Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TJMSmith

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

TJMSmith

Final (174/2/2); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

TJMSmith (talk · contribs) – TJMSmith does a bit of everything. He's improved several articles to good article status, put forward a number of Did you know? nominations, and helped out at In The News, where we always seem to need admins. He has an impressive record at rescuing articles threatened with deletion to make notability obvious. Best of all, he is unfailingly civil and polite to anyone and everyone, including cases where people have strongly disagreed with him, and that is a trait I seriously admire in any admin candidate. He has my complete and utter confidence in being an administrator, and I hope you share my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I’m so pleased to co-nominate TJMSmith, who in addition to being a content creator and generally helpful person has the temperament that IMO is the most crucial aspect of fitness for adminship. One example: their behavior at this AfD for an article they had created. Their !vote was to agree that maybe it just wasn’t enough of a thing yet. Many content creators have had the experience of having an article we worked hard on nominated for deletion. We’ve experienced that frustration, and we’ve seen angry creators behaving badly at AfD. TJMSmith did exactly the opposite. And that’s just one example of the general way they interact with other editors. I think this editor will be the kind of all-around helpful admin who checks their dashboard for backlogs on logging in to see if there’s somewhere they can be helpful today. That’s just the kind of person TJMSmith is. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Ritchie333 and Valereee. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay and this is my only account. My account was renamed from Thsmi002 to TJMSmith at my request. TJMSmith (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: In addition to general maintenance, I see myself assisting in discussions and the posting of items at WP:ITN. Reviewing content at WP:AFC is one of the ways I try to help newer editors. Relatedly, I intended to help with WP:REVDEL of AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. I’ve been a frequent nominator at DYK, and I’d be willing to help there, too, though I think I’ll want to build a few preps to make sure I understand that process first. I will also help with closing AfDs. I am also happy to provide assistance with WP:RFPP and with requested page moves. What I’ve heard from most admins is that they ended up helping out in places they never had particularly planned to help out in, once they had the tools to be helpful there.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am most proud of my content creation, which primarily consists of editing biographies, but have steadily increased my gnoming activities. Rescuing articles from deletion (WP:HEYMANN) is another way I contribute. When the article, Shelby Starner was nominated for deletion, I improved it to Good Article status. Some Good Articles I started include Constance Kies, Marie Smallface Marule, and Nancy Marcus. More recently, I nominated Joseph Gelders for good article status. I write on a broad range of topics, but much of the content relates to Women in STEM, LGBTQ+ individuals, and Puerto Rico. I also contribute to Commons and Wikidata.

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: The only time I felt stressed was when I first started in 2017. I was not aware of WP:N and several of my initial contributions did not meet notability requirements. After becoming acquainted with AfDs, I quickly discovered the many important policies Wikipedia maintains and started learning from experienced editors. I don’t encounter negative exchanges frequently. In terms of more recent conflicts, (probably too strong a word for this situation) I was involved in a discussion on the scope of different WikiProjects (see WT:PUR). I supported a broader scope of WP:POLITICS/US and WP:LATINOS but some WP:Puerto Rico participants wanted a smaller scope to prevent possible confusion/obfuscation relating to its territorial status. An in depth discussion ensued. In situations like this, I will continue to strive to remain level-headed, not take anything personally, and always assume good faith. In my experience, Wikipedia is a unique space where differing viewpoints usually coalesce to produce stronger articles.

---

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 Willbb234

4. Hello there. Looking at this article you created, Nirali N. Shah, I see you have cited the subjects CV, and some brief mentions on company websites as sources. This is the same case with this article, Dale Baum. Both articles are almost entirely dependent on these arguably unreliable and poor quality sources. I would like to ask you if you understand Wikipedia:Reliable source, as it is one of Wikipedia's most important guidelines?

A: Thanks for the question Willbb234. I agree that WP:RS and WP:BLP are among the most important guidelines. Regrettably, many notable academics are not always covered by secondary sources. WP:ACADEMIC goes into more detail on this. Those two biographies cite noncontroversial information to CVs posted by their employer, the National Cancer Institute and Texas A&M University respectively. When at all possible, I try to cite information to reliable secondary sources and I always exercise caution when using primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY). TJMSmith (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Dolotta

5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: Thanks Dolotta! I’ve never edited/collaborated to upgrade an article to WP:FA status. It is a future goal of mine. Additionally, some of the more technical aspects (i.e. bots, scripts, gadgets) sometimes confuse me. TJMSmith (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from AlaChuckthebuck

6. What is your position on welcoming new Wikipedians and what do you think the role of an admin is in that regard?

A: Hello and thanks for the question! I think it is important that all editors are welcoming to new Wikipedians. Admins can share useful tips and guidance as should other contributors. My articles were AfD’ed the first week I started (on notability grounds). That was definitely discouraging, but thanks to friendly and constructive feedback from some experienced users, I learned from the ordeal and stuck around. A useful related policy is WP:BITE! Barnstars are one way everyone (not just admins) can provide encouragement to newcomers (i.e. resilient barnstar). TJMSmith (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Sdrqaz

7. Given your stated desire to work in WP:RfPP, could you go through what your decision-making process would be for when deciding whether to grant semi-protection or pending-changes protection?

