Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spicy

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 (256/1/2); closed as successful by ϢereSpielChequers at 10:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Spicy (talk · contribs) – Hi, I'm Spicy and I'm nominating myself for adminship. Some of you may be familiar with me from my work at SPI, where I have been a sockpuppet investigations clerk since May 2022. Although I haven't been able to dedicate as much time to it as I'd like lately, I enjoy writing articles, and I contribute at NPP and AFC from time to time. I’m also a member of the Volunteer Response Team with access to the info-en queue. I’m applying for the mop because I think I could help out with certain admin tasks, particularly at SPI.

Disclosures: I have never edited for pay. I have a doppelganger account for my old username, SpicyMiIkBoy, and I used another account over 15 years ago, when I was a young child. That account has been disclosed to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 11:17, 1 April 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: Recently, some editors whom I respect have suggested that I should become an administrator. I've also had a few people mistake me for one. I was skeptical of the idea at first, but I've come to believe that the tools would be helpful for my work. The most obvious use case is at SPI, where the toolset would allow me to block sockpuppet accounts and carry out history merges on my own. The ability to view deleted content would also be useful for investigating suspected cases of sockpuppetry. Additionally, during my normal browsing I occasionally come across situations that require admin attention, such as BLP violations needing revision deletion, vandalism-only accounts, copyvios, and other such unpleasant things. I think that having the admin tools would allow me to better serve the community by being able to address disruption as it occurs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A few years ago I brought the article Complete blood count through GAN and FAC. It was a long journey, with a lot of help from others along the way, but I hope that I succeeded in explaining a topic that plays a part in many people's lives but whose intricacies are not widely understood. I've also written two GAs, White blood cell differential and Blood culture, and helped save Chagas disease from WP:FAR alongside the lovely Ajpolino and SandyGeorgia. Outside of mainspace, I'm one of the more active clerks at SPI and I like to think that my contributions help a perpetually backlogged process function a little more smoothly. While the obvious purpose of SPI is to get sockpuppets blocked, I'm also proud of the cases in which I've prevented innocent users from being falsely blocked (it's fairly common, for example, for WikiEd students and editathon participants to be mistaken for socks).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I treat Wikipedia as a hobby and try to stay away from situations that are likely to cause stress. I don’t spend a lot of time commenting on drama boards, for instance. That said, in the course of my editing I have had instances where someone has disagreed with my actions or I've strongly disagreed with someone else's. In such situations I think it's best to clearly state one's case, leave room for others to give input and if one finds oneself getting too frustrated, disengage for the moment and come back when you have a clearer head. Bludgeoning the conversation or getting dragged into an acrimonious dispute is unlikely to lead to anything productive. It's important, I think, not to take oneself too seriously.

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 LindsayH
4. Which d'you think is the most important of the pillars & why?
A: I'd have to go with the first pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". It's a statement that's so simple that it seems trivial, and in the strict sense its meaning is obvious: it's not a place to upload your resume, blog about your life, write fanfiction, et cetera. However, in a broader sense I believe that this is the concept that most of our other policies and community norms depend on. This site's goal is to serve as a repository of accepted knowledge, and our core content policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR naturally flow from there. The purpose of our behavioural policies is to foster an environment where this goal can be achieved. It's easy, especially when working in behind-the-scenes areas such as SPI, to get caught up in technicalities and lose sight of what we're really here for, which is to serve our readers. I think it's important, especially in administrative matters, to keep in mind that we're not just playing a MMORPG but maintaining the world's largest online encyclopedia.
Optional question from Lightoil
5. Do you foresee yourself using the tools in other areas such as WP:RFPP, WP:XFD and WP:AIV?
A: While those aren't the areas I plan to focus on, I tend to dabble in various different parts of the project and I could see myself helping out there from time to time.
Non-optional question from Nosebagbear
6. Should I protect this RfA to prevent you from withdrawing, given the clear wellspring of support?
A: That would be unfair to the voters. You should just block me instead.
Annoyed question from RoySmith
7. Looking through your contribution history, I see edits such as this one, which are clearly inaccurate and detrimental to the project. Can you explain what you were thinking?
A: I don't know. It was probably April Fools' Day.
Optional question from Illusion Flame
8. As you are very active in SPI, after becoming an administrator, would you apply to become a checkuser? Why or why not?
A: It's not something that I'm considering at this time. It's only recently that I've felt experienced enough to consider adminship, and I think applying for a functionary position soon afterwards would be premature. I could see myself applying in a few years if I'm still active at SPI, however.
Question from Harry Mitchell
9. Where do you fall on the Scoville scale?
A: Somewhere between mayonnaise and black pepper.
Optional question from Rschen7754
10. The recently added WP:NPPCON says, in part, the new page reviewer right gives you the technical ability to mark pages "reviewed"; it does not give you any special decision-making powers over new articles. Is this something that you agree with?
A: I would agree with that. I've casually followed some of the recent discussions about NPP and I think a lot of the conflict in that area arises from disagreements between those who believe that NPP should be a rough filter to get rid of obviously inappropriate articles and those who believe it should be the primary arbiter of notability. My own position is somewhere in the middle, but leaning slightly towards the former. No single reviewer is going to have the expertise to fully evaluate all of the topics found in the NPP queue, and I think that in borderline cases where there are no additional policy concerns (e.g. BLPs - a questionably notable BLP can be a liability) it's fair to simply mark something as reviewed and let the community at large handle the notability issue if needed. There is no deadline, and trying to deal with every potential issue single-handedly is a recipe for burnout. Regarding the social aspect, I think it's inevitable that if you give someone a special title - no matter what it is - some people will see that as a signifier of authority. NPPers should be aware of this and try not to give the impression that their actions are beyond challenge. The NPP actions that tend to be controversial - deletion nominations and draftification - can be done by any autoconfirmed user, anyway.
Question from Shushugah
11. In case this is an April fools joke, would you agree that being handed the mop is a suitable punishment for trolling us? Your spicy response is welcome.
A: I think that's a little harsh, honestly.
Question from Shushugah
12. Looking at your impressive stats and repeated decline to run, would you say other editors should exercise same caution for as long as you have, or would you encourage them to run for RfA earlier?
A: I'm not sure the stats are all that important. I personally didn't feel ready for a long time, but I've seen others pass easily with less time served. I can't speak to what might work for someone else.
