will act accordingly. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support. I was also surprised that Pppery didn't already have a mop. We have enough admin work to encourage specialisation, and RfA's preference for content creators leaves us in need of more technical experts. Certes (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. jp×g 21:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. I've seen them around quite often on VPT and on various templates and modules, and I'm regularly impressed by their technical expertise. --rchard2scout (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support. I've known Pppery on and off for a bit and I can safely say that if "it" hasn't begun yet, it should begin. Godspeed to the RFA, and Godspeed to more great contributions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support. I agree with the use of more edit summaries but that's just a personal preference, being a user who gets watchlist updates with no easy "diff" view. But as someone who does both content writing and technical work, I find no convincing reason not to support. A truckload of created articles (and even more so GA+'d ones) isn't a be-all and end-all in adminship, and it won't hold Pppery back from being helpful in technical spaces. Chlod (say hi!) 22:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support - based on prior interactions in RfD among other places, as well as the reasoning of other supports. I think that Q7 opposes are more dogmatic than reasoned, and Q9 is a nothingburger unless someone has diffs of no-edit-summary for something majorly controversial. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support with enthusiasm. – SJ + 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support. Answer to Question 7 is correct and RfA fetishizes content creation where "FA = good admin". The nominee explains it best, an admin needs to understand where they are competent to act so they don't take incompetent actions (since nobody is great at everything). Uncontroversial edits do not really need edit summaries. The edit I'm making right now has the "support" section header, so it's pretty obvious what this edit does. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 00:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmmm. So RfA "fetishize content creation"? You'd prefer, perhaps, an encyclopedia devoid of content in which admins would spend their time blocking and unblocking each other due to their being no actual encyclopedia to administer? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not what they said. Please don't create extremes. - jc37 01:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Content creation and dispute resolution are two different skills. Being an administrator isn't a role where you're expected to create content whole wearing that hat. And in all honesty, bargain-bin content creation nowadays is trivial. ChatGPT can spew out entire articles on virtually anything.
    The value that we as an encyclopedia have is the ability to police content and ensure its reliability. i.e. Creating quality content, which means blocking people that do source manipulation, or closing discussions on content based on policy instead of stochastic word salads, or adding sources to support content that exists.
    Content creation isn't going to be nearly as important going into the future. I don't think you should use it as the singular version to oppose an admin nominee but that's your right. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 04:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Content creation isn't going to be nearly as important going into the future"? We have c. 7.7 million articles of which 8,200 are FA, c. 43.5k are GA and under 5k are either FL or A-class. And you think content creation isn't going to be important in bringing up poor articles to a decent standard? The point about thinking admins should have at least some content in their background is that they show they have skin in the game, so they appreciate what stewardship of quality content is like.
    To try and claim that "ChatGPT can spew out entire articles on virtually anything" is worrying: just as a trial I tried asking for a paragraph on an article I am writing: it fabricated two sources entirely (a book that doesn't exist and an ONDB source that goes to a completely different person). You can try and demean "bargain-bin content creation" or content creators if you like, but admins who don't understand what content is and the effort it takes to create or upgrade an article to a passable standard are not always best placed to deal with the issues at the heart of a dispute. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SchroCat: just as a trial I tried asking for a paragraph on an article I am writing: it fabricated two sources entirely is my point. That's bargain-bin content creation which anyone can do now. ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies can create endless information. GPT-4 offers decent writing for about 3¢ per 750 words, and it's the same (if not better) quality as anything in Category:All articles lacking sources. What AI can't do is consistently cite to reliable sources (Bing tries but fails). What we need are people who can sift through the tsunami of information and create a place that's a hub for reliability. Otherwise we'll be obsolete. People are going to get burnt by ChatGPT feeding them BS, so we need to be a place that people can trust. This will be a far more important skill going into this future and that's why I supported the nom, who participates with speedy deletions, deletion discussions, and other content curation platforms.
    I respect people who spend time on FAs, but for me, the important thing right now is getting people in who can effectively deal with the impending deluge. The nominee demonstrates good work in their chosen areas, understands their limitations, and seems like they can address this crisis. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 03:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support Good answer. Think so similar.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above editor is on the verge of being site banned by ArbCom, due to their lying to ArbCom in the past in order to get un-banned, which they have now admitted doing. I suggest when the ban goes through, their vote be cancelled out -- if not before, considering that they shouldn't have been unbanned in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would add that Q15 be struck not only for the same reason but because in light of PC's ban the question is now clear and obvious trolling. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. This is not block evasion, so WP:SOCKSTRIKE does not apply. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support will be a clear net positive as admin. No concerns. Gizza (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Clueful, has a need, and will be a clear net positive. More should not be required. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support. Have watched this editor closely for several years and have learned a lot from him. Can be trusted with the tools. One of the most sensitive areas on WP is that of template editing and management, and Pppery has been a template editor for a long time, answers edit requests and helps editors quite a lot. Need many more like him! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support My experiences with Pppery have generally been positive. Legoktm (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support. Based on my experiences with the candidate, I believe he will be a net positive. plicit 01:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support per TheresNoTime. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Because of the strong Q7 oppose arguments, I would put my comments here. First of all, despite not having significant content creation, he still shows a clear judgment and have experience with technical skills, which is desperately needed for adminship. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another reaffirmations that I would make is that this user is particularly competent in programming aspects. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 15:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support At 66k edits, I am generally unconcerned about a lack of content. You don't amass 66k without fundamentally picking up how Wikipedia works. I've seen Pppery comment around a good deal, and have never had an issue with them. I think the "perfectly well rounded Renaissance man" admin is an unattainable goal, and should not be the standard we're using at RfA. That their content work is a little weaker is entirely balanced by their work in gnoming and deletion, and imo gnoming and deletion make one better suited for the slog of admin backlogs than content work does. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support. I thought they were already an admin. I prefer "Obviously not" to "Not necessarily" but understand that there is significant dispute on this matter - still, they blatantly said that they aren't going to be working in admin areas that need content creation experience, so why does it matter? casualdejekyll 03:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support. In line with JrandWP, I'm adding a comment to my standard "no reason not to" !vote because of the Q7 oppose arguments. I think those editors have got our purpose wrong; we're here to build an encyclopedia. That includes adding content, but as the encyclopedia ages that aspect has gone from 99% of the work that needs to be done to a far lower percentage, and I see no issue with admins and editors who focus on that other work. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having considered the opposes based on Q21, I want to add that it is policy that adminship is not a big deal. While this theory is often not reflected in practice I don't see any issue with editors and admins who embrace it wholeheartedly, and I certainly don't see it as a reason to oppose them being an admin. Behaviour that is appropriate for an editor acting as an editor is also appropriate for an admin acting as an editor, and while this may cause some localized problems with editors who do see being an admin as a big deal in the long run I believe it will serve the project by reducing that perception. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - I've confidence that we can trust this editor with the mop. Mjroots (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support, I feel pretty confident that he'll have the tools. Sheep (talkhe/him) 04:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support clear need for the tools, not a jerk, clueful. HouseBlastertalk 04:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did not comment on my original support, as I did not believe that this RfA would become quite as contentious as it has. As such, I would like to reaffirm my support and briefly elaborate on my reasoning.
    Addressing Q7, I would tend to agree with the candidate's revised answer of "Not necessarily". Content creation indicates both trust and experience (e.g. with content policies & guidelines) — both of which I believe to be necessary for adminship — but I do not believe that content creation is the only way to demonstrate these; the candidate has, to me, satisfactorily demonstrated trust and experience through other (technical) means.
    As for some other concerns that have been raised (e.g. edit summary usage & CfD), I do not believe these are disqualifying. Ultimately, adminship is just another set of tools, and I believe that the candidate still clearly seems that he would use them well. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support - Personally, whenever someone puts their hand up for RFA I am a supporter by default unless I see a strong reason to suspect that the editor will misuse the toolset due to malice or by accident due to a lack of experience and knowledge, or they are hostile, uncooperative, or impulsive and hence of a temperament inconsistent with such a responsibility. I am not seeing that with this nomination. Also, it is quite clear that certain administrators specialise in certain areas. Provided a candidate wants to work in an administrative area and can do so, that is what is important. We openly state that some of our best content contributors would not make good administrators. Perhaps some of our best administrators are not necessarily the best at content. It all depends on the candidate and their motivation. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support - don't recall any objectionable interactions. Specialization is a good thing to have. JoelleJay (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Per Jagmanst. —Cryptic 06:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are in support, because I voted to oppose? Jagmanst (talk) Jagmanst (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What serendipity! I'd just typed out something reaffirming support and making it explicit that this wasn't a two-word "support per [previous supporter]" vote, it's a "support per the evidence raised by an opposer, because they're so ragingly incompetent that that they think it makes the candidate look bad" vote, and edit-conflicted with you. More to say below in a moment. —Cryptic 23:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So basically you share their distaste for civil discussion and reasoned arguments, and prefer smugness over substance. Thanks for the clarification. Jagmanst (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support - I get some of the issues some people took to Q7, but otherwise Pppery is a fantastic candidate. Opposing candidates for a poor answer to a single question or a lack of content creation (which it is clear Pppery will not be using the tools in) is part of what's wrong with RfA. We can't only accept perfect candidates. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I invite you to read my essay more closely. My definition of a fantastic candidate is more like Cullen328. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support per my RfA criteria. I couldn't disagree more with the Q7 opposes below. IffyChat -- 08:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - good to see them already taking feedback on board. A valuable specialist admin. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support per CaptainEek, Curb Safe Charmer and others. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Yes. Trustworthy. J947edits 11:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But anyone who doesn't think that contributing content is far and away the most important part of Wikipedia editing is kidding themselves. It's just that Pppery does not plan to contribute in areas where it is important to have experience of that, and if he does then I'm sure he will familiarise himself and become a good admin there too. J947edits 01:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support. A long-term, trustworthy, generally competent gnoming-focused editor who wants access to the mop for more gnoming. Seems unlikely to amplify rather than tamp down drama, and is a decent communicator. That's enough for a support from me. As to reasons below to oppose/hesitate: While significant content creation is a useful experience for an admin to have, I'm not convinced it's necessary to be a net positive as an admin. The poorly worded original answer to Q7 was adequately addressed in Q12. The Q9/edit summary issue is worthy of a trout (and doing better) but not a deal-breaker for me. And Floq's concern in the neutral section, while appropriate to raise, doesn't sway me. We discuss things in non-speedy deletion discussions precisely since opinions may vary, and may change with discussion. So while repeatedly putting up for deletion discussion pages that end up being snow kept would be a red flag for me, merely nominating pages for deletion that end up no consensus or keep after a discussion isn't; and by default I trust the applicant to close xFDs in line with consensus rather than personal opinion, or choose to participate rather than close if they feel strongly about something. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirming my support. Since in the event of a bureaucrat chat, there is sometimes discussion of trends over time and response to later-breaking "issues", I've taken a look at opposes from recent days. The only new objection raised seems to be a broader concern with dismissive tone in discussions. Reviewing some of the links provided, I agree in some cases Pppery's discussion contributions could have benefitted from stepping back to the broader context and been phrased more diplomatically. That is true for all of us. However, broadly I see a user engaging reasonably and civilly, on the merits of the discussion points raised, making policy-based arguments without personalities or drama. I am sure they will make occasional mistakes, as do all of us, and those will get corrected. Martinp (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support No reason not to. Nigej (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support per MaxnaCarta's comment above. Pppery may not have substantial content creation, but they are trustworthy, willing to learn from their mistakes, and a clear net positive to the project, which I believe are much more important. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am reaffirming my support; the opposes have not convinced me to change my !vote. The most important thing I look for in an admin is trust, which Pppery has demonstrated, and I believe that they have the judgment necessary to make decisions even in areas where they are less familiar. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Moved from neutral, albeit with a few reservations, as described in my struck neutral vote below. But weighing everything, I'm ending up here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Per MaxnaCarta. Lectonar (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support. Maybe it's because I don't create content, but I've never understood the notion that admins have to create content, and if anything, we need more technical admins who don't create content. Pppery is clearly a good technical editor. And about the edit summaries, I think his answer to Q9 is pretty good. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 13:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not even to mention CFD, where admins are desperately needed. WT:CFDW's been backlogged for like a month straight. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 02:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support Q7 goes against the common wisdom but for an amazing amount of admin activities, content has little to do with it. He is level headed and a fantastic candidate otherwise and will be a net positive. spryde | talk 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support, why should not: The candidate might be helpful in the Requested moves and Requested merge project spaces and increase the admins on it by one. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 15:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support Q7 pointed out that they are not fully developed in every area, but few are. Also the de-emphasis on content creation work could also lead to a lack of empathy for editors. But given that few are strong in every area, I would give an extra 5 gold stars for their statement "The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing." In other words, to know what not to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding opposes, I'm an advocate of formal or informal bifurcation of admins. Many active admins have areas where thay do (yet) not have admin-level competence. Recognizing and avoiding those areas is essential, whereas admin-level copmpetence in every area rarely exists and so should not be a criteria. Their ""The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing." show a good understanding and approach regarding this. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support. I don't expect admins to be perfect, or completely amenable in every aspect - I just expect that their having the tools is a net positive to the project. Per nominators, their candid answers to the various optional questions, and many above, I think Pppery meets these criteria. To oppose rationales below: A rock-solid record on content creation is not requisite for a good admin, especially one that wants to focus primarily on other aspects, like with technical matters; we can have admins with different strengths and weaknesses. And regarding the quality of their replies to questions, which has been called "rushed" or "brusque", I personally don't mind the tone they've taken - their answers are candid, if perhaps not perfectly thought-out. Of course I expect admins to think out their words in the course of performing their duties. But RFA is a uniquely brutal venue, and quite dissimilar to a regular admin day, or week. I don't fault anyone for stepping back from meticulously thinking out every answer here and opting to reply more candidly - and, as they've shown with Q7, being willing to return to their comments to strike and amend them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Per Floq; I think there are legitimate concerns in the oppose, but also that Pppery will otherwise be a fine admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support, after read pro et contra--Noel baran (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support: Adminship should not be only just for content creators. This candidate has technical skills that they could utilize to improve the site with administrative privileges. Lightoil (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support: has a clue, and Wikipedia is more than just content creation. The technical side is important too. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Every successful project needs specialists, and it looks as though Pppery is a technical specialist. I'm not a big believer in the idea that a candidate must have GA/DYK experience, especially one who seems to be as focused on the tech side as this one. Joyous! Noise! 18:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. SupportI think the candidate will have the good sense to do what they are good at, stay out of what they are not good at, and most importantly, be able to tell the difference. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS: What they are good as is useful, I encourage them to continue doing it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding the change to the answer of Q7: Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. It is not bowing to peer pressure to amend a claim that something is obvious when another person points out that it for them it is not, That is simply acceprting reality from another perspective. Also from some of the other comments, the cadidate in not alone in initially considering it obvious. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support, I generally had good interactions with the candidate related to CFD, they clearly have a clue.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support It appears that Pppery's adminship would be a clear net positive. I strongly and respectfully disagree with the opposes. I appreciate the concern raised by Floq, and I find Pppery's answer to Q11 very reassuring. As for the content creation issue, I guess I'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of being a prolific content creator before being an admin. Obviously an encyclopedia couldn't exist without articles being created, but there are so many things admins do (and that Pppery will be able to do with the tools) that are far removed from content creation. Pppery's answer to Q7 is not a massive whiff, even if you disagree with me. I hope that people will take a closer look at the wording of Q7. It doesn't say "Do you believe that admins should be content creators?", it says "Do you believe that content creation is a good indication of suitability for adminship?". To answer in the affirmative is to say that a good content creator would automatically be a good admin. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. As one of the few CfD closers, I've found Pppery's contributions there incredibly helpful, and their CfD comments seem reasonable to me. I'm unconcerned about their response to Q7, especially given their later modification. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support - the opposes based on Q7 are unconvincing; actually I see the answer to Q7 as the perfect answer. Many RFA voters want admins to be absolutely flawless and perfectly competent from the get-go but that is a ridiculous stance: nobody knows what they're doing when they get the mop. The mark of a truly reliable admin is self-awareness to recognize when one is operating out of one's depth, or where are the limits of one's competency, and to take your hands off the controls when you don't know what you're doing. That's a brutal lesson that many admins only learn after they fuck up, myself included repeatedly; Pppery is already demonstrating that awareness in this very discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support I don't usually vote in RFAs, but considering that I'm one of the people who firmly believe that content creation is not required for admin candidates looking to act in purely technical roles, I feel that I should register a support vote here. The candidate is not only an excellent contributor to enwiki, but is also involved with upstream MediaWiki work as well and has proven beyond any sense of doubt that they are competent in the areas in which they wish to work. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support I've seen them around a bunch and can't recall any problems. I get the concerns people have about content creation, but I think the issue is overstated. On the other hand, I'm flabbergasted that people are still obsessing over edit summaries. Most edit summaries these days are machine generated anyway. Get over it. RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RoySmith I agree with you, but even machine generated edit-summaries are useful, because they save me the time from clicking/viewing an edit diff. I frequently make nicely formatted summary messages with wiki links in them and copy/paste them when doing repetitive tasks, so that anyone looking at a specific edit in watch lists will quickly know what it's about. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also find automated summaries useful. I even tend to put more effort into writing a good summary if it will appear on many pages. Certes (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support I've also seen the candidate around, and to me they've been a net positive. No candidate is perfect, and RfA is no place to argue about whether or not the tools should be bundled. Miniapolis 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Weak Support I find the oppose reasons unconvincing, and the only real reason to oppose is that Pppery appears to have switched their answer to Q7 due to peer pressure. I get that peer pressure is unpleasant and RfA is also an unpleasant arena, but still: have the courage to stick to your guns. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support Not all admins needs to be involved in content creation; Pppery's work in other areas is grounds for adminship. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support I don't see reason not to. – Frood (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Content creation is of course Wikipedia's ultimate goal, but given how complex Wikipedia has evolved to be, with many essential functions/areas only indirectly connected to content creation, I don't think the relative lack of content creation experience is - by itself - enough to preclude becoming an administrator. Pppery has demonstrated excellence in many of those areas, and that, in my opinion, is qualification enough. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support. Good candidate, Pppery has a strong technical background and is willing to work at CFD. I also reviewed the oppose !votes and found their reasonings to be ranging from bad to outright ridiculous. Of course, I would like to see Pppery start using edit summaries, but that issue in and of itself is not a reason to oppose. -FASTILY 07:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support. Pppery is going to do just fine.—Alalch E. 08:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support Volten001 09:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support Content creation is not the only thing in Wikipedia. There are lots of other sides of Wikipedia, and the technical side is one thing the candidate is good at. If "content is king" why would people do new page patrols, created and maintained bots, discuss with editors at AFC, reverting vandalism, if at the end their efforts will not be appreciated well? If we are talking about bias, placing too much emphasis on "content creation" will create a bias in the admin corps, where only people in Western countries who had good English lessons would be accepted. Content creation might be the most important thing in Wikipedia, but that's not the only thing in Wikipedia. If this RFA failed because of "content is king", future RFA would bias towards content creators (DYKs, FAs creators) instead of other sides of Wikipedia. I hope that we didn't lose Pppery like we lose MB because of RFA. In closing, being and admin should be easy, not hard. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support Top editor with tech skills to boot, liked all of I've seen of this user. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support, almost entirely per Floquenbeam, including their initial hesitation. I have seen enough of Pppery to believe that the feedback they've received about being diplomatic will be taken on board. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support. Ivan (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support. a!rado는 더미입니다 (CT) 12:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support, well suited to the job and growing with experience. Time to advance to the Major Leagues. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Strong content creation is a good sign of a qualified RfA candidate, but not the only one. I expect that if the RfA is successful, Pppery will bear the opposers' concerns in mind going forward. Regarding question 8 about edit summaries, Pppery's opting into the "prompt me for an edit summary if I forget" feature should hopefully resolve this issue. Regarding question 18, editors who are unfamiliar with the procedures at ArbCom are more to be envied than censured. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirming my support as this draws nearer to closing. I have read through all the opposes and nothing there changes my opinion that Pppery would do fine as an admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99.  WP:RFX100! Reconfirming support of nominator. You've shown a wonderful attention to detail in answering the 23 questions asked (so far). Hopefully Hawkeye7 will find his way to the support column after reading your answer to his programming question, despite his "creators' concerns". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support - I don't actually see anything alarming about Q7 or any indication they would be anything but a useful admin. GiantSnowman 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support. Competent, trustworthy. Ok, not much content creation – I look forward to the day when that is no longer considered relevant in these discussions. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support looks qualified and I've seen him around with no concerns. I don't think Q7 is a fair question to ask, even someone who thinks content contributions are extremely important for admins isn't likely to think that content creation by itself indicates that someone is suitable for adminship. Pppery's edit history is focused on improving mainspace and immediately related stuff like categories, and I don't see how forcing him to write a GA would help with closing CfDs, protected edit requests, or anything else that's been brought up. Hut 8.5 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The intention of Q7 was to link back to their comments on their talk page made on 19 July. I don't think anyone who opposed had the same interpretation of the question that you had, but I still see your point. Willbb234 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You don't think anyone who opposed interpreted the question the way it was written? GrammarDamner how are things? 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Weak support per GrammarDamner and contra those mentioning lack of content creation; asking the user to be more of a "jack-of-all-trades" can take focus away from their strengths. User is taking the current grilling of questions in stride. I also fail to see anything wrong with Q7. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support If I can recall, some editors were elected to administrator with little to no content creation, however, I strongly believe that how understanding policies and guidelines here work are more important than content creation. I do understand the opposition though, proof of content creation does strongly present an editor's ability in understanding guidelines and polices, a backbone to help establish understanding on how Wikipedia works. Pppery's years of commitment to Wikipedia and participation to the community from nominated deletion pages to RMs and continuous page editing is likewise proof of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Who knows? Maybe we will eventually see more content creation from Pppery after the editor is an admin. Jerium (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support @Wbm1058:: You are correct, I have ultimately found my way to the support column. I should make it clear that my personal policy is not to oppose unless I want the candidate removed from the project. In this case though, a lot of editors I really respect both personally and as content creators are on the oppose side. And Pppery, you make voting for you really difficult. Q23: First off, I did not write that code... I'll answer the question anyway Not really the foot you want to step off on if you are trying to show us that you are less combatative. Coming from an admin, many editors would mentally add "you peon". You need to work on that. For what it is worth, the response was sound: that is the way I would have tackled changing a template that is on a godzillion pages too. However, some editors will note the contradiction between "major rewrite" in Q2 and "minimum changes needed to achieve my goal and not do unrelated refactorings" in Q23. The current completely refactored version is superior, although I personally would like the template to be more flexible and configurable. Also, while the opting into the "prompt me for an edit summary if I forget" feature is a good idea, it would be even better if it worked properly. The software waves through edit summaries that consist purely of comment, but when someone consults the stats they are not counted. I strongly believe that understanding policies and guidelines is purely ancilliary to the more important function of content creation. The admin toolkit is not for your agrandisement, it is there to help the content creation process. The editors who lack the tools will turn to you for assistance, and occasionally for guidance. They may not understand our policies and guidelines (that's your job). You really need to reconsider Q18. "I'm arguably WP:INVOLVED" is a sound response, but "arguably" is a weasel word. When you are answering an RfA question, the questioner is probing for your knowledge of the subject, so you should have stated what circumstances would constitute involvement. In particular, "I expressed disinterest in using admin tools in conduct-related matters" is just fine—we don't expect every admin to work in every area—but what you and every admin aspirant needs to understand is that when you are an admin all conduct will be seen in that light whether or not you are using the admin tools. Otherwise, the editors in the Oppose column who think you might be on a trajectory towards ArbCom will be proven correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support based on my impression of Pppery and general disagreement with the opposes. SilverLocust 💬 00:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support. Not only is this a clear WP:NETPOSITIVE, I don’t find the comments in the oppose section swaying at all. As a non-content creator myself, I see no issue with users becoming sysops, even if they haven’t contributed much content to the project. There are other ways to help and prove policy understanding, such as NPP and more technical areas of Wikipedia. Why must we make RFA all about this box-checking? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support: Content is king and I am very thankful to those who have the ability and desire to create it. But there can not be a king without the support of many others. When a person has demonstrated that they have the skills, clue and desire to help, I want to let them help. Not a perfect candidate, but very much a net positive. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support as I'm unconvinced by the opposes. I do hope the candidate takes Barkeep49's thoughts under consideration, and (unrelated to the candidate) that the nominators can be more convincing if they nominate someone else in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support: I'm substantially relying on the feedback of others here whose appraisals I trust, because this is, as best I can recall, the first time I have so much as seen this contributor's name on the project--which is perhaps not super surprising given their apparent gnomish and technical foci here.
    You can count me as being firmly in the the camp who feels the 'Q7' objections are largely uncompelling, especially in light of the candidate's apparently quite substantial technical contributions and facility. We have a profound administrative shortfall right now, and we can't afford to turn away viable candiadtes for antiquated and idosyncratic standards regarding skillsets that are not vital to how every candidate will be busying themselves as a mop. I would of course expect ppperry to tread lightly as an admin in any context in which they do lack experience, and thankfully I do see them expressly indicating their attention to do as much above. Honestly, I feel we sometime ago turned a corner at RfA where hard oppose !votes based solely or mainly upon deficits in mainspace edits only end up inspiring increased support, including outright protest !votes, so we might as well save ourselves the trouble and not fixate so much on that (undoubtedly important, but not necesarily dispositive) element of the analysis.
    The one concern I had reviewing the candidate's responses to questions was the kind of oblique discussion of the RexxS RfA, but re-reviewing that discussion, I'm not seeing conduct that is sufficiently problematic to push me away from support. I think, as a somewhat personal !vote very much rooted in their personal dispute with that candidate, they could have maybe modulated (pun totally intended) their comments there, but their objection was no unreasonably and none of their conduct disruptive. On the balance, I'm willing to take a chance on empowering this user with tools: they seem cordial, steady, and collaborative on the whole, and others above have attested that they bring much needed improvements to the areas they work in, with (generally, anyway) a minimum of drama. SnowRise let's rap 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    pppery Thank you for your response to my inquiry (Q27) above. I don't mind telling you that, like many (indeed, seemingly most) here, this was a closer call for me than usual for a candidate I ultimately end up supporting, and I vacilated back and forth for a bit. But in the end, I (obviously) came to a conclusion to support and I am satisifed enough with your answer to stick to that conclusion. That said, your responses were not as full-throated in support of the principles that I was raising, so much as denials that you could have been thought to have violated them in any event. Which, fair enough: I haven't seen sufficient evidence to the contrary from those suggesting such failings, so fairplay and rationalism incline me to taking your read at face value.
    That said...I would still like to urge you take to heart some of what I have said (and the feedback you have received generally, should your candidacy succeed (which is looking more likely than not, at this juncture). The fact that you have not personally felt intimidated by conflicts with admins in the past is not dispositive to the point I was trying to stress. The fact of the matter is, once you have administrative status, almost every other user on this project will be on unequal footing with you in a dispute. It's not even especially about your advanced permissions: the mere fact that you are a sysop means that many other admins and rank-and-file users will give your position, in an otherwise equal looking conflict, the benefit of the doubt. They will trust that those of us participating here at your RfA throughly vetted your experience and temperament. Please do not take that power imbalance lightly--it is in my opinion one of the trade-offs that is expected of you, if you want the tools.
    In the same vein, I would suggest that you not chalk up occasions where your tone has been interpreted as harsher than you intended to the wonderous variety in human communication, needing no more contemplation nor action from yourself than that. How your tone is received here is as much, if not much more so, about how you structure and frame your comments as the speaker (and the party with the most ability to influence the received message), than it is readings (or misreadings) by others.
    I appreciate that you responded to my questions with candor rather than trying to generate a platitude where you honestly felt your conduct was not in error, and (at the risk of sounding like a broken record), I didn't find any big red flags in your discussions. But several different editors independently flagged your dicussion style as a potential source for issues, so I just want to urge that this should be felt (by any editor experienced enough to get the bit) as indications of opportunity for improvement, not dismissed as non-salient.
    Indeed, I will say there has been an element of complacency in many of your responses to criticism here, whether regarding content creation, edit summaries, or dispute resolution. On the one hand, I found some of that refreshing: it's fair and reasonable to say when you think this or that convention or metric is of debatable importance. On the other hand, I think your somewhat laisez-faire response to come criticisms could have cost you more here, except that you (somewhat paradoxically) got a huge boost from those who feel that the "content creation is the most central test" position is past its prime. At the end of the day, I'd bet (or indeed, am betting, in a way) that you're going to make a competent and non-problematic admin. But you will need to remain open to community feedback to prove me right. Anyhow, best of luck! SnowRise let's rap 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support. Like, I get the opposes, but I am not really too convinced Pppery has bad enough judgement anything brought up will be a problem. He is a lot smarter than me, Pppery will easily be in asset in our more technical spaces. –MJLTalk 04:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess I'll just reiterate that I haven't had any negative experiences with Pppery. There are things that have been said in the oppose section that give me pause, but I ultimately don't expect to see Pppery at WP:AE or even WP:CCI. Therefore, I can't get fully on board with their concerns.