A: Thank you for the question. Content and conduct disputes can usually be resolved through other methods of mediation. Where I see cases of repeated and persistent policy violations (especially with BLPs and copyrights), I would judiciously use pending-changes protection (for less frequently edited articles) and semi-protection (more active articles). In both cases, I would refer back to WP:ROUGHSEMI and WP:PCPP to ensure I am following proper policy. I know there are differing opinions on protection. I’ve read over For and Against TFA protection (an old essay) and the ongoing TFA pending-changes protection proposal. The open access and collaborative nature of Wiki is important to me, so I would take care to avoid overstepping and preventing constructive contributions from editors who edit anonymously or with IP addresses. TJMSmith (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Dreamy Jazz

8. You mention that you desire to help by using WP:REVDEL on drafts declined as copyright violations. Could you give me a brief overview of what you would do to determine if revisions contained copyright violations, and then whether revision deletion or an alternative measure was more appropriate. Let me know if you would like clarification. Thanks in advance and good luck with the RfA.

A: Hello. I am newer to this area, so I would proceed with caution and consult with more experienced admins. In my answer above, I was referring to cases of criterion RD1 where some edits to an article (or in this case, an AfC draft) contained a copyvio and is later rewritten. In this instance, the edit history needs to be redacted after the copyvio is removed. This contrasts with G12 speedy deletion when the whole article is a copyvio. I encounter blatant copyvios somewhat frequently. Currently, I use Earwig when reviewing AfC drafts. I will familiarize myself with other WP:CVTOOLS. TJMSmith (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

9. What is your approach towards WP:IAR if approached with a problem the Wikipedia community hasn't been able to formulate a guideline or a policy for?

A: I cannot remember a time I personally referenced IAR although I have seen it mentioned occasionally in AfDs. The Wikipedia community’s guidelines/policies are quite comprehensive. Consensus is vital, so the methods of policy development located at WP:PROPOSAL are essential to formulating new guidelines. Personally, I’ve found project talkpages to be useful forums for discussing questions or seeking advice. Circling back to your question, I think referencing IAR depends on the situation, specific context, and the different variables. Since this is hypothetical, it is hard to answer specifically. I hope you don’t see this as me trying to sidestep the question as that is not my intention! TJMSmith (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Modussiccandi

10. My question is about your statement that you wish to close at AfD should you be made an admin. Your AfD record tells me that you almost never !vote to delete, which is not per se a problem. Since you haven't done any CSD or PROD tagging either, it seems clear that deletion isn't something you're very interested in. Now, there will inevitably be some AfDs that would have to be closed as a rough consensus for deletion. What would you do to ensure your own leanings won't influence your closing at AfD?

A: Thanks for the question. I would not say I am not interested in deletions- I believe deletions are an important necessity for maintaining a useful and reliable Wikipedia. While not the same thing, I routinely reject AfC drafts when they do not meet notability requirements. I see more AfDs than not where I believe deletion is the preferred outcome (i.e. subject does not meet any notability criteria). When closing AfDs, I will review the consensus and assess the weight of the arguments presented. Particular attention will be paid to policy-based arguments. Likewise, with my keep votes, I am careful to base my opinion in policy and to avoid any emotional or personal bias from influencing my decision. If I am at all unsure about closing an AfD and have a view one way or the other on it, I would !vote instead of closing. TJMSmith (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Hog Farm

11. An article is up for AFD, and the arguments for keeping revolve around the subject technically meeting an SNG component such as WP:NBASE #3, while the arguments for deletion are based on a complete failure of WP:GNG. Which argument carries more weight?

A: Thanks for the question. This is hard to answer concretely because it entirely depends on the specific arguments presented and the guidelines referenced. Sports-related content should meet either NSPORT or GNG (explained in the SNG). Similarly, WP:PROF is explicitly listed as an alternative to GNG. Academics can meet notability through GNG or PROF (or possibly other SNG if relevant). In the circumstance above, if there is consensus the article meets NSPORT, that would carry more weight based on the current wording of the policy. If GNG became an absolute requirement (above all SNGs), then the GNG arguments would prevail. Another important unknown variable and consideration is whether or not the subject of the AfD is a BLP. TJMSmith (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Wugapodes

12. Given your interest in RFPP, I want to ask a hypothetical question based on a real situation. An editor reports at RFPP that a long-term abuser has been vandalizing the featured article every day for the last 5 days, and the vandlaism always comes soon after the midnight update. This vandalism is a serious violation of our policy on claims about living people and many instances have been revision deleted under criterion 2. Range blocks and edit filters have not been effective at stopping this vandalism, and the TFA has been protected every day because of the disruption. The reporting editor asks that the upcoming TFA be protected for the 24 hours it is on the front page. You are the only admin at RFPP and it's almost midnight: what options do you consider, what actions would you take, and why?

A: Thanks for your question. This sounds related to the perennial proposal and is the subject of an ongoing discussion at the Village Pump. I would assume the TFA workers and the community at large don’t want this preemptively protected (WP:PREEMPTIVE stipulates multiple users) and there is no clear consensus on TFA automatic protection, so until tomorrow happens and I can ask, I’d prefer to just keep an eye on it and revert/protect when/if the expected vandalism actually happens. TJMSmith (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

13. I already gave you my support, but I am still curious about the WP:IAR, as I sort of just found out about that policy and I guess it could be quite useful to many content disputes or disputes themselves. I guess Sysops apply WP:IAR quite often, but don't declare it openly, which is sometimes good, but sometimes... So I ask an additional second question. I am interested if one really wreaks havoc to the guidelines and policies and is of no significant use to a certain section to Wikipedia, let's say WP:ITN or WP:Puerto Rico to give you a context, would you then also prefer to adhere to the guidelines and policies instead of applying WP:IAR?