Optional question from Folly Mox
13. Given your recent experience, can you share any insight into how the project can best handle LLM fiction?
A. I've skimmed some of the discussion about LLMs on the Village Pump, and I'm not convinced that we need specific rules pertaining to AI-generated content. Content generated by LLMs generally violates existing policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:HOAX, and the issues raised in the ANI thread were effectively dealt with on those grounds. We may need to revisit this in the future as the technology progresses, but for now I don't think AI-generated nonsense needs to be treated any differently than human-generated nonsense. If there is an important difference, it's one of scale - AI can generate nonsense faster than humans can write or read it. That's an issue for a community that depends on volunteer labour, but ultimately I think all we can do is stay vigilant and check sources carefully (which we should be doing at NPP anyway).
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
14. Do you have any desire to eventually use the checkuser tools yourself in the course of SPI, or do you simply wish to remain an SPI clerk with access to the administrative toolset when you pass RfA?
A: As I mentioned above, I don't plan to apply for CU any time soon, but I might consider it at some point in the future.
Optional question from The person who loves reading
15. Have you ever done a silly thing or screwed up?
A: We all do. I've been wrong at SPI a few times - one instance that sticks with me is this: there were two accounts with very similar names (think something like "JDoe" and "JohnQDoe"; I don't want to single them out by posting the actual usernames here). They were doing some stuff that wasn't an appropriate use of multiple accounts, such as having one account move the other account's article to draftspace during an AfD. I posted on the accounts' talk page and asked whether they were operated by the same person, but after several days, they didn't answer. So, thinking that the use of multiple accounts was inappropriate but not being sure (given the obviousness of the usernames) if it was deliberate socking or just someone being unaware of the rules, I suggested that "JDoe" be blocked but "JohnQDoe" be allowed to keep editing from that account.
Well, "JDoe" posted an unblock request, and it turned out that "John Doe" and "JDoe" weren't socks, but in fact a father helping his son, who happened to have the same initials, edit Wikipedia. This wasn't just a WP:LITTLEBROTHER excuse, as they posted verifiable evidence that this was the case. I felt quite bad about this and it was an important reminder that you never really know who's behind the keyboard. So, I commented on one of the accounts' talk pages explaining the rationale for the mistaken block and offering advice to the two editors on how to disclose the connection between their accounts and avoid giving the impression of improper collaboration. They were unblocked. Everyone makes mistakes, and the more active you are, the more likely you are to make one, statistically speaking. When it happens, I think the best thing you can do is own up to it and try to make it right.
16. How do you learn from your mistake (if you have one)?
A: I analyze the situation to try to understand why it happened and how I can avoid it in the future. For example, if I come across another situation like the one described above, I will keep in mind the possibility that they're relatives rather than the same person and frame some of my questioning and actions in that way.
Optional question from Dr vulpes
17. Can you think of a time where you could have been more kind during an interaction on or off wiki?
A: One of the pieces of advice I was given during my SPI clerk training was that as a clerk you have to be careful about how you say things, because it's perceived (rightfully or not) as a position of authority and justifying one's actions too forcefully can give people the impression of basically being berated by a judge. I have a tendency to pre-emptively explain my reasoning and I think that it can sometimes come off this way; I've received feedback from others, for example here, that I seem a bit 'cold' or curt at SPI. It's not my intention to be rude or to flex my fictional Internet authority, but I realize that it can be taken that way, so it's something that I've been working on. SPI is backlogged at the best of times and there's a temptation to treat it like an assembly line, but I strive to always keep in mind that there's a person behind the keyboard.
Optional question from Vamsi20
18. Do you plan to apply for oversight permissions after you get the mop?
A: That's not something I'm planning on at this time.
Optional question from SoloKnowHow83
19. Do you agree that Wikipedia has a systemic western biasedness problem ?
A: It's clear that the majority of editors on the English Wikipedia are from Western nations (see for example [1] - that graph isn't perfect as it's only based on IP editors, but that seems like a reasonable enough proxy for registered users). That naturally has an influence on Wikipedia's content - without even getting into questions of deliberate bias, where one lives and what language(s) one speaks affects the sources one can access and, in some cases, the viewpoints of those sources. If a subject has, for instance, been covered in Hindi-language newspapers that have not been digitized, I'm not going to have any chance of finding those sources as an Anglophone from Canada, and I might well conclude that the topic isn't notable. I've spent some time in the past looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Canada to get ideas for new articles, and the difference that a language barrier makes is evident there: a disproportionate number of notable Canadian women without articles on enwiki are from Quebec. And Canada is a wealthy Western nation where many primarily Anglophone citizens also speak French - it's staggering to think about the effect that these sorts of issues have on topics from other countries.
Under-coverage of non-Western (and Western non-Anglophone) subjects is indeed a problem for an encyclopedia that strives to "contain information on all branches of knowledge". However, I don't think the blame lies with individual editors who are simply writing about things they are familiar with. It's a multifactorial issue that begins at the stage of editor recruitment and to some extent is unavoidable (people whose first language is not English are less likely to be inclined to edit an English-language encyclopedia). Wikipedia, like any source, has its biases and we as editors ought to be aware of that. I do think some progress has been made on this front - we seem to have many more editors from Africa and the Indian subcontinent than I remember there being when I first started editing.
Optional question from BusterD
20. In view of the reaction to your self-nomination on April 1, how do you feel about Wikipedia's currently accepted level of intentional disruption on April Fool's Day?
A: In case anyone is confused, I'd like to clarify that while I was aware of the date, this is a serious nomination. As for April Fools' Day on Wikipedia, I'm not a huge fan of it - I'm not sure I've ever seen a prank that was actually funny, unless you count some of the DYK and FA choices (I had a chuckle at seeing Boring Lava Field on the main page yesterday). I think the rules at Wikipedia:Rules for Fools - to keep jokes out of mainspace and reader-facing project pages, mark jokes as such, and avoid jokes that might be offensive - are reasonable. Of course, they're not always followed, and people tend to overdo the pranks that are allowed to an extent that can be irritating (sorry, but it's not funny to nominate Jimbo Wales for deletion for the 12th time). It's unfortunate that this creates more work for admins, and I wish people would use a bit more discretion, but I think some disruption is inevitable - a lot of the people who go overboard on April Fools' seem to be young editors who may not yet have the common sense to understand what's funny and what's just kind of annoying. I wouldn't support a blanket ban on April Fools' jokes, but I think it's fair to treat ones that violate the expectations at WP:Rules for Fools as vandalism.