    The important thing is I believe Pppery will work hard to improve this community/project in his own way. That does not involve content creation. It just (in this case) requires a technical proficiency which no one has placed doubt for him possessing. –MJLTalk 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support Leijurv (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support I know Pppery as a master-TA on Meta-Wiki, and I hope they will make a good addition as an admin here, given their diverse contributions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support I don't see extensive article creation as a prerequisite for an admin. These are different skills. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support I don't care about the content creation, but after continued review I think Pppery will do a good job with the tools - this RfA has highlighted some areas they could stand to work on (and I don't really care about content creation) but in reviewing more of their edits I'm convinced they're here to build an encyclopedia and will do a good job with it. SportingFlyer T·C 14:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support. Pppery will be a welcomed part of the admin world. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support Would be a net positive if given the tools. I don't find any of the concerns raised to be compelling. NoahTalk 15:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support. I've read the opposes and I don't find them persuasive. Speaking as a content creator, I welcome more Admins taking on the tasks of keeping Wikipedia honest and reliable. Welcome, Pppery! The challenges are increasing, not decreasing. Smallchief (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support The opposes do not convince me. A lack of content creation doesn't concern me at all. However, I strongly advise the nominee to usee edit summaries more often. Lastly, the civility concerns do not convince me to oppose him because I have seen a lot of people who are currently administrators do or say worse things without any consequences. The question at the end of the day is "Will he abuse the tools?" I think the answer is no. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support per GrammarDamner. 777burger user talk contribs 19:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support Not all admins have to be involved in content creation. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 19:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update: I'm disappointed in the level of opposition. I was an admin for several years before a long wiki break resulting in desysopping for inactivity. I think this person will be fine. I don't see why an editor needs to take an article to featured article to be a good sysop. Sysop ≠ content creation. They need a good temperament and a cool disposition. This place is so complicated they can't understand all the policies, guidelines, procedures and arcanery 100% and they shouldn't pretend they do. They need to keep referring back to all rules and instructions as they go along to make sure they get it right. To the extent possible, they need to deal with conflict like Sheriff Andy of Mayberry, not Dirty Harry. Do these things and they'll do just fine. A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 04:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Weak support - Pppery's positives are generally fairly obvious: their technical skills are clear and even outside of that, they don't talk about something without having a clue in that field. The negatives have now also been relatively laid out, in terms of ones I agree with: I would like to see content work, as it aids understanding in so many areas (not just an editor's pain at bad admin actions). I'm more concerned at Pppery's abrasive tone in any number of areas. When reading through a dozen AfDs, my recurring view was "these are okay, because Pppery is right in these cases". But the problem is that sooner or later they'll be either: wrong, in a field with no right answer, in a field where just being right isn't enough. And their tone is going to escalate issues there. Barkeep49 is right that their in-RfA behaviour has been good, but I'm sceptical that we'll see a major change from their small-a fields. So I was planning to go neutral. But I've argued we don't need flawless admins, "just" good-faith net-gain ones that will aid the project. So they know their weaknesses, let's extend some trust. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support Seems like a good egg. While I've read all - and at least partially agree with most - of the oppose votes, the concerns don't rise to the level of me also opposing. A bit more following of "The Rules" by everyone can only be a good thing on Wikipedia, some more content creation would be nice but not essential for me, and I'm AGF the nom will be using edit summaries from now on, now that they've been made aware of how important they are. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We allow a lot of replies to opposes, and since your reference to "The Rules" is a reference to what I said, I'll reply to your support to make clear that no one is advocating violation of policy, just having enough flexibility to understand the nuance in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, several of the oppose and neutral votes commented on this user enforcing "the rules" above the "nuances" of said rules, and wasn't singularly incorporating your oppose vote. Instead, my vote was referencing a highly positive trait which I believe would serve this candidate well should this nomination pass: violate 3RR, get blocked; provably system-game, get blocked. Et cetera. No ifs ands or buts. That was more or less what I was getting at. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I do think that way in other fields, I expressed disinterest in blocking people in Q1. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. I see nothing to make me belive that Pppery would misuse the tools if given. SQLQuery Me! 21:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support I find the opposes to be unconvincing. I also, in reading the replies here, find them to be suitable person. Importantly, I also note they take criticism to heart instead of brushing it off. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 00:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support Pppery's edits I've seen related to supporting CFD have been very helpful in an area of the encyclopedia sorely lacking in admin presence, since many (most?) noms are now closed by non-admins. I read the oppose votes below and don't share the concern about a more tech admin who doesn't create a lot of content. (Question 9 was a concern though and I'd encourage more consistent use of edit summaries going forward.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support Administrator without tools. —MdsShakil (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. I support Pppery's candidacy for adminship without reservation! Having interacted with him on numerous occasions while observing his editorial manner and conduct (in real time) many times more, I am certain that his motivation is, foremost: the best interests and betterment of Wikipedia. And his demonstrated competence and clue leave no room for doubting his ability to achieve the goals he is motivated toward. While the entire sum of opposition rationale constitutes constructive criticism that I am confident Pppery will take on for his own betterment, it does nothing to marginalize the positive things that Peppery has shown and my own eyes have seen. I am, in fact, glad that Pppery has agreed to serve as an admin.--John Cline (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support It's great to have polymath admins, but that should not be a requirement. Nor would I expect that only people of perfect equanimity and without unpopular opinions become admins; there's too much to do to practice this kind of nicety. I suspect Pppery will do fine, and if frictions occur they should be able to engage in some self-adjustment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support Would be a net positive to the project. Bestagon ⬡ 13:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support I'm happy with admins who focus on different areas of the project. Content may be king, but that doesn't mean we don't need specialised admins as well. I'm particularly encouraged by an apparant willingness to take a stance against a majority opinion, as sometimes holding to the broader consensus over local opposition is something we need to be willing to do. - Bilby (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support Per Snow Rise. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support as I am similarly not perturbed by admins without extensive content creation experience, given the breadth of areas admins be otherwise prove productive. Absent a compelling reason to suspect Pppery would do a bad job, my default is to vote in favor given the declining number of admins over time as well. WhinyTheYoungerTalk 19:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. I've been thinking this over for four days now, but when all is said and done I support giving a technical admin without tools access to the tools. Pppery's obviously limited understanding of the content creation process isn't ideal, his seemingly stress-sensitive and somewhat knee-jerk temperament is worse, but if he is mainly going to work on the technical side, what gives? I have made ~15,000 edits here (and probably lurked around another ~30,000 edits' worth of time 🙄) in ~3 years, and before this RfA I never even heard of wbm1058, one of the noms here. If they, as a somewhat invisible (at least to me, obviously) technical admin believe that Pppery would make a great technical admin, who am I to disagree? If we are going to reject candidates who are excellent in what they do (technical stuff) because they are somewhat less excellent in what they do not (content creation), I think we are obviously making too big a deal out of adminship. What are the odds that Pppery will turn out a net-negative as an admin, really? On the off-chance that happens, shouldn't we be able to go to Arbcom? Of course the opposes that have been voiced until now were useful and needed, but on the whole I think this candidate deserves a chance to prove himself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 19:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support. I have read (almost) this entire RfA and, in total, support this RfA. I think Pppery will be a net-positive using the extra technical abilities and I trust that the feedback from this process to inform their future editing immediately and will know they have skills to grow if they want to expand to new areas of adminship. Skynxnex (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support. The smooth running of an encyclopedia takes all sorts, so meager content creation and a tendency to be "by the book" don't warrant an oppose, in my opinion, especially given Pppery's obvious need for the tools and excellent grasp of our policies and guidelines. On the other hand, the temperament issues – what's been described here as "brusqueness" and an "abrasive tone" – are real and do trouble me somewhat, but the problem is bluntness rather than meanspiritedness, and I'm willing to AGF that he'll handle things with a lighter touch from here on out, as ADMINACCT and ADMINCOND will indeed require. If I'm wrong, well, ArbCom has shown in the last few years that it takes admin temperament very seriously. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support. I've taken a long time to consider this one and I cannot do my usual lighthearted comment about the nomination since there are doubts about the RfA. I think that the degree of risk is low and if there are problems the community can mannage them if they arrise. I understand the reasoning of the many editors who are opposing, but I agree more with those who think that admins do not need to be universal editors. MtBotany (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support, excellent technical work, could do more with admin buttons. I had a good impression from interactions in the past year, which showed a helpful and collegial attitude (much improved from some earlier contributions). —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support The project needs all sorts of skillsets. Pppery brings technical skills that are out of my wheelhouse (my eyes glazed over at question 23...). The noms affirm that Pppery having the tools will be useful to the project. I think he's done enough work with content to have an appreciation for its challenges. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support Net positive, response to edit summary issues shows willingness to change. Muchclag (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support full agreement with Extraordinary Writ with a particular seconding of the last part of their contribution: "ArbCom has shown in the last few years that it takes admin temperament very seriously." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support: Per Q7. I've seen people giving Oppose !votes because of it. He's saying for the area he intends to concentrate his admin-ing, it's not necessarily important, which is a valid and respectable answer. He is mostly involved in the technical aspects, which I would proffer is not the most exciting or desirable arena for admining (because most people think of AfDs and blocking ppl when they think of admins). All admins have their strengths and weaknesses. Support. Yes. Give him the tools so we have one more good admin who is working for US for FREE. We need more good admins. It's me... Sallicio! 05:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support strong record, active, net positive. Blythwood (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. I'm uncertain if I should be concerned or impressed by the unabashed answer to Q7. Either way, as long as the tools are not modular and there is a need for technical admins I'm inclined to support. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support per many glowing Q7 opposes. I am unconcerned with lack of content creation or a lack of value placed in it. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support, per User:Martinp. I respect the oppose !votes. He is not the model Wikipedian. However, I trust him try to always do what’s right, and all interactions I’ve had have been positive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support mostly per Nosebagbear. Have been thinking about this for a couple of days, and have reviewed many of the diffs given below by Floq and Ritchie. I'm not too concerned about lack of content creation, given that Pppery knows what he doesn't know. In terms of tone / temperament; I don't think imperfections in that regard are going to have too large an effect in the areas Pppery is planning to be active. Their communication style is to-the-point, which can come over as curt in written communication. I trust they take on board feedback here: the impact of coming across as curt will be larger due to the social capital of the mop. I'm encouraged by their response in Q27. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support The content creation isn't where I'd like, but the candidate doesn't seem like they're going to regularly cross into those areas and no existing issues have been brought up there that I find disqualifying. Mostly I'm swayed this way by some of the opposes. We do hope for understanding in discretion in enforcing Wikipedia's rules and regs, but the astounding bad judgment of (check notes) thinking Wikipedia doesn't need random vanity categories shows a basic level of understanding why we're supposed to be doing on Wikipedia that escapes many more veteran editors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support Like Tryptofish, I share somewhat ambivalent feelings about this candidate, but ultimately I feel they will be able to engage technical tasks less hindered with the tools than without and therefore will be a net positive. CV9933 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support - I've been thinking about this for a while, and ultimately I think Wikipedia will be improved by this user being an admin. In general, I have an instinct to support anyone who wants to volunteer their time to serve the project as an admin, so long as they know what they're doing and there are no issues which would make them unsuitable. As to the potential reasons to oppose: I am unconvinced by the arguments around content creation. Q7 seemed more badly phrased than an indication of a serious problem. Of course content creation is the reason we're here but that is not equivalent to saying that it is the only thing that matters. Wikipedia is now very complex and maintaining its behind-the-scenes parts is a vital task which not everyone has the skills to do. Pppery says he will stay away from areas he has less experience in and I trust him to do that. Pppery has learned the importance of edit summaries through this RfA and has committed to use them; I don't think this is a serious enough issue to oppose over. I have some concerns around temperament but, again, not enough to sway me away from support. Pppery certainly can take a brusque or abrupt tone at times - if this RfA is successful he could perhaps do to meditate on Barkeep49's comments around the implied social status of admins. However, I have been impressed by his Pppery's ability to keep his cool and engage productively with other editors throughout what I am sure has been a very long and stressful week. WJ94 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support I see no significant reason for them not to be an admin. Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. I do not find the opposes related to Q7 compelling: Pppery makes a very clear case for a need for the tools, it's not related to content-creation work, and that's completely fine with me. I agree with Floq about the vibe Pppery gives off (and Snow Rise summarizes the concern well in the first paragraph of Q27); the answer to Q21 is frustrating and shows a degree of cluelessness about what's going to happen to their interactions with other editors once they become an administrator. But the discussion the candidate points to in response to Q22 is reassuring in its low-drama approach. Ultimately, I think WP will be better off with Pppery as an admin than not. --JBL (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support Solid technical editor. Needs the tools. StaniStani 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support generally echoing the comments of Ivanvector, WJ94, and JBL. Moreover, I don't think that proposing this version of Magic: The Gathering rules for GA shows terrible judgment. I have never played Magic: The Gathering and only have the most general sense of what it's about, and the article is comprehensible to me. Perhaps the lede could be adjusted to make a few things more clear to people as unfamiliar as I am, or more so... but then again, surely the main Magic: The Gathering article is there for us? At the very least, it's not unreasonable to presume that someone reading the more specialized article already has a sense of the basics, e.g., that the game is not played with a standard 52-card deck. Yes, the page could stand improvement, but as far as editor conduct and judgment are concerned, I don't see a problem. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Weak support - Apparently good & useful on technical matters - I wouldn't know - but needs to take onboard the criticisms in the oppose votes. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support. I've waited to see the arguments develop, and ultimately I agree with those above who view Pppery's adminship as a net positive to Wikipedia.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support Not every admin needs to be cut from the same content creation cloth. If we're not going to unbundle the tools (which we should), we need to promote more technical editors. Vadder (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support A solid candidate. Opposing rationales are relatively minor and easily addressable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For those fixating on edit summary use, a clean slate in this regard hasn't been a reliable indicator of editing diligence in more than a decade. In most cases it likely means that the editor has enabled "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in "Preferences; Editing". A useful note for prospective admins to make. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support (moved from Neutral). I disagree with the notion that all good Wikipedia administrators must possess excellent English-language skills and be confident with content creation, sine qua non. Life says that it's not the case: we have excellent admins who do little in terms of content work. Just as it's not really required to have a tremendous air travel experience to be a good aircraft maintenance engineer, or to be a skilled driver to become a traffic manager. It is wrong, I believe, to mix up production and maintenance. While it's obvious that the nominee's focus won't be GA/FA work, I'm convinced that the project will still benefit much more from them having the tools than from not having. — kashmīrī TALK 22:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support A considerate editor who has good experience in the area where they intend to use the admin tools. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. I've carefully read all of the oppose !votes and none of them convinced me not to !vote for this candidate. Wikipedia is a very large, complex project with many layers to it. The top layer (articles) is the most publicly visible one and has the greatest immediate impact on meatspace, but it's supported by many other layers (the MediaWiki software, templates/modules, categories, behind-the-scenes maintenance processes, dispute resolution). Without the support of these layers, the entire structure collapses. Improving and maintaining the encyclopedia should be the ultimate goal of everyone who contributes to this project, but there are many ways to do so without adding prose to articles. Pppery editing protected pages, closing CfDs, and doing behind-the-scenes admin work would benefit the project. Sure, experience in content creation would be useful, but it's not absolutely necessary for the work he intends to do as an admin and we shouldn't reject him just because he lacks that experience. Trappist the monk barely squeaked by in their RfA because of similar concerns but (as far as I'm aware) they've been a productive and uncontroversial admin.
    Most of the other arguments from the oppose column seem to relate to edit summary usage and temperament/attitude concerns. My reading is that Pppery (like many of us) could've communicated more effectively in a few situations, but I don't see any incidents or behavioral patterns that are disqualifying. More edit summary use would be nice, but turning on the edit summary prompt alleviates that concern somewhat.
    I disagree very strongly with the premise that XfD !votes or nominations that aren't in line with consensus are a red flag. We need a diversity of opinions to keep this project healthy and functional, and writing someone off because they go against the grain sets a very dangerous precedent. As long as they're able to evaluate and respect consensus and make cogent and civil arguments to support their position it really isn't a problem. SamX [talk · contribs] 00:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support Different people have different interests and capabilities. This user's interests and strengths for contributing to Wikipedia are in areas in which having administrator tools would be useful. Wikipedia would benefit from this user having access to these tools. Stedil (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support - no doubt he could be trusted with the tools schetm (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support Like SandyGeorgia, below, I have been following this since practically its beginning. Since unlike other recent RFA candidates, I do not have direct experience with this nominee, I was not originally intending to !vote, expecting it to end, as most of those recent RFAs have, with the mop being conferred.