A: I didn't ask well and that's it. Consider it as answered and in the light of WP:IAR. :) Sorry.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from つがる

14. A New User registers an account and creates an article, about a subject. The article's notability is questionable, and is then sent to Requests for Deletion. During the RFD discussion, it is argued that a reliable source (a newspaper) was found off the internet, both keep and support votes, have very good arguments, and it seems that either side can be taken. You are looking at closing the discussion, will you delete or keep the article. Keep in mind that the Keep votes are from those accounts with few edits, but the rationale is very good for each one. つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A: Being a new editor wouldn’t really be a factor, especially if they do not have a history of disruptive editing such as creating hoaxes and vandalism. Delete votes based purely on the reliable source being offline would violate WP:OFFLINE policy. If that is the only source in the article, then GNG wouldn't be met. A no consensus closure may be the most reasonable outcome if both delete and keep votes are accurately policy-based. TJMSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Horse Eye's Back

15.. I just got here from Russell S. Winer. It seems it was created by you almost entirely based on their CV and without substantial independent coverage. I see above that you said "The only time I felt stressed was when I first started in 2017. I was not aware of WP:N and several of my initial contributions did not meet notability requirements. After becoming acquainted with AfDs, I quickly discovered the many important policies Wikipedia maintains and started learning from experienced editors.” but this article was created in April 2020 and doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. So my question is has your awareness of WP:N changed between April 2020 and today? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A: Thanks for the question. I added some third party sources and expanded the article, hopefully that looks better. TJMSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Sir Joseph

16. Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?

A: I would block an admin just as I’d block any other editor. There are no special differences/rights. Admins are editors who are trusted with some extra tools to help maintain Wikipedia. Admins should be held to a high standard because of the trust the community places in them. My process for blocking an admin would be the same as for any other editor. TJMSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from BrxBrx

17. Hi TJMSmith, and thank you for running. I realize from your answer to Q1 that your primary contributions have been to article creation and DYK, and imho, that's fantastic. However, from looking at some of the administrator backlogs, it appears there are quite a few areas outside of articlespace generally construed, that demand attention. Would you consider working in any of those areas, and if so, in what aspect, and how will you conduct yourself there in order to work within consensus?

Thanks again for running and for everything you've done

A: Thanks for the kind words. The short answer is yes. I also see myself helping to address copyvios, AfD closures, RFPP, and INT. I would check T:ADMINDASH to see if there are any backlogs where I could assist. In all cases, I would rely on the policy to make sure I am following consensus. If I had any questions, I would reach out to other admins. TJMSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for TJMSmith: TJMSmith (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TJMSmith can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Support, found precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
4. support - nothing bad jumps out. Seems like a fantastic editor. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Support - without reservation. Glad he was willing to step forward. Go Phightins! 14:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6. Support for meeting my mins. Ifnord (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
7. Support, good night. enjoyer|talk 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Good editor, their civility is especially welcome as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
9. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
10. Support inclusionist but a good one - 90% of the AfDs they participated in went the way of their !vote. SK2242 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
11. Support, per nom. Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
12. Support per nom also. Rcsprinter123 (interview) 15:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
13. Support good noms and spot check of contributions reveals nothing but positive contributions. Should do fine. Regards SoWhy 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
14. Support. Exemplary colleague. Thank you for all your contributions. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
15. Support as nom. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
16. Yes and yes. Does good work improving our articles, esp. the ones which need it most. Very civil interaction with other editors. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
17. Support -Shakil Hosen ^Talk 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
18. Support it's no big deal, remember? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
19. Support Seems a reasonably decent candidate. Only 573 Afd', but no csd farming. Certainly, a decent number to be going on with but I see no reason why the editor won't make an excellent admin. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
20. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
21. Support Seems adequate. SenatorLEVI 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
22. Support - Skingo12 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
23. Support. What everyone else said. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
24. Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
25. Support. Based on my opinion of the nominators' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
26. Thanks for volunteering! Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
27. A candidate with the right skills to do the work they describe and who will benefit our project with their use of the toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
28. Support I admire his work and civility! GrammarDamner how are things? 17:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
29. Support: good temperament, need for the tools and high-quality work. — Bilorv (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
30. Support - Will be a net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
31. Support, this seems fine. BD2412 T 18:11, 15
32. Support, Seems to do some great work on a decently sized spectrum of topics which is always nice to see at RFA. AlaChuckthebuck (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
33. Support. Looking forward to TJMSmith's continued contributions at WP:ITNRD. Thanks for the nomination. Ktin (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
34. Support. Even temperament + Solid judgment + Technical skill = admin. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
35. Support Surprised I've not run into this candidate before, given some overlapping areas, but they seem a fine positive. Indeed, my only negative, is that they make me feel self-conscious about my weak "moderate inclusionist" status! ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
36. Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
37. Support: This candidate and I edit in heavily overlapping areas (like WiR biographies of academics), and though we haven't interacted a lot, I have come across plenty of pages that they've written. Their content creation is excellent and they're certainly one of the very biggest contributors in that area on Wikipedia. I am very glad to see them at RfA and happy to strongly support. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
38. Support - I did not recognize the name at first, which is probably a good thing. It means they pretty much stay out of trouble! But after looking at their contributions and history I don't see any big red flags. PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
39. Support daylon124 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
40. Support no issues. Possibly (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
41. Support: user can be trusted with the admin tools. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
42. Support per Ritchie333 TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
43. Support after reviewing this user's contributions, I've found nothing to give me concerns about their behavior. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
44. Support Can they be trusted with the tools? I think so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
45. Support User contributions demonstrate strong knowledge of policies and appropriate judgement where applicable. Babegriev (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
46. Support Qualified candidate. Thank you for offering to serve! DanCherek (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
47. Support per nom - I see no red flags or issues here, –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
48. Support. Has the ideal temperament for an admin. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
49. Support - Thought they already were an admin - I guess because of their level-headed temperment, AfD participation, and as an overall +net contributor. They will make a trustworthy administrator. Netherzone (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