Optional question from EchidnaLives
21. If you could change one thing about the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what would you change?
A: I'm not the biggest fan of WP:NPROF being independent of WP:GNG, at least when it comes to BLPs. I understand why this is the case: I once wanted to create an article on an academic (James O. Westgard, creator of the main quality control scheme used in medical laboratories). Westgard certainly satisfies criterion 1 of NPROF based on his citation counts. However, when I began searching for references I was surprised to find a dearth of independent sources about him. The argument in favor of NPROF would be that someone like Westgard is clearly notable, but newspapers would rather write about pop stars and sportspeople than academics, so we should loosen our concept of what counts as "independent sourcing" for people like him. I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument. However, I think part of the importance of independent sourcing is not just to prove that a subject is noteworthy but to ensure that there is enough coverage to keep the article accurate and up-to-date over time. This is a serious concern with BLPs.
For example, I recall an issue from a while ago with an academic's article. The article stated that they were married, citing, IIRC, the introduction to a book chapter they wrote some years ago. That's an adequate source for that uncontroversial claim. However, the subject had apparently divorced recently. They tried to remove the information about the marriage, but they were reverted because it was sourced. Most sources don't report on the dating lives of academics, so they couldn't cite another source to prove that they were divorced. I don't know if that was ever resolved. That said, I understand that my personal opinion on NPROF is not in line with community consensus as it stands. When I review articles at NPP, I review them in accordance with NPROF, and if I were to close an AfD or evaluate a PROD nomination on an academic's article I would do the same. The role of an administrator is to enact consensus, not to unilaterally enforce their idea of what Wikipedia should be.
Optional question from NinjaRobotPirate
22. When should an IP address/range be blocked indefinitely? When should an IP address/range be hard blocked?
A: As many IPs are dynamic or shared and IP disruption tends to be relatively short-lived, it's almost never appropriate for an IP to be blocked indefinitely. If I get the mop, I don't think I'll ever make an indefinite IP block - the only reason why I say almost never is because there are some niche cases where such blocks have stood for many years. Looking at User:ST47/indef-blocked_ips, most of the recent blocks on that page seem to be mistakes. However, there are some proxy blocks and school blocks that have been active for 15+ years. In those cases it makes some sense as the IPs are unlikely to be reassigned in the near future. There's also an indefinite oversight block of an editor on a static IP - in that case the tradeoff between the potential issues with indeffing an IP and the continued posting of oversightable content seems reasonable. However, as a general rule IPs should not be indefinitely blocked.
It's typically unwise to hardblock an IP without consulting with a CU first, as non-CUs are unable to assess for collateral damage affecting logged-in users. I have very occasionally requested IP hardblocks at SPI (I think I've done it two or three times) but only in cases where a) the IP/range had been hardblocked by a checkuser in the recent past and b) it is a single IPv4 address or an IPv6 /64 range. Outside of these strict criteria, I think there is too much risk of collateral for non-CU admins to make IP hardblocks. The exception is open proxies which are typically hardblocked per WP:NOP.
Optional question from Paradise Chronicle
23.You already have my support but since you seem to be a prominent figure at SPI and I do not understand something, I'll give it a try. Blocks are here to prevent disruption but I have seen accounts being blocked for sock-puppetry indef. and without a warning even though they were editing constructively and receiving official community recognitions like GAs or similar. Then what would be your approach to a report on an account that was editing constructively?~~
A: I tend to lean towards the lenient side for first offenses when the editor isn't engaging in other problematic behaviour, such as spamming, harassment, etc. If a generally OK editor makes the silly decision to sock, I think it's better to block them for a few days and hope they learn their lesson than to indef them, at which point they'll probably either quit or keep socking. When you are talking about accounts created in evasion of an indefinite block, things get a little more complicated.
The sockpuppet account might not have a talk page filled with warnings, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't continuing the issues that led to the original block. Some problems, such as copyvio from offline or foreign-language sources, source-text integrity issues and subtle POV pushing, can go undetected for years, and there are a number of users who have made good contributions in some areas, often including GAs or FAs, but who have long-term issues that eventually exhausted the community's patience and led to a block. Knowingly allowing someone who is evading a block to continue editing amounts to overturning the original block, which isn't something to be taken lightly. There may be occasional cases for granting blocked users amnesty (I've seen it a few times, mostly with users who got blocked for childish vandalism but then matured and made useful contributions), but I don't think that should be an individual clerk's decision to make - it should at least involve a dialogue with the original blocking admin. On another note, I think that if someone has genuinely changed their ways and is avoiding whatever got them blocked in the first place, they aren't likely to be noticed and reported to SPI. I don't say that to encourage sockpuppetry... just to acknowledge that no one is omniscient.
Optional question from Rotideypoc41352
24. What are some of the most rewarding parts of working on medical FAs?
A: As with working on any article, I think the biggest reward is knowing that you're making information more easily accessible to the world. I'm not sure whether or not the article has the FA topicon is all that important: you can write articles to a high standard without going through the FA process. I actually removed the GA and FA icons from my userpage a while ago because I feel like there is sometimes an undue focus on getting shiny topicons versus improving articles for the sake of it. One benefit of FAC is that it solicits input from a broader selection of community members than DYK or GA reviews, which are usually just the opinion of one person. My experience at FAC included reviewers with specific expertise in the topic as well as those who had no prior knowledge of it, and I think that the input from both of those groups was valuable in making the article both comprehensive and accessible to a wide audience.
Optional question from Illusion Flame
25. When this RFA passes, under which terms, if any, would you be open for recall?
A: I plan to be open to recall, but I haven't formalized my criteria yet - that's something I'll consider if and when I pass RfA.