    But no, it turned into another one of those RFA dramas that we inevitably have every few months. The opposes racked up over Q7, and then I thought this was another one headed for withdrawal. But the supports held their own, enough that this will likely go to a 'crat chat (the RFA equivalent of extra time, or, more accurately, a shootout?)

    Many of the hallmarks of RFA drama are present. We have oppose !votes that focus on the one issue identified early on that do not elaborate further (I would, however, single out Sandy's lengthy and considered oppose as one that, had it been cast much earlier (though I understand why it took so long) could have really elevated this discussion. I would advise the closing 'crats to give it a serious read). And, equally predictably, the oppose !votes have generated supports that are more in the vein of "I oppose the opposes".

    When I am not familiar with a candidate, I tend to look for the names of users and fellow admins that I have known long and come to trust. There are some of those on both sides here, making good arguments as I would expect them to, but not as many as I usually see. I wonder if others are reading this and sitting it out as I had been expecting to do.

    I decided a few days ago I was going to !vote neutral, something I don't think I've done before in an RFA, on the grounds that while I didn't think the oppose reasons were compelling, I couldn't find a reason to support, either. In the former instance, I think the opposes are putting way too much weight on the nominee's minimal role in content creation. "He has no DYKs! No GAs!" they cry. "And certainly no FAs! How can we make him an admin?"

    Well, I think we should stop ourselves right there. Yes, I agree content work is an essential for an admin who will be (as I try to) out on the front lines reviewing and responding to reports of possible user misconduct. More times than I can count, my own experience (which grows all the time) has been invaluable in getting inside the head of a user who might be on the verge of getting blocked for what they believed with all their heart was good-faith editing and helping them realize what they were really trying to do, or how they might better do it.

    But Pppery has said he does not intend to be that admin (although I have some thoughts on that later). And I respect that choice.

    We need to ask ourselves, by treating community recognition as if it were a metric, indeed the only metric, of skill in that area, are we perhaps ultimately driving people away from the project, and (to return to the subject of this discussion) adminships? Newer editors who, as many newer editors do, see things like this and think, gee, I think I could be an admin one day, develop articles for GA or (worse) FA in order to get cred here, then nominate them ... only to be so shell-shocked by the comments and all the things they did wrong without even knowing about them that they just give up and leave.

    We need to understand that some editors are just going to be happiest, and best for the project, improving content without collecting green circles and gold stars ... and that work can be enough to qualify them for adminship. In the absence of recognized content to show off here (not saying nominees should't do that), we can certainly look at what a nominee has done in editing articles. It may be harder for some people, but them's the breaks.

    For that reason I decided that before !voting, I at least owed Pppery the courtesy of looking at an overview of his editing.

    Which I did. And I found the stats paint a different picture than that I find in the opposes.

    Instead of focusing on one or two articles (but I will later, because I have to), I first looked at his overall stats. And lo and behold, an editor whose opposes for RFA call content-impaired turns out to have made the greatest share of his edits, a third in total, to article namespace. In his first year article namespace edits were also his biggest share (beating out project namespace by a mere two edits, to be fair). He has always made at least 500 such edits in a year, and last that accounted for half his edits. He is on pace this year to devote an unquestioned majority of his edits to articles.

    Granted, if we look at edits to pages within the individual namespaces, we do see that quite a few pages outside article space get more of his attention. But, excepting edits to one's own user talk page (which will probably be the most edited page for most of us, anyway, or at least up there, guess where Pppery has made the most edits? The Help Desk! Oh my, spare Wikipedia from an admin who frequents the help desk! What is the world coming to? (And I think it is only fair then to ask some of the most determined opposers here how many edits they have made to HELPDESK ... before anyone asks me, I freely admit (to my regret) that my answer is going to be a big fat goose egg)

    Now let's turn to the individual articles Pppery has given the most attention to. As already noted, there is Magic: The Gathering rules, where some opposes weighed him in the balance and found him wanting.

    Well, again, guess what? By character count, he's the second-most active editor on the article (and the number one editor on it by that measure hasn't edited that article in six months). By total edits he's the top editor.

    We can also look at his actual edits to that article. I see an editor using edit summaries, adding, revising and moving significant amounts of content, adding sources, fixing his own mistakes, and in general showing mastery of content editing.

    Then we can look at Amphetamine, an FA (Maybe we should also consider in our RFA evaluations that an editor might work on articles that have already been recognized, and do a good job there, instead of seeking to improve articles to that point, as a measure of their fitness for adminship?). This article ranks second among Pppery's most favored in article space, and while these are largely technical and made over a few days a couple of years ago, I see nothing there that changes the impression I got from the edits to the MTG rules article.

    My total takeaway picture is of a user who knows his limitations in content work and stays within them. Wow. We have had so many edit who have been prolific content creators but then imploded, whether after getting the mop or not, and are now spoken of in hushed tones only. This might not be a bad idea to give the tools to an editor who seems 180 degrees away from that.

    And really, we do need admins who can handle the technical side. I recall years ago at a meetup, so many years ago that RFA was looser than it is now, hearing about "some Swedish guy" who'd been given the bit primarily because he was a whiz at writing template coding and that skill was badly needed in editing a lot of protected templates. Granted, for that we have the template-editor right now ...

    So instead of sitting on the fence and making a spectacle of my moral superiority for doing so, I have entered the arena and stand on what is still the majority side of the room. I have no illusions about this !vote tipping off a big cascade of late supports that will push this nomination back into the green, but before it ends I had to make my opinion known.

    Before leaving, however this turns out, I do advise Pppery that adminship is never so neat. It is inevitable that at some point after you get the tools you will be contacted from out of the blue by some user you've never heard of who urgently needs your help with another user on some page about something you never knew existed (and Murphy's Law says it will happen late at night, after you've just finished a very tiring and repetititious but very necesary task, either editorial, technical or administrative, and the red "1" will appear just as you're about to log off. Trust us on this.