    Same here. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

50. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
51. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 00:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
52. Support. Good all round. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
53. Support - satisfactory answers. Looks fine to me - Alison ^❤ 01:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
54. Support Although I haven't run into the candidate yet, no concerns here. Seems to have plenty of clue, and temperament is a definite plus. Miniapolis 01:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
55. Support. Best of luck. Pamzeis (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
56. Support They seem to have a good attitude towards others and are knowledgeable about content creation and policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
57. Support TJMSmith has become a familiar name around post-1932 American politics. I have no doubt that they are highly competent and will make a successful and productive administrator. KidAd talk 04:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
58. Support - see no reason not to. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
59. Support. Long-term editor with strong content contributions and no red flags that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
60. Support go for it!Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
61. Support long and valued history of edits. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
62. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
63. Support Reasonable and well argued points made by Willbb234 who opposes but not quite enough to swing my opinion on an overall solid candidate. I think they will be a net positive. wikitigresito (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
64. Support my question was answered well, so although I have not seen them around much, they understand the use of revdel / when it might be not the best measure. Barring anything major being raised, I am happy to support. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
65. Support - We need more admins, not less.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
66. Support Not entirely convinced that the need for the tools has been justified, but the candidate clearly has the competence and temperament required and will no doubt be a useful administrator. Poltair (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
67. Support per nom. Great candidate. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
68. Support, I believe. Seems clue-y, not jerk-y. Vaguely familiar with the name; mildly concerned by the fact I don't have any associations with it despite moving in many of the same places, but not worried about anything I've seen here so far. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
69. Support - no concerns, net positive. GiantSnowman 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
70. Support at first I had concerns with the user's BLP edits and the lack of participation in AfD. However, I think the amount of articles that he has created and the amount of AfD frequenter supporters above makes him a good candidate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
71. Support as a likely net positive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
72. Support net positive, easy to collaborate with, bottom line, I trust them based on our interactions. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
73. Support per nom. — Amkgp 💬 18:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
74. Support He's been very helpful and good to work with! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
75. Support I'm not troubled by the BLP issues: they are a routine problem when dealing with academic biographies. Judging from the answer to my question, he'll use the tools judiciously and be a net positive. What's more, I like the intention to work in revdel. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
76. Quality candidate, quality nominators. El_C 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
77. Support - seems like a great candidate. I’m interested to hear the candidate's response to Wugapodes' question (question 12). Best of luck! D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
78. Support - Helpful. Easy to work with. No brainer; great candidate. --Rosiestep (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 16 February 2021‎
79. Support - can't see any risk of abusing the tools. Will be a clear net positive. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
80. Support, seems like a perfectly fine candidate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
81. Support Perfect person for the mop! JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
82. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
83. Support, a good candidate. --Bduke (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
84. Support per nominators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
85. Support Should be good with the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
86. Stephen 03:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
87. Per question 6. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
88. Support. –Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 05:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
89. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
90. Support: as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

    Support I want to be an administrator. Marguerite2003 (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC) (struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC))