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

  1. Hehe, I get the first support on this RfA… but Spicy is not a joke, and is one of our very best and fairest editors! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 11:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support. Shows a grounding of knowledge in a tricky area, a need for the tools, a steady mindset and looks unlikely to go off the rails (on present evidence, at least!) - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Spicy has all the qualities to make a fine admin. Spicy's contributions show someone with the breadth of experience and knowledge we should expect from an admin and his presence in wiki discussions shows someone with a level head who is able to find and build consensus and reduce drama. I doubted Spicy would ever run and am so glad to see this. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Good content creation, clearly excellent at areas I don't understand, and is respected by editors I respect. What's not to like? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Spicy! Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Easy super-support from me. DanCherek (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Thank you for volunteering! Great content, lot of backend cleanup activity and excellent temperament. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose how long it took to run... they'd better accept the mop if they pass. GeneralNotability (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Trey Maturin 12:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Net Positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Very happy to see this happening after all! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Another "Wait they aren't an admin?" nomination. Net positive, and I have no qualms that they can be trusted with the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Of the SPI clerks, I think I disagree with the candidate the most frequently. However, his record at SPI has been one of competence, which matters far more than agreement with myself. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support All indicators positive - easy support. KylieTastic (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. I have had the pleasure of working closely with Spicy at SPI, and they have my full support; they are clueful, measured, intelligent, pleasant to work with and – perhaps most importantly – they are willing to ask for help, and willing to take feedback. My only criticisms are that 1) this took so long and 2) I didn't get to nom. CUOS2023 next, please and thank you. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. I was beginning to think this would never happen - but am very glad to be proven wrong. Blablubbs said it better than I could above, I endorse all their points. firefly ( t · c ) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. From the few times I have reported at SPI, I remember Spicy being helpful in the cases they were clerking. I see no reason to not give them more tools to help with the already good work they are doing! Schminnte (talk contribs) 12:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Absoulutely. Panini! 🥪 12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support per Blabubbs; glad to see this finally happening. Remagoxer (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support based upon past interactions and present review, this user would make an excellent admin. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Finally! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Yeah Spicy! Positive user; I've seen them around, mostly at SPI. They'll make a great admin. -- Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Per AirshipJungleman29, especially the second point, and mine own research. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 13:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Banks Irk (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support because someone who was a young child 15 years ago is clearly a spring chicken, and we defo need more spring chickens here. (I'd cite an official policy to back that up, but I forget where I saw it. My memory isn't what it was...) Seriously though, have come across Spicy on the odd occasion at SPI and AFC, and only ever had good experiences with them; no reason to think that would be any different if they get trusted with a mop. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support - I thought you already were an admin. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. High time you ran. Salvio giuliano 14:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Definitely admin material. GenQuest "scribble" 14:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support -- one of our finest editors. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 14:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support - I can only echo what others have already said about this being a long time coming. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. I've checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions, and I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support: trusted in the community, skilled, has written excellent content, and is doing great work in a not particularly pleasant area of the site (SPI). I'm not aware of any temperament issues: Spicy appears to be able to strike the correct balance between polite and firm when writing to new editors or editors falling below our expectations. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Spicy's work at SPI is exemplary and he demonstrates both policy knowledge and common sense (not everyone has both) in his editing. Having access to a wider range of tools will only expand the ways he can help improve the project.-- Ponyobons mots 15:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support. What a good idea. Thank you for volunteering. — Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support. Clear positive. Dekimasuよ! 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support. Overdue! Thanks for all you do here Spicy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. Absolutely! S0091 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support! a!rado🦈 (CT) 15:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. SupportMdsShakil (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support. I have been hoping to see this nomination for months now, and I am elated to see that Spicy would like to take up the mop. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. I dislike hyperbole, and I'm mindful of the calendar, so I want to be clear that it is a sincere, well-considered statement when I say that Spicy is the user on Wikipedia most qualified to be an admin. His work at SPI—including being one of the only people in the SPI ecosystem who can speak authoritatively on dynamics involving high-level content creation—has shown a level of clue without precedent and a commitment to navigating difficult situations that is, unlike his blood count, nowhere close to anemic. My only concern is that sysopping him might make redundant a few hundred existing admins. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Strong support. As an SPI clerk, they clearly need the tools, and I can't think of anybody I trust more. Plus, good sense of humor picking today to launch. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support; per [2], long overdue. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support - No concerns. About time! -- Dane talk 16:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose for running on April Fools' Day[4-1] – a solid candidate all around who would win my support any other day of the year. Clear net positive. Complex/Rational 16:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - If this is an April Fools joke I swear!!! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Following in my footsteps (SPI for eventual RfA) and doing it this well is a hard feat. I sign this with the full weight behind my signature behind it. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Absolutely firm and enthusiastic support, the real McCoy here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. It takes guts to nominate on WP:FOOLS day. Props! Support (or for those who celebrate, strongest possible oppose ever×101,000,000).[April Fools!] HouseBlastertalk 16:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support: seriously thought they were one already. Glad they're up for the mop, hope they keep up the good work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Good candidate. I checked out the child account declared to ArbCom, and even that account has solid contributions. SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support. I'll be brief: Yay! --Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. I view self noms as prima facie evidence of volunteering for more work. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Hell yes SQLQuery Me! 16:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. I'm thrilled to support what I'm confident is going to be a record-breaking RfA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't you put that evil on Spicy.  Kinehore. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I didn't say what record I thought he was going to break... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support—I either didn't know that Spicy was not an administrator, or I did know and thought he should be. Either way, easy support. Kurtis (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support I am surprised you didn't run sooner. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Hell yeah, Spicy! SWinxy (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support No issues, I can handle between mayonnaise and black pepper. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support - I've seen Spicy's work at SPI, and I'm confident that having them as an administrator would be a great benefit to the project. --Sable232 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support with no hesitation. Hog Farm Talk 17:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support, why not? Graham87 18:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would just like to note quality of the given answers is extraordinary. DatGuyTalkContribs 08:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support But I was told he was going to nominate himself on March 32nd. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support This is long overdue. I also like the self nom. It shows that they are confident in their abilities, so that makes me confident too. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 18:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Knows what's up, puts in the work. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support without question. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support. Finally. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Schläger4 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support. Clue ... jerk ... blah, blah. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Not heard of this user but I know I can trust them when the community has reacted so positively during the first day of their nomination. Rcsprinter123 (warn) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. SupportPopoDameron ⁠talk 19:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Interactions have been very positive. Has great clue. Would be a fine admin. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support good taste in userboxes. Legoktm (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Doing a great job at SPI. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support as a net positive to the project for having the tools. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 20:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Literally every time I've seen his name around I've been wondering why he isn't an admin yet. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support Don't have any concerns. Seems to be a good editor. King O' FoolsTalk 20:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Strong Support Nice editor. The person who loves reading (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Saw this on Fool's day and I'm like, What?!!!.... After scrolling through it all, it's a Hell Yeahh!! for me.........And that's the bottomline! Volten001 20:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support My main reservation is how long it took for this to run. VickKiang (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Suppose Spicy should have run much earlier, like say February 30th or January 32nd. But seriously, I think he is, far and away, highly qualified and a perfect fit for the tools. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Even though I will miss making jokes about Spicy's inevitable RfA run, he's clearly more than qualified to be an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support firmly. Spicy's work at SPI in particular seals the deal for me. Will make a superb admin. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Strong support as a checkuser and sysop, I trust their judgement at SPI to recommend blocks and checks. While I obviously review the evidence myself (as my actions should be my own), the recommendations have always helped as they have made justification for a block or check much easier to ascertain. While non-admin SPI clerks are very helpful, an admin SPI clerk has more buttons and speeds up the process because they can perform the actions instead of recommending they are performed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support I have thought for a while that Spicy would make a good admin. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support No concerns from me --Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/him) 23:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support Trusted user, this is not a April Fools joke! Thingofme (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support, I have seen his work at SPI and think he would greatly benefit from not having to wait for an admin to do the blocking. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support SPI is an area where I have no experience whatsoever. But I'll take Dreamy Jazz's support as a reference. I can evaluate featured articles, and his looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support A mop is handy at SPI, and a sense of humor helps too! Miniapolis 00:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support. Finally... Chlod (say hi!) 00:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support No concerns here NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 00:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support, strong qualifications and experience. Happy to see newer editors (less that 5 years since registration) self-nominate. ZsinjTalk 01:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support. Fuckin' finally. ♠PMC(talk) 01:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Access to the tools will be useful for their work at SPI. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Yup. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support No issues! Tails Wx 01:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support - many of my most admired editors are waxing eloquent. A quick lookaroud finds no reason to disbelieve them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - Someone who'd put the mop to good use. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support Jerk ❌, Clue ✅ Leijurv (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support - why not? Looks good to me. Sheep (talkhe/him) 02:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. so you can stop joking about rfa on discord. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support - Now that it isn't 1 April in London, there is no reason not to grant the tools, and a proven SPI clerk needs the ability to block sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support No concerns Lightoil (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support, but with a small reservation. I would generally prefer to see admin candidates who express even a passing interest in using admin tools to support the WP:XfD process to have a pre-existing history of non-admin closures to analyze how they would look at consensus, but Spicy has closed zero (using a script, to be clear, so may have missed some if he did it manually) ([3]). That said, his CSD and PROD logs, along with a spot-check of his AfD nomination and !vote rationales ([4]) show a clear understanding of policy, and this isn't a main area that Spicy would focus on as an admin at his own admission. Judging by positive notes about his SPI work from other editors more familiar with that process than myself and his extensive contributions overall, I'm happy to support. Nomader (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Add my voice to the chorus of "you aren't already???" Joyous! Noise! 04:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support. Need more like him. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support absolutely no issues. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Oppose because I thought he was one already – looks like I've been fooled. (for the record, it's still April 1st in my part of the world)FlyingAce✈hello 05:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To add to my previously tongue-in-cheek rationale, I consider Spicy to be a trusted and clueful editor; I think he has been a great asset at SPI and will make good use of the mop. And seeing the answer to Q9, now I'm thinking I should have opposed as not spicy enough, lolFlyingAce✈hello 04:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support Trustworthy candidate, will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 06:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Experienced, thoughtful editor who would clearly make good use of the tools. I was going to support with a tongue-in-cheek comment about the Scoville scale but now I'm supporting to cancel out the ridiculous oppose which demonstrates everything that is wrong with RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is a comment by a single user a problem with the process? 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that people can make up whatever fantastical reasons they like for opposing and a comment that would be challenged as a personal attack anywhere else is somehow sacred because it was mafe at RfA. The process by design attracts, encourages, and highlights those sorts of comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support Can't find any reason not to, plus the reply to Q11 is gold. Dr vulpes (💬📝) 09:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support I have no knowledge of or prior interactions with this editor, but that's not a prerequisite :> Also, I like the answers to 4, 7 and 10 in particular, and think that they indicate a positive energy that maybe could do the project a lot of good. Elinruby (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. SupportAmmarpad (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no fooling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support - Oh, yes. Loopy30 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support - no concerns here. BD2412 T 11:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support - They are a great asset at SPI, and with the tools they will be even more valuable to have around. Thanks Spicy for everything you do here! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. SupportNo worries if one creates that kind of GAs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Answers are very good and Q+A No. 7 is just beautiful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support --DB1729talk 13:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support'- No concerns from me at all. Q9 answer is a classic.   Aloha27  talk  13:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support - No concerns, use for tools, net positive. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 13:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 14:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support, no concerns on my part. Prefer more heat, but will accept mayonnaise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support - Through SPI alone the editor would benefit from the tools (which in turn would benefit Wikipedia). I have found no red flags (unsurprisingly) and regarding AfD, their AfD stats show that consensus almost always agrees with them when they bring an article to AfD. What that shows to me is that they're a good judge of when an article isn't suitable, nothing more. Good content creation and beyond exemplary work at SPI makes this a very easy and strong support. - Aoidh (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Strongly support everything here looks good! Vamsi20 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support now that it is April 2. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support. There is absolutely no reason why the date in which a good-faith RfA is nominated should have any impact on the proceedings or its eventual outcome. I think those who are raising concerns about the fact this was nominated on April 1 and how that might impact the !votes are being far too presumptuous. First of all, it's a practice that is not culturally accepted throughout all parts of the world, even in those areas in which it is most often practiced, and no one ought to feel bound by whatever ruses or machinations may or may not take place on that day. Second, for a prospective admin, the process for seriously considering an RfA begins well before one is actually drafted, as (ironically) indicated by RoySmith's Q7. Finally, RfA is not a process prone to "fucking around" anyway; there are far too many eyes and ears on it all trained to properly assess one's qualifications and edits, and so it would quickly be found out whether someone has a clue or a need for the tools. All of us should assume good faith of one another during the gestation of this process. And even if one were to disregard all of the above, then as Femke said, RfA is a process that badly needs levity anyway, so as to make it less of a living hell than it already is. So I happily will vote in support of Spicy; there are no concerns. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support Very happy to see this, I've previously offered to nominate Spicy. Girth Summit (blether) 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support I know that it is cliché to say, but I seriously had the reaction "I thought they already were an admin!" when I saw this listing. Wholeheartedly support. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support Gah! I watchlisted this RFA when Spicy's disclosure turned up in the ArbCom's mailbox, and I still end up at Support #142. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support Thanks for volunteering for Wikipedia. jengod (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support - Knowledgeable and capable user the few times I've run into them at SPI (a place that I haven't spent much time). No concerns. Also want to counter the one silly oppose vote below. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support Skilled in primary areas of interest, appears to interact with others constructively, clear need for the tools. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support - Spicy, is, as the kids say, a spicy meatball. I've seen his work around SPI and they'd be a valuable admin. JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support. They'll make a great admin. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support Watching Spicy since I have not started editing. Doing job flawlessly been so much skilled especially in SPI area, I'm watching Spicy as a Checkuser in the near future, and helping other CU's.NP83 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. At long last! Spicy is one of our best. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Good SPI clerks are worth their weight in gold. I've had limited experience with this editor, but what I have had is solid and reliable. Happy to see this clerk get the mop. Highly qualified and really needs the bit. BusterD (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Spicy, you don't need my support here, but here it is anyway. I like your answers to the questions. Oh, and extra kudos for having the courage to self-nominate, and on World Joke Day too! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's actually a good point. One would normally expect to see a slew of opposes against self-nomination on principle. I'm very pleasantly surprised that has not been the case (although I may have now jinxed us all). WaltClipper -(talk) 23:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. The answers to Q10 and Q19 are enough for me, and SPI is a bonus. --Rschen7754 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support, cliche as it is, he wasn't already? Well, time to fix that then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support, No major issues I see, largest one is confidence in becoming an admin. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support. No concerns, seems like a great and experienced candidate. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support. A fine candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support; very good candidate. Iseult Δx parlez moi 02:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. EpicPupper (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Heck yes! Mkdw talk 04:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Unironic support (even considering the date of the RfA submission). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support Well qualified. Will use the tools in important area of concentration. Seems to have a sense of humor, imagine that. Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Wow, we finally got Spicy to run! :D Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support Good answers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support Now that he's past the 1st, and we can force suitably motivate Spicy to continue, obviously he's well suited to the mop. Especially in the extreme reluctance to be an admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support Hard working SPI, has a clue, knows what they will use the tools for. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support No concerns from me. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support: This one is a no brainer and one of the easiest support votes I've cast. Net positive, has a clue, no big deal. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. ... to serve as a repository of accepted knowledge ... here, take my card — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support I had the great pleasure of working with Spicy to overhaul Chagas disease at FAR. I found him to be caring and thoughtful, with competence in spades. I'm not surprised to see he has made a good impression on the folks at WP:SPI where -- Lord knows why -- he has decided to volunteer substantial time and energy. The fact that he has kept his level-headed positive demeanor over several years of content and administrative tasks reveals him to be either (A) a masochist, or (B) well-suited for adminship here. Let's hand him a mop and see. Ajpolino (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support, I don't know the guy, but upon looking at his impressive record, I think he'll make a good admin. Godspeed and thank you for your dedication to free knowledge. Festucalextalk 12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support. Really disappointed about Q9, but okay. —Alalch E. 14:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support initially I thought this was an AFDay joke but then I read through it and see plenty of reasons for him to be an admin, Q3 was what really sold it for me.-- Grapefanatic (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support enthusiastically. Spicy has always been helpful to me when needed. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support Seems likely to make good use of the tools, has a good temperament, and I can't think of a reason not to give him a mop. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support Thought they were already (and I can see I'm not the only one).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support - absolutely. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support Experience in other admin-related areas is a bit weak, but I assume they'll be working in areas that they are experienced. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Too late even... ~StyyxTalk? 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support. Holy $#*!, you're not an admin? I could've sworn... {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support My main interactions with Spicy was during my brief SPI phase. He thought me so much and was super plesant to interact with. I'm so happy that you're (fingers crossed) getting the mop! --Trialpears (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support (edit conflict) Thanks for the answer to my question. Spectacular candidate, experienced with SPI and content, I see no reason why they shouldn't have the mop. :) echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support A lot of good people vouching for this candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support per everyone above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support Clearly winning. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support: It doesn't seem to be an April's Fool prank. Everything else seems good, candidate knows what they're doing. Rejoy2003(talk) 07:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support per answers to questions, showing that we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to spank alleged sock puppets in different ways to get kicks out of it. As someone who goes nowhere near medicine articles because of a lack of knowledge of the subject, I respect those that can write FAs there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support - as noted below, I don't think people should open RFAs on April Fool's Day, it leads to potential confusion. But that aside, the candidate appears to have very solid credentials, lots of good content, not any sort of jerk and lots of clue, so of course happy to support. Barring any last-minute surprises, let me welcome you to the corps...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support. Competent, trustworthy, knows why he's here. Maproom (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support a very levelheaded editor with extensive knowledge of our procedures. I feel safe entrusting this editor with a mop. Tom (LT) (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support Good work at SPI. Blue Edits (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support Good editor and will be a good admin. scope_creepTalk 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support I have no reservations whatsoever. Graham Beards (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support research confirms it's an obvious yes. It's me... Sallicio! 15:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support. Background as an SPI clerk tells me at least that they would be a good addition to the team. Unfortunate date for a nomination, but doesn't subtract from the quality of the candidate. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support. Been on lurk-mode for a while, but have noticed the users positive contributions when browsing the old haunts. Q T C 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support. It looks like the candidate doesn't even need my special plus points for the self-nomination, but I'll congratulate them on it anyway. (Say it after me: "Adminship is not a country club".) Bishonen | tålk 19:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  200. Support. A trustworthy and capable candidate. --TadejM my talk 19:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Support. More active admins is good for SPI. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  203. Support heartily. "I thought they were already one" is cliche, but until I realized they weren't recently, I truly thought Spicy was thanks to their excellent clerking at SPI. Plays very well with others and will be excellent addition. Star Mississippi 02:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Support. No red flags, nice credentials. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support - trustworthy editor and clerk. PhilKnight (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  206. Support with gratitude. Folly Mox (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. Support --- FitIndia Talk (Admin/CheckUser on Commons) 07:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Support - competent, don't any problems.--Staberinde (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. Support Strong and thoughtful candidate with a sense of humor as bonus. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  210. Support -- EN-Jungwon 10:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. Support - I thought they already were an admin. Spicy has the knowledge, skills and temperment to be a trustworthy administrator. Thanks for volunteering. Netherzone (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support - All tools for the SPI workers! Carrite (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support - Learns from mistakes, has clue, no apparent other issues, easy support. casualdejekyll 15:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  214. Pile-on support. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  215. Support I have minimal experience with the user but I found no objections for me after looking at his page and looking at their history. Skynxnex (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  216. Support --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  217. Support Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 18:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  218. Support Looks good to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  219. Support WikiUser70176 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  220. Support*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 00:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  221. Support Solid editor, plenty of clue, no issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  222. Support - I, Knightsoftheswords281, herby honor you with my very first RFA vote. Unfathomably cluefull, seems to be a lack of issues, - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  223. Support Good record, as well as experience at SPI. 2NumForIce (he/him) (speak | edits) 02:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  224. Stephen 03:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  225. Support Excellent candidate, has a clue, won't delete the main page. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  226. Pile-on support. JavaHurricane 05:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  227. Support The first time I saw Spicy, I assumed he was an admin (I guess I had no markAdmin back then), and already thought he was a good one back then. My opinion has only got better since then. Spicy has demonstrated to make very thoughtful judgement calls and that's a great asset for an admin. MarioGom (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  228. Adding my Support Mgp28 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  229. Support Good work at the SPI - SUN EYE 1 10:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  230. Support. Solid candidacy... odd day to launch it. ;) Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  231. Support Looks great to me. ULPS (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  232. Support - Looks like a very solid candidate. WJ94 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  233. Support. Clear support from so many people I respect, a good reason for using the tools, experience with medical content, and I think the history of having been reluctant to seek an RfA is actually a good thing. (I think the answer to Q3 is too vague, but that concern was settled by the answers to Q15–17.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  234. Support: I haven't run across this editor, but there are supports, above, from several editors whom I trust completely, and I'm happy to support, hanging on their coat tails. Tim riley talk 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  235. Support with great delight. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  236. Support: Has clue, not a jerk, no big dealTheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  237. Support Modussiccandi (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  238. Support with zero reservations. Furthermore, I would like to note further the strength of this support in that I have had very little time to actively contribute to the encyclopedia for over a year - while I continue to monitor articles I took to GA and do "behind the scenes" work (i.e. offline/on my own computer rather than making edits yet) for future ideas, I have avoided editing because I fear it would spiral into me spending too much time that I don't have. I cannot recall the "depth" of interaction that the nominated user and I have had through the WP:MED pages/projects/topics, but what I do recall is that I always saw them as a helpful, competent, and well-intentioned user who had the project's best interests at mind (especially important in the field of medicine where disinformation/wrong information can have dire consequences even with our WP:General disclaimer). I say all of this because while I don't expect it to influence the decision I think it is telling I have briefly come out of "inactivity" upon seeing this during a perusal of the WP pages simply because I think this user will be such a benefit to have as an administrator - not only for their (from what I see) work in typical admin areas, but especially/additionally because the project is in dire need of more administrators who have familiarity with and are comfortable editing in medical areas. The project is gaining a great asset by allowing the nominee access to tools that will further assist them towards our collective goal of improving access to knowledge. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wow, great to "see" you again, Berchan, and so good to know you are still around! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  239. Support. I haven't interacted with Spicy much on the content side, but I've been very grateful for their expedient and competent work at SPI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  240. Support—I have seen them around FA a lot. Very good editor. Experienced; evidently good judgement glossing over their most recent contributions. Would make a very good addition to the team.  LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 13:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  241. Support- a good candidate for administrator! 747pilot (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  242. Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  243. SupportPaul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  244. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 17:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  245. Support I don't see why not and we definitely need more admins on this project. --Ferien (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  246. Support Good candidate. Uhai (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  247. Support I have full confidence in the good use Spicy will make of the admin toolkit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  248. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  249. Support. No concerns. A no-nonsense self-nomination on April Fool's Day further suggests stability of character. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  250. Support I like how you spend, your time on Wikipedia—not just the glamor stuff, but the deep digs, the heavy lifts, the nuts, and the bolts. Lock washers too. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 00:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  251. Support Looks ok. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  252. Support Andre🚐 03:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  253. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  254. Support. Being an admin in Wikipedia should be easier than applying for a loan for your car. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  255. support. my previous interactions with Spicy have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  256. Support. Why not? (Also, round number!) Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose deletionist who IMO will not protect content or content creators. Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Over fifty articles, a GA created from scratch, multiple FAs, reviewing FAs, and you seriously don’t think this user will protect or support content creators? The Night Watch (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lightburst: do you have any specific examples of what you're concerned about so that I can evaluate?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think there is any point to even engaging with people who throw about divisive terms like "deletionist". Nobody is going to be swayed by this oppose, don't worry about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beeblebrox: Your divisiveness was on full display in the Halloween thread and each and every day on Wikipediocracy. Once someone gets the job, they are in it for life so sadly we are stuck with you. I will respond to @Amakuru: who does not seem to be dismissive and divisive. Amakuru at first I checked the candidate's AfD record, they ivote delete 74.8% of the time. I will strike my oppose after I took a closer look at the candidate's record. A big thank you for the message @The Night Watch: your message directed me to take a closer look at other contributions. I see the candidate has two GAs here: I would like to see more GAs but I will not oppose. Apologies to Spicy. Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spicy actually has two FAs (complete blood count and Chagas disease) and is one of the go-to editors in medical content for FA-level review. Because medical FAs are tough to write, that's more or less the equivalent of a bazillion GAs in some other content areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I appreciate that information. You may have moved me to support and I may need to be {{trouted}}. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Weak oppose. I admit that this is somewhat personal since it involves me (which is why I weakened my oppose), but their curt behaviour exhibited at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy/Archive#10 March 2023 deters me from supporting them, even if they are correct over at the SPI. Not·Really·Soroka 01:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not really seeing an issue there? They said it how it was, albeit very brief. You can't just accuse a longstanding editor of being a sock with very limited evidence, which is what you did. As the saying goes, one must have their ducks in a row and be absolutely certain before making such an accusation. NoahTalk 01:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not Spicy's notion with which I disagree, and I also noted that "they are correct" in that regard in my original !vote. What I disagree with is their attitude with which they expressed their (correct) notion. Not·Really·Soroka 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SPI clerks are meant to assess the evidence marshaled. Doesn’t seem like Spicy’s fault that there wasn’t much offered, so there wasn’t much to say about it. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said earlier, Spicy was right in their judgement, but not so right on how they expressed it. Not·Really·Soroka 04:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Socking is one of the most serious allegations you can make against an editor, and can affect a reputation even if proven to be false. Accusing a user with 30k edits and 10 years of tenure of socking based on two diffs and a general point, while admitting that the evidence might be slightly contrived, is in deep contravention with the standards on reporting any experienced account to SPI. You cannot file a report like that with such self-admittedly weak evidence and not expect a frank response. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral for about eight hours until I know whether this is the real thing. Robert McClenon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but I left it undated on purpose because I don't know how to provide a valid signature with a falsified timestamp of 31 March (and I don't think the code provides that misfeature). Robert McClenon (talk)
No need to falsify timestamp, just use the time machine. a!rado🦈 (CT) 12:30, 23 February 1917 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or inhale a old bag of air. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 13:30, 5 July 1049 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[If I were Robert, I'd have gone for March 32nd...] casualdejekyll 15:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Timestamps don't have anything special to identify them, so you can type them manually like this: ~~~ 00:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral. The candidate looks pretty solid, but opening an RfA on April 1 is a poor choice. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why?--WaltClipper -(talk) 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because it leaves the nomination open to people thinking it's a joke. We saw this with a previous RFA where people who might not otherwise have supported, did so to "play along" with the joke. Of course, the thing runs for a week, and people will eventually realise it's genuine, but still... This wouldn't enough to sway me to vote oppose or neutral, but IMHO it definitely shows a very mild lack of judgement to open a genuine RFA on April Fool's Day.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I slightly disagree with you on this @Amakuru. I think this is a great attempt at lightening up a process that is usually very daunting and disheartening. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree. I think a lot of people voted support thinking it was a prank that wouldn’t get followed through with. BhamBoi (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral on account of the response to question 21, which I think conflates multiple issues in a way that misrepresents what current practice is. The idea that WP:PROF represents a loosening of our concept of what counts as "independent sourcing" makes no sense to me; the typical way to pass WP:PROF#C1, for example, is to have hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed papers writing about what you've done. Requiring hundreds or thousands of independent, top-quality publications isn't a relaxation of any standard. Nor does it make sense to say that WP:PROF relaxes what citations are expected to be about: If a person is notable for their work, then we demonstrate that by citations talking about their work, not their favorite ice-cream flavor. The problem of outdated information (e.g., a marriage being documented but not the following divorce) could happen to any BLP of someone just outside the limelight, whether we declared them notable because of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Think of an author of two or three well-reviewed novels, or a journalist who has won a few awards, or a musician who keeps quiet about their family because they've had stalkers... WP:PROF, being a notability guideline, provides advice on when articles should exist; the episodic, interminable arguments about how SNGs should relate to The GNG are orthogonal to the problem of keeping details updated once a biography does exist. The example could be resolved in multiple ways: e.g., changing the text to say that at the time the book was published, the author was married (since we don't expunge marriages from biographies just because they conclude in divorce). It's simply not a question about SNG/GNG relations, and presenting it as one makes me uncomfortable enough to move my !vote out of the "support" column. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well stated. I am still satisfied with the candidate due to the last two sentences of Q21, but I do find it a bit reductive to lump in the issue of outdated personal information into NPROF when this is an issue that affects articles even of prominent political figures. Curbon7 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • If Spicy withdraws this RfA as an April Fools joke, can a crat please just give them sysop anyway?[Joke] Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Honestly, if Spicy withdraws his RFA, just block him! [Joke] - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Spicy is not the kind of editor who would initiate and withdraw an RFA as an April Fools joke (I know everyone commenting now probably already knows this, but those coming along later might not :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Personally I would not start an RFA on 1 April full stop, it's too open to this kind of speculation. I think RexxS started his on this date and many of the early votes were made assuming the whole thing was a joke.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it was a good move, as it brings some levity to a process that's too often characterised by tension. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or even better: log a block, place the block notice on his UTP, but as an April Fool's joke don't actually block him. Don't forget to adjust the gadget that strikes out usernames that are blocked accordingly; that'll really be amusing. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the discussions about the lack of admins I thought of some kind of a merited adminship. The community could elect them also without their approval.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the risk of jinxing it: surprised that no one's asked about recall yet. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done because I am honestly curious. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to roll my eyes every single time this gets asked. Being "open to recall" is a vague and utterly toothless commitment. At best, it merely makes express what most administrators already believe in: if they feel they've lost the confidence of their fellow community members, they'll resign. At worst, it encourages admins to create arcane "petition" procedures that often inflame disputes more than they cool them down. Mz7 (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interestingly, losing the trust or confidence of the community is part of a desysop motion currently passing at ARC, so it's not like recall does much more than already existing desysop procedures (which are clerked). Giraffer (talk·contribs) 11:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know of cases where admins have resigned when they felt that they have lost the trust or confidence of the community, and a couple where admins have resigned and sought reconfirmation, but I'm not aware of one where a recall process has been carried out. If anyone does know of one, I would be interested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is this list Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests, though I don't know how thorough (and accurate) it is... —  Salvio giuliano 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through the behavior of some of the editors who demanded recall, I'm somewhat glad that recall was never considered an official policy. 2007 was awful for Wikipedia as far as civility went... WaltClipper -(talk) 22:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, we really could have gone without that question being asked. In my experience, I've found that answering it scarcely generates any support !votes, and at worst, actually serves as a lightning rod to bring out those for whom recall is an especially large bugbear. --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea what any of you are talking about. What is recall?-- Grapefanatic (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grapefanatic - whenever you don't know something on-wiki that sounds like it's about a policy or a rule, try doing a search for WP:[whatever] - here, that would be WP:RECALL. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!-- Grapefanatic (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.