    So at the very least you might want to do something like help clear out CAT:SD at least once a day if you can. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I do believe your entry is longer than mine (thanks for letting me out of that record :) and I enjoyed the read and your thought processes. But ... Just pointing out, again, that no one in this RFA (or most) is asking or saying that admins need to write FAs (although there was a time that was probably true); I don't know how that comes to be misstated in so many support votes in RFA after RFA, when best I can tell, no one in the oppose column has said that (maybe I missed it ?) One way to look at an editor's content work is ... by doing it just as you did! (We may disagree on whether amphetamine should be an FA,[1] but that's another story.) The "oppose the opposes" are not all reading the opposes :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just as (and I think you would agree) the "Oppose per Q7"'s seem to have just found that as the first oppose and not really looked into anything more.
    And yes, Sandy, thank you for your gracious followup. Would that we had more of this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support - find myself here, willing to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt over a badly worded answer. I seem to understand the point he were trying to make in their response and I trust the judgement of both nominators. The opposes have not convinced me enough relative to the supports. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 06:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support This has been a tough choice, especially seeing the salient opposes from editors I admire such as BMK. That leaves me with just the recollection of the only interaction I've had with Pppery recently, at a help page, where my request for finding data on a statistic was met instantaneously with the correct answer for which I was very much appreciative. I know that this one interaction pales in comparison to others who have had greater interactions, but perhaps I feel giving them the benefit of the doubt is what works here, in the hope that how they treat other editors as administrator will mirror the positive and helpful experience I received from them.  Spintendo  07:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support - I first saw this RfA when it was initially transcluded, and have been watching since then to make the most informed decision. Editors making both support and oppose rationales have, for the most part, made very good points and have given good rationales for why they have arrived at their position. While being an admin is WP:NOBIGDEAL, using the administrative tools is a responsibility, and as a community we try to make sure that we give the mop to editors that we feel can consistently handle that responsibility. I believe Pppery can. While it's true that content creation is essential to Wikipedia, the quality of life improvements brought by technical editors is nothing to dismiss either. Though I'm hardly the most prolific, my content creation would be much slower without Wikipedia:ProveIt, and the handling of anti-vandalism and administrative tasks wouldn't be anywhere near as easy without Wikipedia:Twinkle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, but it's important to remember that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which means we need editors focusing on the technical side too. It's true that administrators should have content experience, especially when they're dealing with content matters. But administrators should also have experience with templates when editing a complex protected template with a massive amount of transclusions across the project, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone oppose an RfA for not having enough experience editing templates just because administrators can edit them. I think Pppery should keep the concerns in this RfA in mind when acting in an administrative capacity, but the concerns don't rise to the level of moving me into the "Oppose" section. - Aoidh (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support - anybody that gets over 70% with the current RfA system is more than good enough. Also, I agree with Kashmiri and SamX. I think this might be my first RfA vote in 18 years of being a Wikipedian. Despite being an admin, I was never big on RfA work, just another part of people being interested in different things (I did lurk around sometimes, though). I believe that the personal standards that people seem to have for who is qualified to be an admin, is more representative of the voters' interests rather than the most critical requirements that an admin must possess. Note: I have not read any of the questions or comments on this RfA, except for the support votes from me to Kashmiri (half a dozen votes maybe). I am not attacking anyone here, just the horrific, masochistic spectacle that RfA has become.
    RfA has become overly strict and the harshness that comes with some, but far from all, oppose votes is just brutal. If someone does not make it on the first try, what chance is there that they will ever try again, especially if they are a sensitive person? I know that some people think that admins need a tough skin, but that is really for dealing with vandals and misbehaving editors, not from people who are supposed to be your colleagues in a collaborative project. How are you supposed to keep going on such a project where they will not even give you the proper tools to do a really effective job, especially with the safeguards that are in place? It is like being part of a framing carpentry crew for a year, but they will still not trust you with the nail gun.
    How many times have people just gone nuts and started banning people and deleting good articles out of nowhere? If you can trust someone to not be a jerk, to follow the rules, etc., then what else is there to be worried about? "Oh god, you know that guy we just promoted in the RfA? Yeah, what's the problem? I just found out that he has never worked on a featured article before! WtF! How did this not come up in his RfA? I don't know. Stop yelling at me. It's just that he works hard and everyone likes him because he is always friendly and engaging. Well, friendly does not get you promoted to admin, not while I'm around! Wait, what's that gun for? What do you think its for!? We've got to put him down before he can destroy us all!" I mean that is how we would have to react, right? It's not as if any single admin who witnesses a freak out can block the admin until things are sorted out. I mean, don't be ridiculous (actually, in the distant past, admins were able to unblock themselves because of a glitch). -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support trusted, an extra technical admin is always nice to have. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support An army is not only about the generals in the Chief of Staff or the soldiers fighting in the battlefield. Logistical support, procurement of weapons, manufacturing and servicing them, and other tasks that folks don't normally associate with wars are in fact essential for them. If we need an army of admins, we need a body where we have admins doing all sorts of work, not only blocking or sitting in AN/ANI/AE/whatever and attending to what mostly are stupid arguments. Content creating is important (actually sort of the main goal we have), but background activities are also essential and in my view, this candidate has proven that they are perfectly capable of performing them well. In particular, I am convinced by the answers in questions 10, 16 and 23. IMHO there weren't any stupid answers in other questions, and most were reasonable enough. I think that Pppery will do us a service in the equally important, if less visible, domain, so I am more than happy to !vote support. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support I think the editor will make a good admin with some help and some mentorship. I'm not convinced by the oppose side. Its seems to be almost a fundamentalist viewpoint which worries me, since Wikipedia is a very large and complex project and needs people of all capabilities in senior positions, yet the oppose position seems to posit that should you not be able to create content, a particularly complex task on its own that some people find impossible to do, then somehow the other skills you offer, that are eminently useful for the Wikipedia population in general and other editors and been proven to be so, are not longer countable and indeed seem to be drag on any chance of achieving success. Its seems to be a quite a strange and self-defeating viewpoint, particularly since WP needs admins of all shapes and sizes. The continual sniping of what would be considered normal in the normal world, to be replaced by entirely intransigent viewpoint, for me is unacceptable. scope_creepTalk 11:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support per A. B. Ollieisanerd (talkcontribs) 13:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. I think there's a good amount of diplomacy and self-awareness shown here. Plus a good need for the tools, and a well defined scope in which to use them. Pppery will do just fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. I too am impressed with how the candidate has handled this, for lack of a better word, gauntlet. Flaws and all. About these: temperament and edit summaries are issues of concern for me, but a recognition and willingness to improve, count for a lot. I don't think it's reasonable to wait a year to demonstrate those improvements. I see Pppery's requests at RfPP, mostly about templates and modules, often enough. I've also seen them act intemperately a couple of times, but not to the extent that would disqualify them in my eyes. At the end of the day, who of us couldn't benefit from being more respectful and considerate at times? I sure could. But I've always felt a quest for near-perfection in RfAs is to the project's detriment, which holds here.
    I'd also add that some of the rationales for opposing make me uneasy. When I became an admin in 2005, no big deal genuinely held. These days it doesn't, and I'm not saying it should, but I think we've gone too far at the BIG DEAL end of the spectrum. I don't really envision the candidate causing problems as an admin in areas they're unfamiliar with, like for example where FA/GA play an important role. I know very little about FA/GA, which I don't think has limited my admin work in, say, contentious topics (generally and per se.). I don't envision the candidate causing problems as an admin in those areas, either. Ultimately, I think one needs to extend good faith to someone at a certain scale of contributions, who has a clear need for the tools, and who hasn't fucked up in a major way. In that sense, I believe it should neither be no big deal, nor BIG DEAL, but just a... good deal. El_C 14:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support I've been watching this RFA without comment, but as it appears to be heading for a close decision and probably a 'crat chat I felt it was important to really form my own opinion and vote here. I have, do, and will continue to reject the argument that an admin should have GAs or FAs under their belt to prove they can create content. What is needed is the ability to understand that content is the most important thing here, and to act in the best intertest of the reader, the consumer of our content, at all times. Right behind that is obviously acting in the best interest of your fellow volunteers. You don't need to write a featured article to be able to comprehend how to do those things. It is a red flag for me if an admin does not consistently use edit summaries, but I feel that has been addressed and is not, as it sometimes is, an indication of a deeper issue. The deciding factor for me is how the candidate has handled this RFA, which has clearly been quite tough. Twenty eight questions answered, a lot of candidates for arbcom don't have to deal with that level of scrutiny, and fewer still do it as well as we've seen here. Some may have given up on themselves the instant they got this level of opposes, or may have descended into bickering with every opposer, but we've not seen that here. RFA is itself an important part of the screening process and I am more than convinced this candidate handled it well and will bring that resilience and clear, honest communication with them as an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support – This has not been easy, and I have been thinking of Support and thinking of Neutral. The content was never my concern. I do not think that administrators should be required to be content creators. They must be aware that article content is the purpose of the encyclopedia. However, we must also be aware of and must avoid the cult of the content creator. A long-running thread at WP:ANI was just closed with a civility warning to a content creator, in which several editors wondered why an experienced editor could get away with consistent rudeness and hostility. The reason is the cult of the content creator, which allows some content creators to ignore the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I do have concerns about Pppery's failure to use edit summaries. I also have concerns about an abrasive tone, but think that there is a difference between being abrasive and being uncivil. Maybe that is what User:Nosebagbear is saying. We are losing administrators over time because we are looking for perfect administrators. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. We need admins, and we need technical admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support - Per Robert McClenon and others. Wikipedia needs admins. Nothing here suggests they will be a bad admin, and there exist avenues for dealing with bad admins in any case. As above, don't let the best be the enemy of the good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support. I don't think the evidence in fact supports the picture of him as a rigid man of The Rules to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He has a clue, including as to self-awareness, as several answers, such as Q12 or my own Q28, show. Adumbrativus (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support - I think there is substantial constructive feedback in the support, oppose, and neutral sections that offers a lot to consider, including about expectations for communication, administrator conduct, and accountability; based on Pppery's responses to various questions, I am reassured this feedback will not be ignored. Also, based on my familiarity with AfD, I reviewed some of Pppery's recent AfD history, and from my view, Pppery demonstrates content awareness. And as an editor who is fairly content-focused, with much less understanding of the technical side, I am grateful for editors who use their technical skills to help maintain, develop, and organize the project, so I am inclined to support because of the specialized skillset and experience offered. I also note Pppery has two established admin supporting this RfA, is trusted with tools on other projects, and has been actively working to improve this project in clearly identifiable ways. Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support only two substantive issues I can see: (1) underusing edit summaries, which shouldn't be a problem in the future since he's been told here and has turned on automatic reminders; (2) lack of content creation, which shouldn't be a prerequisite for adminship anyway. Clear net positive. – Teratix 20:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support. Content creation is the core of Wikipedia, and all else revolves around our ability to produce high-quality and broad content for all mankind to freely use and re-use. Writing detailed and well-referenced articles is the most direct way for many users to achieve this goal, but it is not the only way to contribute towards our project's ultimate ends. Templates, which are re-used across many articles and can help to achieve consistent formatting and presentation of information to readers, are vital in the way that we present information to the public. The maintenance of complex templates takes technical skill and knowhow that not all editors have, and using one's technical skills to advance the project forward is noble. I understand the concerns related towards the user's relative lack of direct content creation, and if the user were saying that they would aggressively become involved in taking admin actions proceeding to article content disputes I would be somewhat concerned. But they're not doing, and the areas that they say they will take admin actions in is within their scope of expertise. I also understand the concerns with respect to edit summaries, and I think that the user will need to make an effort to communicate with others better—particularly when they are using the admin tools. That being said, I trust the user to only take admin actions within their area of competence and I trust that they will be more communicative when making admin actions than they have been when making edits.
    In light of the user's expertise and dedication to the project's core mission, as well as my trust in the user's willingness and ability to improve the template space through the use of the tools, I'm convinced that granting this user the tools will be a net positive to the project as a whole. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support—I trust that Pppery will not abuse or misuse the tools, and that's the most important criterion of all. I find the opposing points unconvincing. Kurtis (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support, honestly thought he was one already. —Locke Coletc 23:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support - As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, not much a fan of adding "me too" to these things. But I'll add my "me too", I guess, if it makes a difference. I already have stated why I support the candidate for adminship, but here's another. Before suggesting this, I went through the candidate's contribs. And yes, I saw various places where there was curtness, or a shown tone of "disapproval" (in their edit summaries, by the way : p) That said, I don't think any that I saw, rise to the level of incivility. I have seen far worse from more than a few very well-respected editors. But here's one in particular that I think is worth sharing. Check out this edit summary: [2] - "I'm disappointed that nobody has taken up this task when I took a break for 5 days - OK, I guess I'll do it" - I'll take that willingness to help out, every time. - jc37 01:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support I have no concerns. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 01:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support Been following this for a bit. I thought the answer to Q7 was honest and fair (and correct), and the answer to Q10 is a complete non-issue. Very non-convincing oppose section despite the amount of comments it offered. This is a no-brainer net-positive. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support--Pppery has a history of making useful contributions and I don't see a reason that they shouldn't be able to contribute with the admin toolset. While edit summaries are an issue, Pppery has taken concrete steps to remedy it by turning on reminders and using them much more consistently since 31 July. Whilst content creation is something that an ideal admin candidate should have (kinda per Beyond My Ken), I don't think that it should be required; partly because we should be looking for good-enough admins and not perfect admins and partly because Pppery has explictly said that they don't intend to block not-vandals (where I think content understanding becomes crucial). Technical minded / gnomish admin should be able to do admin things without content creation. Finally, while Pppery is too blunt at times I don't see it as something that should prevent them from getting the bit (again, good-enough not perfect). It isn't a more important civility/hotheadedness issue that is something very much not good in an admin. Less important: I would have made the redirects that SandyGeorgia referenced myself (that is, I see no issue) and I strongly think that having less expercienced nominators shouldn't be used as an indication of how serious someone is about adminship. The GAN doesn't bother me because it was Pppery's first 'go' for a GA; of course the article might not have been ready. Not having proficient knowledge of Arbcom is a plus for me because that means they haven't been dragged there nor been interested in reading the drama there (it also shows that they aren't interested in learning everything about dispute resolution, something that is shown in their disinterest in blocking non-vandals too. And that's OK whilst they aren't interested in doing admin things there. And I WP:AGF that they won't before they are solidly prepared). —Danre98(talk^contribs) 02:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support I hate RfA attitudes...especially those that imply you have to have perfect politeness prior to an RfA - but also being too polite mean you're gaming the RfA system. People are ridiculous. This candidate seems like a net positive. We need to stop throwing spears at candidates just so our questions appear edgy enough to earn us social points.--v/r - TP 03:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support. I think we need more admins, and I'm eager to support experienced candidates. I think that many of the oppose rationales are good—especially as regards use of edit summaries and the need to balance rule-following with user-supporting—and I'm encouraged to see where Pppery has already taken feedback to heart. I think Pppery's conduct in this challenging RfA is auspicious; he's been forthcoming, transparent, and helpful. His spirit of helpfulness and technical skill will be an asset to the admin corps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support. Content creation is crucial. Without content there would be no Wikipedia. However I do not think that Pppery gets in the way of content creation, quite the contrary. They invest a lot of time into Wikipedia, their contributions are valuable. They know how to use the tools, they understand WP:INVOLVED, there is no reason to expect any kind of abuse. --Count Count (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. I trust the user to excercise the good judgement expected in use of the tools and otherwise. Don't really have anything else to say. Alpha3031 (tc) 12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support because we really need more technically minded admins. There's no indication Pppery will do anything to land in the village stocks, I see someone with a great temperament and a skill set in short supply. Beeblebrox covered everything else I would have said, but I wanted to make sure to emphasize this too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support I see no concerns. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support I have carefully considered the points made in the opposes and have on balance come down on the side of Support. The project needs more admins, especially those technically minded, the candidate seems willing to address some of the concerns, to be of good temperament and judgement, and keen to help the project. Poltair (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose q7. Willbb234 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I'm uncomfortable with the Q7 answer, plus the weird reasons for not using edit summaries (which work, I suppose, as an 'ordinary' editor, but when you're an admin are just... bad practice). And Floq's neutral would be an oppose from me if I'd spotted the pattern myself. Sorry. — Trey Maturin 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. (edit conflict) Oppose - The answer to Q7 is a massive whiff. However, one whiffed question shouldn't be reason to oppose a candidate, so I dug deeper into Pppery's contributions, especially his self-identified (in Q8) best article, Magic: The Gathering rules. The primary concern with this article is whether it should even exist per WP:NOTHOWTO. Ignoring that, the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired with citations to places like "" or "". How are either of those reliable sources? In fact, the majority of this article might as well be cited to the official MTG rulebook, which it largely summarizes. A large number of other sources are simply various people's personal guides on to how to play MTG. These mostly appear to be opinion pieces, which are not strictly reliable sources (see WP:RSOPINION). I don't know if Comic Book Resources (CBR) is considered a reliable source. Ultimately, this oppose boils down to an apparent poor understanding of reliable sources. Like Floquenbeam, I invite Pppery to respond either here or on the talk page if he thinks I am incorrect—I often am! I will not feel badgered. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article has survived several AfDs. Also for the record: I did not add "" or "" - they were present in the article before my changes. For the rest, you kind of have a point, but I considered the inclusion of only details that can be found in secondary sources to establish due weight and prevent the article from becoming a trivia magnet as many articles on fiction are * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know you didn't add those two personally, but you did remove the "more sources needed" tag, which generally means that you went through the article and cited it to reliable sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That tag is clearly inappropriate for the article as it stands. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I largely share Floq's concerns below, which for me is essentially that you'll have supervoting on technical areas of the project that have a content impact since both templates and categories impact the reader. When combined what appears to be a lack of understanding of the central role of reader-facing content on this project and its importance as seen in the reply to question 7 and based on Reaper Eternal's response above, I don't feel comfortable granting access to the admin toolset. If it was just the items Floq raised or just the lack of content understanding, I'd probably sit it out. But combined it really isn't ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I consider significant content creation to be an extremely important qualification for becoming an admin. Typically, admins -- because they do so many other types of things necessary for the continuing survival of the project -- see a major drop-off in their content work once they get the mop. That's entirely understandable and I make no complaint about it, but it does mean that the admin had better know what it's like as a content creator before they become an admin, because they're not going to get a lot of that experience with it once they have the bit. For me, content creation is the essential aspect of Wikipedia, all other aspects have no meaning or make no sense unless there is an encyclopedia to administer and protect, and that encyclopedia came into existence because of content creators. Because of this, admins really must understand the needs of the content creator when they make the decisions that help to shape our community. For this reason -- lack of significant content creation -- and for this reason only, I oppose the nomination. I make no claims for or against any other aspects of the nominee's abilities or character. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: What are the needs of the content creator? wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: following up since I think you wanted me to answer my own question. See Wikipedia:Content awareness, not content creation. Occasionally a content creator may need help with moving a page, or making an edit on a protected page. Maybe they'd like a page they've been working on protected because they've become tired of reverting persistent vandalism. Or they'd like to make that persistent vandal get off their page, by blocking them. You doubt that Pppery would do things like that for you if you politely asked him to? Other common "needs" of creators, especially short-term creators such as those driven to us by the Education Program, are basic edits to their creations to make them conform to the manual of style. Boldface the title in the lead sentence. Make the section headings use sentence case rather than title case. Add a references section. Categorize the article. Remove draftspace-only templates. Etc, etc. I don't think one needs to be a particularly skilled editor to make these sorts of edits. wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for answering a question which I withdrew. I'll note that Wikipedia:Content awareness, not content creation, which you cited, is an essay, and one which primarily represents the viewpoint of a single editor, the creator, since the few other contributions to it have been technical ones. I don't see any reason therefore to take it as the sense of the community.
    As for your response, by the needs of content creators I did not at all mean the kind of simplistic problems needing the mechanical actions that you referred to, which could obviously be handled by any admin of any ability. I was talking about something much more amorphous and more difficult to define. It's the kind of thing that's hard to put into words, that you really need to experience to understand, which is why I like to see admins who have significant content creation experience.
    That's very vague, I know, but it's the best I can do. I guarantee you that the content creators reading this know exactly what I mean, even if they might have difficulty expressing it; who knows, maybe someone can better put into words what I'm talking about.
    In any case, that's the basis of my oppose vote, insufficient content creation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know exactly what you mean, so I'll have a go. The admin who lacks empathy or sympathy or shows actual antipathy towards content creators has become a trope. That it was felt necessary to create an essay on content awareness is one symptom of this. Too many of us have been on the receiving end not to regard it as a serious problem. Ironically, the possibility that an admin may vandalise the front page often comes up in RfA discussions, but admins uphold the right of vandals to attack the front page by refusing to protect it. wbm1058, I think you sum it up with the comment the admins should do things like that for you if you politely asked. The notion that content creators should be deferential and obsequious towards admins is wrong-headed. All editors should treat each other with collegiality and respect, but admins should perform these tasks not because they are asked politely, but because that is what the tools are given to them for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Refusing to protect the front page? C'mon, the main page is protected so that only users with administrative rights can make edits. And conflating "deferential and obsequious" with "polite"? These are radically different concepts. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Today's Featured Articles are not pre-emptively semi protected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The featured articles are not pre-emptively semi-protected; they also are not on the front page. The actual TFA template is protected by WP:CASCADE. As pre-emptive protection of articles is explicitly forbidden by policy it isn't admins who "uphold the right of vandals to attack the front page", it's the community as a whole. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Today's Featured Article is a section of the front page, and the policy of upholding the rights of vandals to attack it is not supported by content creators. Preemptive protection is not explicitly forbidden by the policy (and indeed is employed elsewhere on the front page, as you note), which reads: Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied solely for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism, disruption, or abuse is occurring by multiple users and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Q7 answer is concerning to me when taken in conjunction with Q1 answer. At the end of the day, this project is built on content, and I would hope those with the admin toolset understand that content creation is the foundational part of the project. If the main reason you want the admin toolset is to save yourself the time and hassle of dealing with other admins and asking for permission then I'm not sure it's really necessary for you to have the toolset. I commend your work thus far but I'm just not sure I see your need. IceBergYYC (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I get the note about content, which is why I asked Q12, but the answer there is satisfactory to me. I would just note that making Pppery an admin would also save other community members, including our deeply shortstaffed pool of technical admins, much time and hassle in approving his work, when his work is quite good and doesn't need that kind of checking. Overall, Pppery's "need for the tools" seems quite clear — more than most RfA candidates. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's all well and good, but Pppery says himself "I tend to dabble a bit everywhere, and will likely do the same as an admin." - so if this RfA passes and in a year's time we see a massive flame-war about an established FA writer getting blocked by Pppery for "civility", don't say I didn't warn you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ritchie333 - any particular users you might be referring to with that one? I'm probably overanalyzing your hypothetical scenario but I'm of the personal opinion that if somebody's insufferable to everyone they could have 10000 FAs and I'd still think they're a net negative to the project. casualdejekyll 16:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Q7 is certainly odd, at least in the first iteration of the answer; Q9 is concerning, as i don't think any of those reasons are good reasons not to use an edit summary to help fellow editors; Floq's issues are also problematic. All in all, cannot support. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 20:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose I rarely vote in RFA, but the answer to Q7 bothers me on two levels. One, a person who is a effective content creator on WP would have significant experience with the rules of WP. The fact that the candidate thinks that wouldn't be a good indicator is troubling. And two, even if it was just a lazy mistype, this is an RFA. If the candidate can't muster enough attention to answer questions properly for their RFA, what will they do when they have the ability to block and ban people? Angryapathy (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Answer to Q7 is less than satisfactory and just a lack of content work in general. I’d say it would be a good idea for this candidate to come back when they contribute significantly to a GA or a couple of DYKs or so. — Prodraxis {talkcontribs} (she/her) 21:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. In my opinion, edit summary usage is a good measure of whether someone is thinking about *any* editor on the project anyone can edit, or they're just thinking about themselves, or maybe their ideal collaborator. A bit like comments in code, for the programmers out there. If the defense of low edit summary usage boils down to "it's easier for me, and someone else can easily figure it out with extra work, so it's not really a problem", well, that's not very respectful of other people's time and energy, is it?
    Maybe this is just another way of saying that I agree with TonyBallioni and Floquenbeam and BMK's various concerns, in the sense that an attitude I would describe as "I understand things my way, so it's not my problem, it's your problem" seems to be driving objectionable behavior identified in different areas. Stepping on rakes in the answers to Q7 and Q9, answering Reaper Eternal's entirely legitimate concerns about content quality with "the article has survived several AfDs"... well, I just don't see a path toward support. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you give an example of an edit that Pppery has made where you believe it was a significant oversight not to have left an edit summary? --JBL (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My reasoning is based on the overall pattern of edit summary usage and what I think it indicates about an editor's stance toward other editors, in case that wasn't clear. If you want to have an argument about one specific edit summary, you'll have to argue with someone else, I'm afraid. (struck per talk page request, could definitely have been friendlier!) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On the programming analogy: not every line of code should be commented. Excessive comments are bad practice. Instead, wherever possible a commented line should be replaced with a more readable line of code that makes explanation redundant. The analogy to edit summaries is not a bad one. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Edit summaries are analogous to git commit messages, not comments. Andre🚐 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose based on the candidate's answers which feel rushed. I do not want an administrator rushing headlong before thinking things through (see Q7). My criteria is that an administrator must protect content and content creators before anything else. When someone likes to operate in deletion they need to have have a consistent and significant content creation record. Pppery has no good articles? Pppery has no DYKs? I think @Beyond My Ken: has summarized very succinctly. ...the admin had better know what it's like as a content creator before they become an admin Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose. I had a look at their recent engangement with an editor on their talk page. I believe their reasoning was sloppy. They used various short-hand arguments that are not valid. They were dismissive of the editor with whom they engaged,-not civil or collaborative. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I want to point out the sloppy reasoning provided was used to justify the deletion of a new article about a bonafide college with proper accreditions. See how they: gutted an article. This is a proper college attended by likely thousands of students, being told on dubious grounds they are not notable enough. I this speaks to their lack of content creation experience, if nothing else.Jagmanst (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth, Jagmanst, I have a lot of experience in content creation and I would also redirect that article in less than a heartbeat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    Why? It is a bonafide college covered in national media attended by thousands of students. If it was a college located in a western country I cant imagine it not having an article.Jagmanst (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't dig into each source in the diff you provided, but I see quite a few for which this school is mentioned in passing, as part of a list or because someone wrote a press release about something happening there. That's not quite the level of national media attention that is needed to establish significant coverage. While this candidate appears to have weaknesses, I wouldn't count this among them. Pppery did carefully review each of them against Wikipedia policy. ~TPW 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose per answer to Q7 and all the reasons set out in User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. My attention was first drawn to Pppery when I received an off-wiki complaint over their edit warring over a comment on Stanley Kubrick, and although this was a long time ago, nothing they've really done since has dissuaded me that they don't really have the diplomacy and tact for communication I expect in an admin. A quick look at their contributions shows them getting into an argument at User talk:Pppery#Why are you reverting despite necessary submissions?; while they might be right on the merits, clearly a more diplomatic tone should have been used as it's now ended with their opponent saying they will oppose them at this RfA. The brusque way they have dismissed lack of content creation experience and insufficient edit summaries doesn't help either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was an entirely different user, Jagmanst who came in after the fact to state they would be opposing this, not Anhop, the user who Pppery was having a disagreement with. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I chose to oppose this nomination after reading that discussion with Anhop, to which I added my comments. I found this statement particulalry bizarre: "I see no point in continuing this discussion, since it's clear we are working from incompatible principle sets and have no hope of convincing each other of out positions."
    I would prefer admins who believed in discussions. Jagmanst (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You seem very approachable and open to dialog... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No opinion yet on this candidacy, but I think this comment by Jagmanst warrants more pushback. A good faith reading of that quote does not lead me to conclude that the candidate does not believe in discussions in general. Rather, he saw that further discussion in that specific context would be fruitless and opted to avoid wasting further time. This is a valuable skill that many Wikipedians, myself often included, would do well to cultivate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree. I found myself in a similar situation a few weeks ago at Talk:Album era; in that case, since it was purely a content dispute where I quickly saw that there would be an impasse in discussion, I immediately went to WP:3O for a quick resolution. It is very possible to find that an individual discussion doesn't warrant the time or energy to continue it, while maintaining healthy discussions in general. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, you have correctly understood my intent there - I am willing to engage in discussions in general, but could tell that continuing that discussion would just be me and Anhop talking past each other. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What exactly in the dialogue led you to conclude further discussion would be useless. That they weren't persuaded by you terse assertions that Times of India, the world's most read English newspaper, nor The Economic Times, the world's second most read English business magazine, are unreliable? Jagmanst (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because when the response to being told that the one source has repeatedly been caught accepting payment for positive reporting, that the other is a subsidiary of the first, and that there's established consensus that both are unreliable for any but the blandest sort of facts (and the page being redirected was not; it was a naked advertisement, with exactly the sort of glowing advertorials in the sources I expected to see before I even clicked on them) is "You are casting aspersions on a renowned and reputed brand", there really isn't any point in further discussion. —Cryptic 00:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seems you have put a whole lot of words in that discussion that I can't see.Jagmanst (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ironic, given that you essentially just put words in the candidate's mouth. I would suggest that it's time for you to drop the matter. You've already had your say, even if you didn't put it to good use. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One does wonder why some of the defenders of this candidate are not exactly models of civility. Jagmanst (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was not uncivil and if you check below you'll see that I !voted oppose. Your comment seems to be an implied attack on the candidate, so you really have no room to talk about civility. As I said before, you would be wise to drop this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Let me start by saying that I think that Pppery is a productive good faith editor, and I hope that they will try again in a while, after addressing the concerns expressed here. I believe that content creation is one of several important factors to evaluate when deciding whether to support an RfA candidate. I personally consider it to be the most important factor in most cases, although I will not support a great content creator who is also a jerk. I do not require candidates to have been the main author of multiple GAs and FAs, but I do expect significant creation of new articles or at least substantial expansion of prose content on a significant number of articles. Transforming crappy stubs to informative start grade articles is both relatively easy to do, and important though underappreciated. I see none of that in the candidate's history. Gnoming is OK but writing solid encyclopedic prose is the most important thing here by far. Writing good content that sticks is the only way to develop a deep understanding of our policies and guidelines. I understand that the candidate intends to work mostly on things like templates, merges and categories. That is all useful "behind the scenes" work, but I feel confident in saying that very few readers come to Wikipedia to see which templates have been edited or which categories have been created or deleted. Our readers come for informatively written, neutral, well referenced encyclopedia articles. Also worth noting is that new administrators often get involved in areas they did not anticipate before they got the toolkit. The candidate states that they have little interest in blocking. I never anticipated doing a lot of blocking, but once I became an administrator, I developed an interest in dealing with spammers, undeclared paid editors, self-promoters and assorted trolls, and have blocked 8640 accounts in the five years since my RfA. I believe that has been of significant benefit to the encyclopedia. The candidate identifies Magic: The Gathering rules as their best content work. While it is true that the candidate has the most edits to that article with 80, it is also true that they are #6 in terms of added text, having written only 0.7% of the content. Their next most edited article is Polyglot (computing), where again they are #1 in edit count with 59, but do not rank in the top 10 editors in terms of added text. Their third most edited article is Amphetamine, where they are in neither the top ten in edits nor in added text. On the edit summary issue, Help: Edit summary says The Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to provide meaningful edit summaries. As an administrator, I have declined to block editors who do not provide edit summaries because they are not required by policy, but I am reluctant to support an candidate for administrator who has declined to consistently do things that the community strongly encourages. Similarly, in a hypothtical scenario, I would be reluctant to support a candidate who has made an effort to write an autobiography, even though that is only strongly discouraged rather than forbidden. I also have some concerns regarding temperament. Floquenbeam mentioned the CfD discussion about Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF, where the candidate wrote last year Every time I start a deletion discussion on a user category, it gets polluted with "let's randomly ignore established consensus" non-arguments like this. To me, that comes off as "I am consistently right and everyone who opposes me is consistently wrong" reasoning, and it rubs me the wrong way, even if it was not intended. My decision has been affected also by the opposing comments from TonyBallioni, Reaper Eternal, and Beyond My Ken. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Q7 and many of those above (and below, particularly Floq in 'neutral'). - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. as above, and fewer than 80 uploads ?! Gotta start with the basic work --Mateus2019 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uploads of what? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I seem to remember file uploads being cited at WP:RFANOPE, but it is not anymore. casualdejekyll 23:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. I wouldn't necessarily oppose for lack of content work alone but the combination of answers to Q1 and Q7 makes little sense to me - it's true that admins who focus on certain technical work don't necessarily need lots of content experience but protected edit requests is definitely not an example of such an area. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose per Cullen328 and also comments re Q4. Use of “both sides”-ism and describing such incidents as “silliness” fail as evidence of growth since that time. This user is not yet ready for prime time. Maybe later. Montanabw(talk) 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose with some regret per BYK, Cullen, Floq, and Ritchie Andre🚐 15:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Regretfully oppose due to lack of content creation background. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose: The deletion discussions linked throughout this section give enough examples to convince me that the candidate has a pattern of nominating borderline pages for deletion and then hounding those who oppose the nomination rationale. The most unpleasant part of XfD, and something that I believe pushes XfD outcomes to not reflect policy, is when editors react to disagreement at XfD by becoming combative and re-stating their case to every !voter. I worry that, if an editor regularly believes so strongly in their prior beliefs about a page's notability that they really dig in when someone disagrees with them, they will continue to rely primarily on their own reading of policy when they are tasked with judging consensus and closing those discussions. And, not for nothing, this also connects to the concern about a lack of content work. I think that those who have put in the sweat of building Wikipedia pages from scratch, and gone through the enormous pains of digging up hard-to-find sources that establish the notability of the page subject, are more likely to see ways of salvaging a page about a notable subject. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Per Tony, filelakeshoe. I don't care about edit summaries, and ordinarily I wouldn't put much importance on content work for RfA either, but it is quite...strange, for lack of a better word, when a candidate declares that it isn't important for the things that they want to do when they explicitly name several content-focused admin tasks among said things. ansh.666 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose mostly per Tony and Cullen's excellent observations. Just not confident about this one at this time. Intothatdarkness 23:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Regretfully. Content creation is in my view an important aspect. For editors who are active in highly technical areas, and this applies here, I can look past this requirement. What tips the scales for me, though, is an underlying attitude of brusqueness and self-centredness. This demonstrates itself in the original way Q7 was answered, the attitude towards edit summaries (Depending on how the RfA goes I may consider turning it on. as per User talk:Pppery#Hey you), and the CfD items posted by Floq. As an admin, it's super-important to be both helpful and transparent, and I'm afraid those underlying attitudes could get in the way. Schwede66 02:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose – content creation is not hard. Find a topic that interests you, or you know a lot about, spend a focused hour or two, and you can make massive improvements. I don't think I've ever seen someone with this little content creation at RFA. Really people, not even one GA? Maybe a few solid B-class articles? It's hard to explain how little this is to ask. Frankly, Magic: The Gathering rules, is not particularly impressive or poor, but its sole existence makes me question the editor's dedication to the sole purpose of Wikipedia: being an encyclopedia. We don't have high expectations for content creation, we just have bare minimum standards, and I can't say that this editor has achieved that. Aza24 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You... were not around for my RfA, then. The entirety of my significant content contributions were expanding two fairly unremarkable articles and creating a start class article about a Thai village (they're listed at my RfA if you care exactly what articles I'm taking about). And while I didn't say it there, at that time and to this day I actively avoid DYK/GA/FA because I find it entirely meaningless. It's the same reason I never read CliffNotes or similar, I want to read and analyze text myself instead of viewing it through the preconceived ideas from some self-appointed Judge Of What Is Good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your RfA from 14 years ago? Yeah, I wasn't around then, and as we both know there was practically no scrutiny for the process then. You're desperately missing my point and frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say DYK/GA/FA is the only way to content creation ("Maybe a few solid B-class articles"). Not sure what you're trying to prove, I would have opposed your nomination as well. Aza24 (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    RfA had plenty of scrutiny in 2011. And the point is that I've been an admin for 11+ years with my background, and seem to be getting on with it just fine. Though I'm familiar with the arguments for content creation and adminship, I've never (for example) drawn upon my research into Ainu culture when making a username block or reviewing an AE request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nice cherrypicked example. This is an encyclopedia. If you are the admin for an encyclopedia, you should have some substantial experience writing in the encyclopedia. It is just not much to ask at all... to the point where it may even be too lenient of an expectation. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I took on my biggest article project a year after becoming an admin, becoming an administrator doesn't preclude gaining experience in article writing. Both before and after becoming an admin I found the two to be largely divergent tasks; since I'm accused of cherrypicking, about the only time I ever found them interacting was dealing with privacy issues that are more closely related to oversighter tasks (for obvious reasons I'm not linking to them, if I could think of an example I'd be able to link to I would). That's just my experience, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was here 14 years ago, and I can assure you that there was a lot of scrutiny back then as well. RfA hasn't been easy to pass since at least 2008. Kurtis (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose I don't usually bother opposing RfAs where the candidate doesn't have what I would consider enough content creation, if that is the only reason I'd oppose. However, on top of the lack of content creation, I get the impression that the candidate doesn't consider content the central purpose of this project, which is a big red flag for me. Add to that their answer to Q21 and the documented issues by Cullen and Floq at deletion discussions have pushed me into actually opposing. Barkeep's reason for their neutral !vote is persuasive also. A minor issue is the flippant approach to edit summaries - edit summaries are not for the editor leaving them, they are for all the other editors, so as not to waste THEIR time in having to figure out if an edit is good or bad. Admins should model good behavior even when they are not doing admin activities, and thus they should even do little things like edit summaries and think of those things as important because they are part of the collaborative environment in the project. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Sorry to end up here, but I was tipped from neutral due to the persuasive arguments of Schwede, Aza and Ealdgyth. Content creation is the core of the project, but I would be willing to overlook this if not for my concerns over attitude (as identified by those above and below). I sincerely thank Pppery for their technical efforts, but I cannot support at this time. Schminnte (talk contribs) 18:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Although I find Pppery to be a competent editor (especially in requested moves), but I'm concerned about his hyper focus around the maintenance areas of the project, and I'm worried that his inexperience around content will cause a lack of empathy towards creators. I find Cullen's !vote to be quite compelling on this matter. Just because an article has survived several AfDs does not mean that it is actually "good" content that readers can use. I also find Pppery's comment throwing the blame on others for the article's poor sourcing to be not the kind of attitude we need for an administrator. We need someone who is willing to examine their mistakes and attempt to correct them, not just leave it for someone else to fix. I also believe that Pppery does not consider content to be the central focus of the project, which I think is a huge issue that will take time to become old news. I cannot support. The Night Watch (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose: please work on content more, using edit summaries. Ann Teak (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. The lack of understanding of the general standards of admin conduct coupled the attitude that enforcing the rules is more important than content puts me here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose I was troubled by the content and tone of several of the answers by Pppery (eg, "silliness" in Q3; "obviously not" in Q7) but didn't want to place too much weight on possibly isolated acts of subpar communication. However, a perusal of their talkpage shows several instances where, perhaps due to limited content experience, Pppery is arguing that they were technically justified to make an edit while missing the big picture. See for example, this exchange in which Pppery spent considerable effort tablulating the number of edits by editors involved in a slow edit-war, while missing the point that the version Pppery was reverting to was not supported by the cited source (see pp. 27, 61) even after Freetrashbox pointed that out explicitly. Sorry, but despite Pppery's skills in other areas and indisputable good faith, this fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia's content and sourcing policies is a deal breaker for me. Abecedare (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose, after a lot of thought, and regretfully, this is a very strong oppose for me. I started here by posting some thoughts in Neutral, but now I know what I think. I had a feeling when the RfA opened that I remembered something negative, but I wasn't sure what it was, and I didn't want to make an unfounded criticism. I said that I was concerned that editors who are focused on The Rules can make bad admins. I also said that I thought that Cullen328's oppose resonated with me; I'll add now that I think CaptainEek's support is a good example of what I would see as reasons to support. I took interest in Barkeep49's reasons for posting in Neutral, and they make me feel uncomfortable, too. But as I re-read various comments in this discussion, I realized that I had overlooked Floq's link to this: [3]. That was the thing I was remembering. And for me, it is an absolute disqualifier. As I said, admins need to have nuanced judgment, and not simply want to enforce The Rules. I co-wrote WP:MALVOLIO out of similar concerns. The attitude that the candidate shows in that CfD discussion, as well as in some of the others that Floq linked to, doesn't just reflect a difference in opinion from mine. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the consensus that existed in the community at that time. The claim that there was a consensus against facetious user categories was counter-factual, and that's not the kind of understanding that admins need to have. And there's also something rigid and lacking in human understanding about it. Take this along with the relative lack of interest in serious content work and the somewhat off-key comments about how admins should act when not doing admin tasks, and I'm seeing someone whom I cannot trust with the permissions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't a reply to anyone, but it just occurred to me to link to something I posted elsewhere today: [4]. I do this out of understanding that some editors might take issue with equating humor with what I call having empathy. It should be clear from that diff of mine that I'm no apologist for joking around at the expense of the serious project of writing an encyclopedia. But it takes judgement to see the difference between when something does or does not get in the way of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since we're getting near the late stages where some editors come back to reaffirm earlier comments, I thought I'd stop by to say a few things. On the plus side, I want to endorse what editors supporting the RfA have pointed out about the candidate behaving honorably in replies during the course of the RfA. I think it's right to acknowledge that, even though it doesn't change my position. I'll also observe that numerous support comments say that they expect the candidate to be good at correcting the inevitable mistakes that everyone makes. I believe that I refuted that by example. Editors have said that they disagree with me, but I've been looking for editors to actually present evidence, examples, and at this point, I don't think anyone has, so I don't think that my argument has really been refuted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The thing is, it happens a lot. Anyone who has been around AN/I has seen case where an admin has done someting, said "oops", "I'm sorry", or "I didn't know, thanks for the head's up", and life goes on. I've even seen admins bring themselves to AN/I for community review of an action. So I disagree with what you are saying. That said, I'm not going to add diffs to support this, as I don't think that's fair to those who have, to call them out in this forum. So you can accept my assertion or not at your discretion. - jc37 19:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Tryptofish, I don't agree with your argument that this shows an issue with Pppery, but putting that aside, I fail to see how giving one example serves as absolute evidence that Pppery can never correct their mistakes, or indeed that it is uncommon for Pppery to correct mistakes (that they are not good at correcting the inevitable mistakes that everyone makes).
    The one example I am referring to is the one you link in your !vote; if there are more I've missed, I apologise for my confusion. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At this point, I think we're all talking to the Crats, moreso than to one another. And of course it's fine if the two of you disagree with me. But I backed up what I said with a link to an actual discussion, and pointed out a pattern across the discussions that Floq linked to, so it wasn't a one-off. Indeed, it does happen all the time that admins as a group note and accept that they made mistakes, and that's exactly the way that things should happen. If the candidate has many times done so, then it should be easy to find and link to examples of that. I find it noteworthy that no one has. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tryptofish, funnily enough, I didn't have to look far. Note their amendment to their answer to question 7, and their further comment on that in their answer to question 12. Seems clear enough to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For anyone unwilling to scroll up: First off, I was clearly wrong in the initial (now struck) version of Q7 when I said "Obviously not" - it's not at all obvious, and I should have known that.— Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! Those comments are, of course, on this RfA page, and I just noted that the candidate has been very gracious throughout the RfA. Anthing pre-RfA, over time? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not going to go digging through contributions right now, bit I might have a look later. (Actually, in writing this it strikes me that this RfA will close soon, but oh well.) — Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've looked over the CfD discussions, and I don't think Pppery is pedantically just following the rules. Their rationales seem reasonable, not just following the rules for the rules' sake.
    I also feel like calling Pppery's "claim" counter-factual ("incorrect" ?) gives the impression it is patently wrong, but to me it seems a reasonable reading of WP:USERCATNO (not to rehash those CfDs here). — Qwerfjkltalk 06:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the reply, but I disagree with you very strongly. In a sense, he wasn't just following the rules, because he got the rules wrong. But he specifically cited the rules as as the reason for his position. I can accept that his position was "reasonable" to the extent that it is shared by some other members of the community. But it showed a profound lack of human understanding, of empathy, and that's a big part of where it diverges from what I need to see in an administrator. (We've had a history of admins who have ended up desysopped over that, and frankly, you can see an example of what I mean in that same CfD.) You say you don't want to rehash that CfD (and the others that Floq linked to, because they do amount to a pattern, rather than a one-off), but your comment necessitates that I point you back to what I said there. I reviewed the history of community discussions on the topic, and distinguished between red-linked and blue-linked categories. And the closing consensus found that I was correct. And yet the candidate didn't adjust his position when his misreading of consensus at the time was pointed out. He doubled down. Whatever else one wants from an admin, we should absolutely expect that admins will generally understand existing consensuses correctly, and will correct their mistakes when a mistake is pointed out to them. I see that numerous editors who support this RfA have said that they think the candidate is someone who will make things right after making a mistake. It seems to me that I have documented that this might not be something we can depend on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tryptofish, I don't believe it is in any way clear that Pppery misread the rules. I'm fact, it seems to me that the whole CfD dispute was about whether the rules should be aplied (namely WP:USERCATNO versus WP:IAR). I'm not quite sure what exactly you're referring to by it showed a profound lack of human understanding, of empathy, perhaps you could point to specific comments? As I understand it, Pppery was frustrated with those who created categories like these, a view that they were not alone in. I would say that calling Pppery unempathetic is excessive.
    Finally, I find the latter part of your comment mystifying. You seem to feel that it is wrong that Pppery was not swayed by your arguments and maintained (doubled down) on their position. Are you seriously suggesting this nomination had only one "right" outcome, that the arguments of those opposed were invalid? And that we should always !vote the way a discussion is closed? I'm afraid I must absolutely reject that. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think this is getting into the area of "if you've got to ask, you'll never know". If you think that this was about IAR, then you do not understand what I wrote back then. And of course it's OK to !vote in the minority in a discussion. But that's clearly not what I'm saying. We disagree, and at this point, we should leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tryptofish, I find it vaguely insulting that you've essentially described my whole arguments as "you don't understand, and in fact cannot understand" . Perhaps that's not how you intended, but that's how I read it. that's clearly not what I'm saying - call me obtuse if you want, but it's not at all clear to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Noted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose: I’ll start off by saying, Pppery’s time and efforts as part of the NPP are appreciated, especially when it comes to work by first time editors. But, I can't shake off this concerning edit I came across (changed lynching > hanging & no mention of why in the edit summary). Paired with their scarce use of edit summaries and low content creation, this leads me to question whether the rest of their edits follow a similar pattern of reducing and being careless with language? This kind of thing comes down to representation of fact and is incredibly significant to the community and what we’re trying to represent. There isn’t a clear answer of why they did what they did, but it would be nice to know Pppery’s thoughts, and whether this is the kind of behavior they’ll employ/support as admin if granted these rights by the community? Bflx 11 (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've read the diff incorrectly - the change from "lynching" to "hanging" was done in the edits before mine. This is what I actually did. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's an easy mistake to make when doing a diff of multiple edits. This: [5] is the edit that changed that word (and others), and it wasn't Pppery. - jc37 00:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that yall. I retract my oppose. My sincere apologies Pppery for this uncomfortable oversight, clearly messed up when reading the diff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflx 11 (talkcontribs)