91. Support Good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
92. Support per nominator. This user has a clue and should be a net positive as an admin. - tucoxn\^talk 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
93. Support No red flags. AVSmalnad77 ^talk 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
94. Support - No red flags, looks to have a good temperament, and has demonstrated competence. They've displayed thought and care in the answers to the questions. Hog Farm _Talk 14:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
95. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
96. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
97. Support I really liked your response to questions about notability with regards to WP:ACADEMIC, as that's an issue that I think a lot of people misunderstand. You have an excellent history, and I look forward to seeing your adminship work! Yitz (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
98. Support Meets all of my criteria.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 16:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
99. Support per Hog Farm, with a nice encouraging anecdote in A6. While concerns put forth by Willbb234 are valid, I don't see them as disqualifying. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
100. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
101. Support. Looks good. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
102. Support, as per nom. No issues. Loopy30 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
103. Support per my comments in the General comments section. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
104. Support Seems a fine candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
105. Support Looks good! -BriLila (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
106. Support – as a likely useful wielder of the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
107. Support – They are a net positive and have an idea as to how things work or ought to work around here, so it’s a 'yes' for me. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
108. Support – Unfortunately I've not time to give a great scrutiny and somewhat relying on others but seems a net positive and I'm not swayed by the current oppose arguments to date. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
109. Support – Per nomination; net positive and thoughtful answers. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
110. Support – No red flags of any kind that haven't been addressed. Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 23:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
111. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
112. Support. Knows their way around editing and policy. Fences&Windows 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
113. Support - per nom and answers given. JarrahTree 00:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
114. Support - seems to have experience, ability and temperament. The community shouldn't hesitate to trust him with a few extra tools. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
115. Support A net positive for the project and the admin tools will increase that. RexxS got to the word temperament before I did and yes this candidates will serve them well as an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
116. Support He's going to do a great job with Administrator tools. Tucker Gladden 👑 05:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
117. Support. Cursory review indicates a capable editor. Daniel (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
118. Support High number of edits both in mainspace and Wikipedia namespace. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
119. Support I've never come across them, but on review they seem capable and knowledgeable, and I don't see any reason why not to support. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
120. Support Good answer to #12, good user that I would have no issues making an admin. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 14:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
121. Support. No head-scratching or chin-rubbing here. Excellent candidate – mop 'em up! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
122. Support per TonyBallioni —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
123. Support - His answers to questions (e.g. nos. 10 and 11) show a thorough and nuanced grasp of policy, and no red flags are apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
124. To be honest I don't recall seeing them around ITN but we can always use admin help there.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
125. Support - this candidate appears to be a good addition to the mop closet, and the added octane is 100% co-noms. Atsme 💬 📧 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
126. Support per Tony and my own interactions. Likely to be a net positive, I trust them. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
127. Support--the nominations reflect my own interactions with TJMSmith well. I think he'll be a great admin. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 02:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
128. Support - Excellent answers to questions, shows a great understanding of policy. — csc^-1 02:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
129. Support - you had me at polite. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
130. Support, good candidate. Cavalryman (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC).
131. Support, nominations make a great case, and I see no issues. --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
132. Support, everything I’ve seen this editor do has been good or at worst inoffensive. I have concerns about whether their take on notability requirements is too liberal but thats not a disqualifying characteristic by any means. A diversity of opinions among admins is something that should be encouraged. In my (albeit rather limited) experience TJMSmith has done a great job being above all else fair, considered, and reasonable and in my opinion those are by far the most important qualities in an admin. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
133. Support, Quality answers to questions, appears knowledgeable. --Stainless Steel Rat (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
134. Support Seems knowledgable and good answers to the questions Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
135. Support Valued contributor and I liked his answers. Nalbarian (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
136. Support The frequent use of the terms civil and thoughtful is very refreshing, the issues around notability are cogently engaged with, and they seem to be about producing a better WP rather than maintaining the same. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
137. Support, Although I don't remember interacting with the candidate, they are supported by people I trust. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
138. Support. Clueful and approachable. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
139. Support- Agree with all the above. I'd bet the farm that the candidate would use the mop for "good" rather than "evil".   Aloha27  talk  14:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
140. Support Seems clueful, I liked the answers to the questions--they struck a solid point of being reasonable and considered. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
141. Support Nominated and endorsed by people who've exhibited good judgment; thoughtful answers to questions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
142. Support Polite, excellent content contributor, saves articles from deletion --GRuban (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
143. Support No concerns from me. Mkdw ^talk 19:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
144. Support-- SVcode (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
145. Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
146. Support ~ i don't recognise the candidate's name, but that may well be a function of my ever-increasing age rather than not having run across the work previously; nevertheless, i am impressed by what i have read, so no worries; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
147. Support - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 09:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
148. Support -- sounds good to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
149. Support - excellent answers to questions, and checking the user's talk contributions has shown them to be levelheaded and unfailingly polite, with no instances of biting newcomers or loosing their cool. IMO temperment is by far the most important attribute for these tools, and this user passes with flying colours. Would be delighted to see them with the tools. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
150. Support The candidate is a solid content creator, and a helpful, level-headed contributor. The opposes seem to be based on philosophical opposition to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and how that guideline is implemented in practice. In my view, that is unfair to this candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
151. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
152. Support I like their answer to my question I asked. つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 21:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
153. Support Opposes have failed to take into account the real difficulties involved in harvesting certain information for academics. I mean the guidelines have recognized the problem for a reason of course. No doubt they are to be done with as much care as possible. In reality it's nothing after notability is established for an academic, if used for some uncontroversial information coming from sources that are otherwise considered reliable. Mosesheron (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
154. Support I see no problems here ThatIPEditor (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
155. Support Glad I saw this in time. Great candidate, it has all been said above. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

     Support - Skingo12 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC) (Duplicate vote struck. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC))

156. Support. Meets my criteria. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
157. Support - no reservations here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
158. Support - I am a little concerned about question 4, but they seem good otherwise βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
159. Support I have come the candidate across on a couple of occasions and have no bad word to say about their conduct. The Opposes are weak IMHO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
160. Support—No concerns. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
161. Support Content creator and a clear need for tools. Roller26 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
162. Support Good candidate. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
163. Support In my opinion, the people opposing do not make strong arguments. This is an excellent user who knows their stuff. Good luck and thank you for your contributions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
164. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
165. Support As a newer editor the candidate's stance towards WP:BITE as evidenced in Question 6 is very commendable. The first time I participated in AfD it is just bunch of all-star editors cracking inside jokes that I don't understand. Hopefully the candidate won't do the same thing.SunDawn (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
166. Support. Sufficiently clueful and with a reasonable temperament. Nothing is standing out as cause for concern. The question answers seem adequate. I'm not very familiar with this editor, but no alarm bells are going off, and I like what I see so far.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
167. Support. Crikey, it's a fellow The Crocodile Hunter fan! The candidate has a solid overall record, and the answers to the RfA questions are thoughtful and clueful. I am also pleased to see an inclusionist editor running for adminship, which doesn't happen often these days. However, I do urge the candidate, once he is promoted, to accumulate a bit more experience as a regular AfD participant before starting to close AfDs (and maybe even cast a few delete !votes -:). In any case, good luck! Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
168. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
169. Support – Should be a net positive. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
170. Support. Had me at "unfailingly civil and polite". All the best! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
171. Support has a clue and will do well with the mop, which will be granted in four hours (I think?). All the best to your works ahead! JavaHurricane 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
172. Support Net positive. Question 6 was a trap, but the candidate still answered nicely regardless of what happened to the user who asked that question. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
173. Support Lourdes 12:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
174. Support Samsara 13:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Dissatisfied with answer to question 4. The user seems to imply that they would use unreliable or primary sources when reliable sources are unavailable; When at all possible, I try to cite information to reliable secondary sources. They seem to be repeatedly using these poor quality sources, see Fadila Bouamr, Nirali N. Shah, Dale Baum, Rosemarie Allen. Also, I'm concerned that the user defended their use of citing the employer of an article subject as a source; Those two biographies cite noncontroversial information to CVs posted by their employer, the National Cancer Institute and Texas A&M University respectively. I would note that the employer has a significant COI, and even if the content is 'noncontroversial', it still can't be relied on. The user last made an edit to WP:ITNC on 5 January ([1]) and I would question if, in the future, they would contribute to this area greatly like they claim to in question 1. They have only made 29 edits to RFPP, an area where they also intend to contribute. As for their AfD contributions, they have only made one delete vote and a look at their some of their latest AfD contributions ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) shows that they usually pitch in when a consensus has already been reached and they simply agree with the other editors. Finally, a look at their last 500 edits shows they're mainly contributing to mainspace or AfC, with expansions of articles, copyediting, adding or removing categories, and discussions on talk pages, and not administrative areas like noticeboards, RFPP, AfD and so forth. Overall, I'm not seeing any need for this user to have administrative rights. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   Willbb234, I am not trying to badger you here, but wanted to provide a perspective for context here. Back in 2019, I came across Peter Capak while doing NPP, and nominated it for deletion on similar the grounds to what you cite above - he was clearly a prolific academic, but I couldn't find any truly independent sources to verify the information. Here is the deletion discussion: to say my view did not meet with general approval would be an understatement. The understanding I have developed since then is that NPROF actually predates GNG as a concept, and that there is long-standing consensus that if a subject meets NPROF, they don't also have to meet GNG. Since sourcing for academics is sometimes difficult to come by, there is also a general consensus that the use of affiliated sources (where these sources come from reputable institutions) is acceptable for non-controversial information such as research interests and career details. As always, editorial judgment is required, and I haven't reviewed the particular articles you've flagged, but speaking generally there's nothing wrong with articles of that sort. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

   And the policy basis for this is WP:ABOUTSELF (and WP:BLPPRIMARY if still living). The candidate is not actually in error here. It would be a problem to apply NPROF standards to something other than academics, e.g. high school athletes, candidates for local office, songs, TV show episodes, CPU cooler models, etc., etc. This isn't what the candidate is doing, so this oppose seems to be misfounded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

   this oppose seems to be misfounded it seems you disregarded the other reasons for the oppose. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

   This may be worth expanding on. My understanding has always been that GNG is a fallback when no domain-specific notability guideline exists. If GNG trumped domain-specific guidelines, there'd be no point to having them. Samsara 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

   That's incorrect in both parts. The vast majority of WP:SNGs are subordinated to GNG, and are so by design. Their purpose is to explain why (even predict whether, if you will) a topically specific subject is likely to pass GNG or not, given the sorts of sources that are likely to be available. NPROF is an exception, being an alternative to GNG, and this is a very rare thing. One cannot generalize from NPROF to other topics like sports and organizations and works of fiction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose - As far as I am concerned [r]egrettably, many notable academics are not always covered by secondary sources is disqualifying. A subject is not notable (for Wikipedia) unless it is covered in secondary or tertiary sources. That is part of RS (P2), OR (P2), and N. Whether the subject ought to be notable (for Wikipedia) is not relevant. I am also fundamentally opposed to using a resume as a source for anything at all (even for trivial biographical data), because it undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia as a source. The words 'unduly self-serving' come to mind, as a resume epitomizes those words. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

   That view may be an oversimplification. Publications through peer review automatically generate secondary sources; for instance, through various online tools, we can see repeatably obtained estimates of how often a paper has been cited. A rough sketch of a person's impact can be obtained by stating what areas or conferences they've published in (usually evident from journal/conference titles) and how often their work has been cited. A stub of a properly notable person is better than pretending they don't exist. As far as more detailed biography is concerned, what many may gloss over is that biographical details published in secondary sources are rarely independently verified, at least where details of childhood and young adulthood are concerned. Samsara 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

   We have the various criteria of WP:NPROF that if met, over-ride GNG for leading academics. However, it makes finding basic biographical details difficult when constructing an academic BLP, and hence why (per the discussion below), their official university CV is, with caution, and WP:PRIMARY, sometimes used for dob etc. Britishfinance (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

   Indeed, NPROF specifically states that if met, they override GNG for academics. NPROF also states that often academics are not covered extensively by mainstream secondary sources, especially for things like their personal histories. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

   [A]s substantiated through reliable sources - Ctrl+F that will ya? I didn't mention GNG, I cited N (and RS and OR, which you've both conveniently ignored), which cites and applies to both GNG and SNG. So you're arguing with a phantom-man. Specifically, [i]nformation on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article which is the lede of N, not a part of GNG. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