  34. Oppose, rigid thinking regarding "the rules" and lack of content creation are red flags to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Oppose with regret at this time, largely per Tryptofish above, whose observations track with my own impressions upon having encountered the candidate's work from time to time in project space. I would add to the thoughtful comments above that it's not just that rigidity in applying The Rules is bad, but that it's incompatible with any sort of deep understanding of how rules work on Wikipedia. Which I think is reflected in a number of the specific interactions that have been raised above. When a shallow reading of the rules combines with rigidity in their application, the results are seldom good for the project. In addition to doing some more content work (easy or not), I would suggest that the candidate take some time to meditate on the Fifth Pillar and particularly the rule from which all rules flow. -- Visviva (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Regrettably per responses, content creation, and discussion above. ResonantDistortion 08:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Strong oppose per Cullen328. SpaceEconomist192 10:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would think that such a "strong" opinion would have more to it than just "per X". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney: Some people can feel strongly about something already described by someone else. –MJLTalk 16:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose. Admins are not expected to be perfect. However, they are held to a very high standard of civility and particularly self-reflection. Admins make mistakes, and that‘s fine, but they’re expected to handle both that general reality and specific instances of controversy and complaints constructively. It‘s essential that admins are receptive to (well-intended) feedback, even and especially when that feedback is critical of their actions. Admins should be models of behavior on this. Per Cullen‘s and Floq‘s arguments, and seeing the general issues of temperament and attitude that have been pointed out, I don‘t think this candidate meets these expectations. It‘s a very high threshold of self-reflection and maturity, and for me, that aspect of this candidacy is more pertinent than (supposed) lack of content experience or depth of technical ability. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose - Not ready. Too soon. Looks like this editor wants the tools for their own convenience, and is not interested in the project as a whole. Answer to my question #18 about Conflict Resolution and ArbCom. A bit alarming that an admin candidate doesn't know what ArbCom does, or how it functions. Pppery's noticeboard/Incidents show he has only participated 16 times since 2016. In general, his replies indicate he wants the tools to do his own thing, not necessarily to interact with other users. Prepared or not, admins end up being pinged and dragged into situations. Admins are asked for help on any number of areas, and they shouldn't flip off any ping because it's not their chosen area. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Maile66: Not ready is one thing but too soon feels a bit absurd for an editor with over 57,000 edits and 7 years of experience who has contributed to numerous areas of our project in meaningful ways. The basis of your oppose seems to be why I'm unable to support so I'm on a similar wavelength there but this too soon wording strikes me as insulting more than anything. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So? It's too soon if he hasn't ventured his editing into areas where a question like mine doesn't seem to be one he understood. Whatever. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So I think we can oppose candidates (again I think you and I have very similar concerns) without saying something that if I were the candidate would feel like insulting rather than a constructive criticism/analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Barkeep49, no insult was intended. If someone said that about me, I think I would not be insulted. What really concerns me about this nomination, is the nominee seems to just want the tools for his own work, not to help the project as a whole. Their statement, "The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing." I'm not even sure what that means. But I thinking participating at WP:ANI can shed enlightenment on admin work. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing, as I see it, means to know and accept one own strengths and weaknesses, and implies that one would avoid rushing into matters when one does not know what one is doing. Whether it is the single most important attribute of a good admin is open to debate, but it certainly is an extremely important attribute, and those who do not have it are far more likely to end up at arbitration, and lose the bit. Also, to want the tools to help with one's own work on Wikipedia seems entirely reasonable to me, and anything one uses them for becomes one's own work by virtue of the being the one doing it. As long as that work helps build the encyclopedia that is fine with me. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose, too many red flags, starting with Q7 and Q9. Nsk92 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Oppose: I was torn between an oppose vote and a neutral vote but ultimately landed here. Ppery does not meet three of my five criteria which, while not a dealbreaker, is not ideal. I am troubled, however, by their answer to Q21 and the general tension between wanting to work in content-related areas while hand-waving away a lack of significant content creation experience. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Oppose: I don't think the candidate should become an administrator. To a large part, this is down to their attitude to content creation. I'm generally reluctant to support candidates who don't have high-level content experience, but I also disagree with Pppery's answers to Question 7. They say perhaps content creation provides experience that would be helpful in closing AfDs, or in blocking people, or in some other areas of adminship. But creating good encyclopaedic content is fundamentally what we're here to do. And while there are other important tasks (including maintenance), understanding that sysops are only there to facilitate this central task is a requirement for passing RfA in my view. (WP:WRITE summarises this excellently.) The cavalier attitude to edit summaries (another basic requirement) and their answer to Question 21 don't sit right with the justifiably higher behaviour standards required of admins. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Oppose due to both the lack of content creation, and their answer to Q7 which compounded it. I find it hard to believe that at some point in their administrative work they would not have to deal with issues related to content, and I don't believe they have the necessary experience. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose. Too many concerns expressed by experienced editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose - not an easy decision, but basically too focussed on rules, not clued up enough about content. The edit summary thing is an added irritant. Ingratis (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose - Reading through the discussions so far, I think that there's both pros and cons to Pppery becoming an admin, but overall unfortunately I think the cons outweigh the good side. The answers to the questions just don't convince me that the candidate will use the admin tools in a mature and useful way. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Oppose - There are various issues in which I feel that the candidate is not ready for the mop. Even though edit summaries are "not required", per se, they at least should be entered as a "courtesy" to other editors. The answers to some of the questions leads me to believe that the candidate does not have a basic understanding of the admin role, again based on the answers given.   ArcAngel   (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. I think Pppery is a great editor overall given their technical competence and enthusiasm. However when it comes to adminship I'm not sure if they are a right fit as they are overly bureaucratic about the minutiae of process but willing to skip the non-policy-mandated niceties such as notifying affected users of a discussion (RM/XFD). Also, the "obviously not" initial response on Q7 doesn't help the case. Appreciation of content creation is important for admins for all admins to have, and I say that not being much of a content creator myself. – SD0001 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose I am likewise unconvinced. This editor blanked and redirected a somewhat well-referenced page last month citing an AfD whose premise is based on WP:NOT, yet his answer to Q2 ironically falls under WP:NOT (and that's his example of "significant content improvement" in his own words). In this scenario, Pppery used an AfD of another article to justify the blanking and redirection of a different article. Looking at Jagmanst's comment above, it reveals a pattern of questionable interpretation of WP:NOT to redirect articles. An admin should be able to "walk the walk and talk the talk", not "do as I say, not as I do". OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose. I've been mulling over this, and I regret that I have to come down on the Oppose side. It's not one big thing, but an accumulation of issues including those raised by BMK, Cullen, Ritchie, Ealdgyth. Generally, an over-literal/technical interpretation of rules was never the way the project was intended, and it's not the best way to help content creators. And I am getting that vibe here. (As an aside, I don't see a problem with the "Obviously not" phrase itself - it is indeed obvious that Pppery didn't see their low level of content work as a barrier to running for admin). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Oppose I am concerned with some of the answers to the questions provided, specifically Q3 and Q7. In response to Q3 Ppery said "When I get stressed out over something or other, I tend to take a wikibreak for a few days, which happens fairly regularly. This pattern will probably continue as an admin." I think this is a great idea for anybody who gets stressed and needs to take a quick break. But, the fact that they have admitted this happens regularly and will continue to happen with short days-long breaks seems to me that they are not quite prepared or ready for the stress of being an admin. In regards to Q7, while the technical aspects of being an admin are important, that should not be the only reason to wanting to be an admin as it is also important for an admin to also have experience in the content creation side of this website. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JayJay: In regards to Q3, that entirely feels unfair. Being an admin is not that stressful in itself, and a person taking a few days to recover from onwiki stress is exactly what is expected of people to prevent burnout. Would you rather someone stay active when they're stressed out and prone to make mistakes? That's very much counter-productive in my view.
    As long as Ppperry stays within WP:ADMINACCT, then there should be no issues with that statement within Q3 (which is why no one else has brought up that part of Q3). –MJLTalk 16:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you somewhat miss the point. The problem is not in the nom's solution to wikistress, which is very reasonable, the problem is in his admission that it happens "fairly regularly" that he becomes stressed. I would say that a large percentage of Wikipedians have experienced stress connected to editing here, but to have it happen on a regular basis is -- it seems to me -- somewhat unusual. Regularly getting stressed-out increases the possibility that at some point he won't take the stress break that would be called for, and would then take admin actions which are inappropriate and based on emotion and not rational consideration, because influenced by his stressful state. I am also concerned in a general way, about confirming as an admin an editor who admits to being regularly stressed. Stress comes about because of conflict, and being regularly involved in editorial conflict indicates, I think, something amiss about their method of editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know any human beings who don't get stressed out regularly. Neither do you. This is a new one for WP:RFANOPE. Levivich (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't. Irregularly, maybe, at long intervals, but definitely not regularly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're lying to yourself. Everybody gets stressed out, just like everyone feels happy, sad, angry, jealous, and all the other human emotions. We all feel all emotions regularly, like daily or almost daily. I don't know how often ppp gets stressed enough to take a short break, but the idea that "regularly gets stressed" is anything other than "being human" is ridiculous. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm lying to myself? Oh, that's good for me to know, please accept an abundance of gratitude for putting me straight ;-) (For the record, I don't hold the "stressed regularly" thing against Pppery - I quite like the honesty, in fact, and it's good to see he has plans to manage it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I too feel quite uncomfortable with this line of reasoning. To me, it's good if people recognise they are stressed, and take action to mitigate this, rather than not noticing when they are stressed. More in general, saying that people who may be more prone to stress should not be admin feels like it excludes people with some mental health issues.
    There are quite a few things onwiki that can bring about stress that aren't involvement in editorial conflicts: I often get second hand stress for other people engaging in conflict, or get can stressed from not engaging in disagreement when a tough discussion would be beneficial, or from being asked to do things I shouldn't because of time (and then doing them anyway, because things can't stay wrong on the internet). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I mention below, my interpretation is that this is more a stress management issue. The problem isn’t that stress happens; it‘s natural and to be expected. But good management strategies are important for being an accountable admin. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My two cents: I‘ve occasionally gotten somewhat stressed due to a variety of reasons, but it even helps to just write content instead of participating in stressful areas. Wikibreaks, while sometimes necessary, aren‘t the only way to deal with wikistress. I think good stress management is essential for admins, because they do need to comply with higher standards of both civility and availability than other editors. It‘s legitimate to take regular wikibreaks, but it shouldn‘t be an admin‘s only remedy for stress. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd feel very uncomfortable dictating how people have to deal with stress. Even admins are still WP:VOLUNTEERS, and if they deal best with stress by taking a break, they should be free to do see every time, assuming they are responsive where needed per WP:ADMINACCT. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: It feels odd to be told I missed JayJay's point by someone other than JayJay.
    I wasn't intending on making this a whole thing... –MJLTalk 22:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In an open discussion, why would it feel odd for me to comment that I thought you had missed another editor's point? If JayJay had strongy disagreed with my analysis, there was nothing stopping them from taking me to task for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just going to leave this here. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With all due respect, this is just insulting to Pppery. People are free to edit whenever they want and to take breaks whenever they want. Pppery isn't our slave. If he wants to take a month-long break after this RFA passes, he is free to do so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With all due respect, a number of commenters here should read what what was written a little more closely and with a larger amount of AGF, because the misinterpretations are significant. Beyond My Ken (talk)
    I think that is good advice for all parties, about what has been written by all parties, not least of which, the candidate's edits... - jc37 00:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was not my intent to insult Ppepery, but Beyond My Ken has it right. I don't have issue with the fact that they take wikibreaks from dealing with stress, or even may even be prone to stress. It's the fact that they have admitted that they take breaks on a regular basis, and expect it to continue if they become an admin. I don't expect admins to be on 24/7 and never take breaks, that's unreasonable. Being an admin has lots of different responsibilities, and sometimes that means having to deal with various continuous issues and conflicts which is going to cause stress no matter what. The fact that they are already frequently stressed and have to take breaks regularly I think should at least raise questions about why it happens so often. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in thinking this is a terrible reason to oppose. I'd much rather than administrator who takes off six days out of seven than an administrator who tries to "walk it off." ~TPW 14:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. I've seen a lot of good work from Pppery, and I'm not too worried about the relative lack of content creation, but I share many of the other concerns which have already been expressed saliently by Tryptofish, Cullen, Barkeep, OhanaUnited, and others. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Oppose per Guerillero and Abecedare. Candidate needs more experience with content creation and alter their attitude towards content. This can be remedied but will take time. starship.paint (exalt) 02:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Oppose for the reasons about content creation, edit summaries and most of all, the concerns raised by Cullen. Also agree that the lack of edit summaries, while it may seem small, is actually saying to the community that you don't want to tell us what you're doing. Edit summaries are highly encouraged for just that reason. A potential admin should want to have a record of engaging with the community, and making it easier for others to understand the edits. In addition to Cullen, I agree with Floq, Ealdgyth, and Schwede. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Oppose their answer to Q7 is quite concerning,also having no successful DYK, and GA nominations [6][7] serves as a testimony to this. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Oppose GAs and DYKs are vastly overrated both in general and as a criterion for evaluating one's fitness for adminship, but the concerns raised by Tryptofish and others cause me to land here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Oppose Expectation is that an Admin will help to reduce problems in the long term. I see no benefit here given their views on content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Oppose per Q7 Shadow4dark (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Oppose I share the concerns by Schwede, Ealdgyth and Cullen. I see and value the candidate's contributions on the more technical side but, even beyond just the lack of content creation, there are just a few too many issues/concerns, leading me to this oppose. Felida97 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Oppose. I've thought of this for awhile, and it seems that there are just too many issues relating to this candidate for them to be an admin. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Oppose. This one is tough; I recognize that we need admins with technical experience, and I appreciate Pppery's contributions.
    I've followed this RFA from the beginning, hoping something would emerge to change my initial impression, but that has not happened. Pppery seems to be a good faith editor who could return to RFA in a year with smooth sailing if all of the concerns raised were addressed, but there are too many different concerns about diverse aspects of Wikipedia editing at this point to convince me that Pppery is ready just yet for the tools. I've not opposed technical candidates in the past when they demonstrated clear proficiency in much needed areas (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji), or whose technical contributions dramatically aided content or who had written content themselves (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Novem Linguae).
    As I also laid out at #General comments, the cavalier approach to Q7 is a concern, but Q2 concerns me more. Bringing forward an example of your best work in an article which you've already been told is not in good shape leaves me scratching my head. Is it that you don't understand good content at all, or that you didn't take either GAN or RFA seriously enough? When I add to that some less-than-well-thought-out initial responses to questions, I am left wondering if you will interact similarly in different situations of more significance if you have the tools. Admins need to calm, not inflame, so all of your responses and actions need to be carefully contemplated. The "don't understand the question" responses to questions that even I understand add to the level of discomfort this RFA leaves me with.
    Some of the concerns raised by others about how the candidate enforces rules resonate with the only time I have encountered your editing. I have to preface this by admitting I'm dismal at AFD, and it's possible that your action was ultimately the correct one, but I would not have the chutzpah to unilaterally overturn not one, but two AFDs, while also ignoring considerable concerns raised at FAR. I was left further confused when your response to my query left the ball in my park to take it to RfD. Maybe you should have taken it to deletion review first instead ? The reasoning here gives me concern that you might be inclined towards super-voting if given the tools; the gist of many of the opposes is that you may give too much weight to your own opinions at the expense of understanding core parts of the project.
    Along with Ealdgyth, I'm concerned that any editor could rack up so many edits without using edit summaries. Policy or not, every time an editor makes an edit without an edit summary, it increases the watchlist load on other editors. This adds to the other concerns about lack of engagement and understanding of core issues. I appreciate that Pppery has said they will use them going forward, but how did they get so far in without recognizing such a basic thing; this seems to be another indication of failing to fully engage what the rest of us do on the project.
    To the arguments in Supports that Pppery knows what they know and doesn't intend to admin outside of those areas, we've heard those promises before, admin opinions carry more weight in many discussions (even if they shouldn't), and ultimately all edits and actions contribute in one way or another to what our readers see in content: I'm concerned that Pppery doesn't know what they don't know until they engage the project more broadly. Together with the lack of understanding of content creation, there is potential here to adversely affect those who build content, as I've seen with other similar candidates where those fears were realized after they were given the tools (no, I won't name them).
    One of the (tangential) things that might have made my decision easier is a clear case for just what technical skills Pppery has, with concrete examples, in a well-written nomination statement. That wasn't provided (and several questioners tried to get at it). Pppery acknowledged on July 19 that lack of content creation was an issue, and yet accepted an RFA nomination from two editors who similarly have negligible content creation, and little RFA experience, which indicates to me that RFA wasn't taken seriously enough and an experienced RFA nominator (hello, Barkeep) was in order for a difficult RFA. In fact, the nomination statements spent considerable space saying nothing or talking about the nominators themselves ("For my second-ever RFA nomination, and first since 2016, I present Pppery, who coincidentally registered their account just a couple days before I started that April 2016 nomination." and "I told him he was ready for this back in September 2021." and "I'll second what Wbm1058 said above. And I'll also add that in my view, the editor clearly meets my criteria for adminship.") These lack concrete examples to convince those of us who don't know Pppery, and also added trivia to the nominating statements ("Gerda thought he was Precious after only four months of editing!" -- when is that not true, asks my watchlist.) Yes, anyone can successfully nominate at RFA, and a top-notch candidate can even nominate themselves, but if you know you have issues going in, you need experience on board. That the candidate may not understand that is another concern about how broadly they engage and understand the project overall.
    I'm concerned about what comes off looking like a similar (cavalier?) attitude with "let's see how this goes" when bringing forward a significantly substandard article at GAN (as I covered at #General comments); these sorts of things, along with the lack of understanding of how ARBCOM works (Q 18) add up to me having a lack of confidence that Pppery is engaged enough outside of technical areas to be using the mop. All-in-all, I think some things were done wrong with this RFA, those raise too many combined concerns, and a re-launch sometime down the road, with better preparation, might yield a better outcome. Should Pppery's RFA fail, I'd be willing to provide a content review should they re-approach GAN with an article mostly written by them, and I hope they will be encouraged then to re-approach RFA with more experienced nominators who can write a solid nomination statement explaining the candidate's strengths to non-technical editors. Ultimately, if this RFA fails, I don't believe it's due mostly to the lack of content creation, rather a flawed approach to RFA that could extend to how the candidate will use the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At the end of the day, RFA is about a question of trust. Which would be why I said what I did, and presumably why you said what you did. I have been active at RFA a long time. You and I have both contributed to WT:RFA discussions over the years. I tend to not contribute edits much to RFA these days, as I've never really seen the point of a pile-on "me too". Besides all that, there have been innumerable RFAs which had what one might call "celebrity nominators" which have failed. And there are no links anyone could provide to counter FA regulars who often oppose on content-related grounds. YMMV, of course. - jc37 16:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see that "And there are no links anyone could provide to counter FA regulars who often oppose on content-related grounds" is either accurate generally, or an accurate reflection of this RFA; there are plenty of ways to address such opposes, and there are few FA regulars among the Opposes, with plenty of FA regulars in the Support column on this RFA. Please follow up on talk here if you want to pursue this further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't say "all" or "always". So please don't attempt to paint it that way. I merely was responding to your directed comments. And as I noted, you're of course welcome to your opinion. - jc37 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think most of this comment is quite valuable and helpful, but directly criticizing the candidate for accepting a nomination from supposedly inexperienced nominators really bowls me over some. Frankly, it does not particularly worry me [t]hat the candidate may not understand the art of successful RFA politicking. Shells-shells (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]