   If you believe WP:NPROF and WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIMARY should not exist, you're welcome propose undoing them at WP:VPPRO. The candidate has not erred in applying them. You, however, err in applying the policies and guidelines you cite, to attempt to invalidate NPROF and ABOUTSELF and BLPPRIMARY. As we learn from WP:P&G, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:GAMING, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc., all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are to be interpreted as intended, as an interoperating system. If you think you can force one of them to invalidate another, you do not understand the policies and guidelines. Whether it was a good idea or not for the community to treat sourcing standards with regard to academics as requiring less independence from the subject is an open question, but the fact is that this has been done, and the candidate is not at fault for having operated within this consensus decision (which has been tested many times).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Too many of their biographies are sourced only to primary sources (some are permitted based on WP:PROF). Despite us both having over 150 edits in the past 4 years to WP:ITNC, I don't remember this username from that forum. Most of their AFD activity is just sorting, and I see no delete votes ever. There isn't other admin activity (anti-vandalism, move discussions, etc.) of note. I don't see any red flags, but also don't see sufficient reason to support an RFA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   I never knew WP:ITNC existed. Surely from your argument and in the spirit of Wikipedia, i.e the way, you would vote support? scope_creep^Talk 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

   I don't follow at all. Why are you supporting then? I've already said that I'm not impressed by their work on biographies (which is also generally not that collaborative). If we completely ignore ITNC, what's left? Their zero reports to AIV? Based on their edit history they seem to be active at WP:Women in Red, but I don't see a single supporter mentioning that, just a lot of "I'm not familiar with this editor myself". I don't see the administrative experience or community experience necessary to support this editor becoming an admin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Content creation is a central mission of Wikipedia. The nominee's "best contributions to Wikipedia" are, IMHO, unimpressive, being barely notable and narrow. It probably doesn't matter.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
   • Pretty sure the encyclopaedia would be worse off if editors decided to only edit strictly ‘meaningful things’ (whatever that is). Certainly, it would be worse off for the readers. Not only that, I’m not sure how the statement can be applied to Constance Kies or Nancy Marcus for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
   • I do not see why content creation is relevant at RfA; you do not need to be an admin to create articles. What matters are areas where being an admin makes a difference such as AfD, RfPP etc. SK2242 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

     You must not read RfA-related stuff very much then, since this has been discussed about a million times. The short version is that many editors want to see admins committed to the core work of the project, writing the encyclopedia, and familiar with the kinds of disputes and frustrations that content-focused editors have to deal with on a regular basis. We do not need a "police class" of user with no real interest in the project other than collecting and wielding authority, especially if they are likely to use it in bureaucratic ways that are ultimately not helpful to the project. This is why people care whether RfA candidates have a strong content-creation record, and a good record of civil behavior in the inevitable disputes that arise during content creation. What to make of this is subjective, of course. Some RfA voters just want to see non-trivial levels of mainspace work, and a lack of flamewarring. Others want to see multiple WP:FAs under a candidate's belt. Most of us are between these two extremes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

   • It would certainly be desirable if an admin had written many and good content, but since the function of an admin is primarily a regulatory one, I do not see this as a mandatory or even basic requirement. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
     • Well I do not want to extend this discussion too much, but here is my premise: the function of Wikipedia is the provision of content. Full stop. With that function in mind, a key attribute of administrators is their ability to discern excellent (highly notable, reliable) content. When someone points to almost trivial content as their best stuff, I get worried. But my considerations are secondary when the principal considerations are not content-focused, such as the management and housekeeping functions, which are also important.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
       • The usual argument is that an admin should have insight into the problems and frustrations that face content creators, and that extensive experience of content creation is necessary to gain that insight. Although I have some sympathy with that argument, an admin candidate who displays empathy with other editors and a willingness to learn on the job shouldn't need to be held to inflexible criteria like "has to have an FA". The key issue in the end is whether the community trusts the candidate with some extra tools. In this case, I've seen much to make me think that he is trustworthy and nothing to make me think he isn't. --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

General comments

---

• Re question #4, I have had the same issues with academic BLPs who pass NPROF but who have never had a WP:SIGCOV interview (and thus lack basic BIO details like dob, education, etc.); and thus have resorted to using their CV posted onto their official university website (per WP:BLPPRIMARY). Britishfinance (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

[7], [8]. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lying on your CV on your official webpage in your university for a professor (i.e. or other NPROF qualification), is an unlikely stretch; no more likely as any BLP candidate lying about their bio details in an interview to a quality RS whose article becomes a source for their BLP? Obviously, per WP::PRIMARY, caution always applies. Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, many professors would abstain from falsification of their records for the simple reason that they would risk losing tenure.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe there's a general consensus that CVs hosted at reasonably major universities are adequately reliable unless demonstrated otherwise, certainly for employment history, education details and the like. I imagine every editor who has made a serious effort to create articles on non-retired scientists has resorted to them on occasion. I don't recall ever personally having found such material to be inaccurate. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This applies to official CVs. it does not necessarily apply to page prepared by the university's PR staff, who are as prone to exaggeration as any other PR people, and tend to be inaccurate from not knowing the subject field they're writing about. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The proper official CV (often pasted on their university page), is usually a very dry affair but can have basic dob (maybe place of birth), education/alma mater, and then long lists of publications, publications reviewed etc. Very little puff in those versions. The PR staff CV is a different affair, and not useable.Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Somewhat of a tangent: What exactly is the basis behind granting adminship based on a "need for the tools"? Is there a disadvantage of giving admin rights to someone who has the temperament and ability to be an admin, if they don't plan on using the tools immediately? --WaltCip-(talk) 15:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Someone you trust offers to clean up your home for no pay, and you give them the keys – only to have them turn up rarely (which is okay I guess; but just a matter of expectations)...speaking from personal experience as the one who volunteered :) Lourdes 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think there is a disadvantage, but the key is having enough of a record to evaluate that they do have the temperament and ability. Once they become an admin, they can do as much or as little as they wish, as we are all volunteers.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's different philosophies on this. Some RFA participants expect a need for the tools, while others (like me) are in the camp that the "need for tools" is overblown and that its temperament and competence that matter. Hog Farm _Talk 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Does this "need for tools" really come from an earlier time when there were too many looking to be admins, and thus the criteria was applied? I have seen successful RfAs do little admin work (which is fine), and established admins re-focus on articles (but still remain admins, also fine). Given our net need for admins, should we not drop this criteria at RfAs? Britishfinance (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's users giving zero justification for supporting the candidate (as happens every RFA), and yet you're nit-picking over this? Please, just move on. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• No nit-picking and your comment is entirely valid Willbb234, and discussed at many RfAs; but I (and others above), are wondering if this question is as relevant as it once was? Britishfinance (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am greatly puzzled. This question has nothing to do with you whatsoever. WaltCip-(talk) 11:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip: See the last few sentences of their "oppose" vote: easy to assume that it was a subtweet (or its equivalent on Wikipedia). Sdrqaz (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Sdrqaz: Fair enough, though I've seen "need for the tools" rationales come up in many other RFAs outside of this one, and not by Willbb234.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's not a novel issue and editors will probably continue having disagreements over it. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• @WaltCip: I don't know why no-one's mentioned it but we've had known breaches of admin accounts in the past and every user with the mop adds to the attack surface for a malicious user to cause serious disruption. I can see an argument to change "need for the tools" to "can reasonably anticipate making use of the tools" but there needs to be something to make the (small) security cost worthwhile. Another factor is that many of us are in favour of as flat a hierarchy as possible. Whether this is done by making adminship "no big deal" (many admins) or making it a strictly technical ability only given for concrete technical needs (few admins) is up to, I guess, how you think this plays out in practice. — Bilorv (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv, does 2FA fix the problem? Could we reasonably make it an either/or? Candidates either have already set up 2FA, or they show a proven need? Would that make us just as safe? —valereee (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't want to answer that without more research or expertise in this area, but it's a valid question. — Bilorv (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is unnecessary scaremongering. With over 1000 admins, the attack surface is sufficiently large already. Any single added admin does not significantly increase it. Samsara 12:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Samsara, Also, admins who are reported as having their accounts compromised get dealt with very quickly by the stewards and are globally locked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Seems like a good candidate, but I’m curious to know the answer to question 6. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. If TJMSmith does not wish to answer the question, they should indicate accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Would most likely support this RFA but I’m just a little worried about how question #6 was snubbed, It was a valid question from a 7 day old editor about welcoming new editors (they themselves being one) and it goes casually unanswered. I don’t think it sends the right message to new editors.Celestina007 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

umm he did answer it. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC) (p.s can you use my name next time ?)

• • They are, of course, “optional questions”. The habit of asking every question imaginable, even when it has little to do with a candidate’s suitability for adminship, is what contributes to ~30 question RfAs. The alternative is that they’re still thinking. Either way doesn’t really matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  What is a candidate going to say, "I oppose welcoming new users"? "I support welcoming new users but only on weekends"? Admin tools have nothing to do with welcoming new users and questions ought to be limited to things related to admin tools and not just general "getting to know you" questions. We shouldn't treat this like it's a job interview. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• The question should have been answered with a reasonably cogent argument, as everybody including administrators should have a strong interest in welcoming productive new editors. They are the absolute lifeblood that drives new ideas. So many new users come in, do some good work and then leave. We have no unified approach to make the onboard process really easy. Our approach it is entirely haphazard, and while the corporate sector, the people that rule our lives, are spending billions and billions on getting it right, we can't get it right. So some kind of decent answer would have been ideal. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• What is a candidate going to say? Maybe the questioner was looking for "I have recently welcomed new users A and B. I helped new user C with this issue."? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Candidates can answer the questions in any order they like, or not at all. Regardless, they have now answered, and their answer is good IMO. I don't think that we should be so quick to jump to saying that a candidate has ignored a question, even if they have answered the other questions. The order itself should not be seen as important, so unless it remains unanswered for a good while, it shouldn't be seen as necessarily ignored. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah. Besides, the candidate could just be trying to come up with an answer for said question. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So much for questions being optional lol...I'm sure after seeing so much clamoring for an answer, TJMS will provide something pithy and enlightening which will be fully weighed in support/oppose decisions. Might even make some people change their !votes. —valereee (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, he has answered it, and I think he answered it well. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

& I have supported accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• From what I am gathering, NPROF sounds like a pretty shambolic guideline. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  You are hardly alone in that assessment. However, it does remain a guideline and no one is at fault if they follow it (properly – see, e.g., discussion above about an academic's official just-the-facts CV versus glowing material written by a university's PR department; "it came from the subject's university" isn't a free pass for all potential source material). Basically, the community has a choice: be a bit lax about sourcing for (non-controversial) claims about academics, or have way fewer articles on academics, even the most influential ones. The community has chosen the former, despite many of us arguing for the latter when the choice has been re-raised several times. Part of the "survivability" of NPROF probably has to do with WP:V being less hardcore than people think it is. It does not require that everything be reliably sourced, just sourceable; a claim must be sourced only if it has been controverted or is likely to be controversial. This provides a fair amount of wiggle room, in various ways. E.g., it's also why we have so many thousands of miserable stubs with noting but primary sourcing, or no sourcing at all, but which are probably not actually saying anything false. The community has been tolerant of them, as long as they're not blatantly promotional and the subject is likely to actually be notable. Attempting to AFD them usually results in lots of WP:BEFORE finger-pointing, followed by people coughing up enough RS to make the central claims sourced and keep the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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