Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trialpears

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 (217/0/0); ended 14:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Useight (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Closed as successful by Useight at end 14:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Trialpears (talk · contribs) – Today it's my pleasure to present Trialpears for consideration. Trialpears has distinguished themselves as a highly competent technical editor, running a bot and with numerous contributions to project templates. You can see they also know how to create content that is useful for our readers with their work at List of countries by Human Development Index. As good as all that is, what has stood out to me the most is their ability to keep a cool head even during contentious discussions and their willingness to be helpful to new and experienced editors. All of this combines into someone who is ready to help close and implement discussions at the understaffed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I hope you will join me in supporting them. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination by Primefac

I came across Trialpears through the WP:TFD process, where they steadily built up a reputation as someone who knows how to read consensus of a discussion. They are also technically proficient, from implementing complex template mergers to writing and running PearBOT for more automated processes. As indicated by Barkeep49, I will often see Trialpears as a calm voice in the storm of TFD, giving well-thought-out opinions about the suitability (or lack thereof) of a template that has been nominated for deletion. This also indicates a solid ability to recognize the times when it is more important to join in the conversation with your opinion than it is to "push the buttons" and perform administrative tasks (i.e. I see them joining discussions just as often as closing them). As someone who gained the mop working in the more back-water areas like TFD and bot requests, I am happy to see another editor rise up and show interest and skill in these areas. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Barkeep and Primefac! I accept. I have never edited for pay and I have only used alternative accounts for bots and testing purposes as declared on my user page. --Trialpears (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have long been a regular at templates for discussion and expect much of my administrative work to be in this area. Apart from the obvious task of closing discussions, this also includes implementing TfD decisions. That may involve deletion, updating transclusions on fully protected pages, and protecting high-risk templates. I also help out with other technical work. Sometimes more niche parts of the toolset can come in handy then, such as moving pages using AutoWikiBrowser, noratelimit, and editing the MediaWiki namespace.
Another task that I hope to get more involved in is closing categories for discussions. This is something I already do from time to time when the backlog gets really bad. However, since non-admins don't have access to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and the associated bot, the process is a lot slower and more cumbersome than if I were an admin. With the bit, I would be able to focus on the part I find enjoyable: Determining consensus and not menial bot work.
I also intend to help out with other technical requests (e.g. history merging) but I have no idea what are things I will enjoy doing regularly and what I will just try once or twice.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My featured list candidate (promoted during the RfA) List of countries by Human Development Index is the thing I'm the proudest of. Giving lots of people an accurate, well-developed, and well-presented article on such an important topic is something I take a lot of pride in.
I'm also quite fond of the hundreds of thousands of short descriptions I've generated (using bots and templates) for biographies, schools, drugs, awards, and many other topics. This is a not-insignificant fraction of all our articles which is quite insane to think about.
The thing I've spent the most time and effort with, though, is helping TfD run smoothly by closing hundreds of discussions and implementing many of our larger decisions. One worth mentioning would be the {{Aircraft specs}} mergers which required a gargantuan multi-year effort, but it was well worth it since it added proper unit conversions, fixed broken parameters, and made the specifications follow our manual of style. For a few hundred articles, it even involved complete rewrites, data verification, or unhiding of incorrectly formatted specifications. I've also been a driving force for simplifying and improving our archiving procedures with it now, for example, being possible to get a great archive box by just putting {{Archives}} on a talk page without configuration by automatically choosing parameters based on various factors.
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: As for everyone involved in as many discussions as I've been, there have been lots of fierce debates, but almost always these have been about a single template or technical detail with no stress or conflict involved.
There have however been a couple of times where editing has gotten stressful. The one that immediately comes to mind was back in 2019 where I had many unpleasant interactions with a good faith IP editor involving {{Infobox settlement}} wrappers.
In cases like that, I take a step back, remember that there are no angry mastodons, and give any reply a few hours consideration time before publishing it. That usually results in a well-formulated response that deescalates the situation. I also try to focus on the substance of any comments instead of incivilities or off-topic matters. In the case of a not-so-civil TfD comment, a reply may look something like: "I didn't consider that case, thanks for bringing it up! I would handle that as follows: ..." I think that's a lot more likely to result in fruitful discussion than a quick quip.
I also find it useful to remember that we all are working towards a common goal of improving the encyclopedia. If someone donates lots of their free time I can be fairly certain they have their heart in the right place, even if I may not agree with them or they express their thoughts in an aggressive way.

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 CycloneFootball71
4. Are there any aspects of WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT and generally WP:ADMIN in which you disagree with and why?
A: I believe that administrators should be able to cooperate well with other users and think that WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT sets good standards for doing so. Not following any of the points laid out in these sections (as well as WP:INVOLVED) would betray the community's trust and open up for severe issues such as poor actions going unchallenged/unresolved or a group of admins having undue influence over an area with concerns not being addressed or met with incivilities. --Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from ScrapheapNinjaShuriken77
5. How would you deal with personal attacks, vandalism or disruptive editing
A: I expect to only rarely deal with this kind of issues and only in a portion of cases actually use any admin buttons as I'm not especially experienced dealing with personal attacks, vandalism or disruptive editing.
If the issue is very serious and unambiguous such as porn-image vandalism, major ongoing vandalism sprees or other zero tolerance behavior I would issue a block with a suitable duration considering possible collateral and IP changes for IP blocks. For other vandalism I may issue a block after making sure they were properly warned. In not so clear cut cases I would not issue blocks. Instead I would try to communicate with or warn the editor and then, if it's clear that doesn't resolve the issue, report the editor to a relevant noticeboard such as AIV, ANI or AN3 depending on issue.
Blocks, warnings and discussion is of course not the only tools for dealing with disruption with page protection, edit filters and blacklists also being good choices in certain situations. If the case for protection is particularly clear I may implement a conservative page protection, but in many cases I would probably hand it over to our experienced admins at RFPP. Same goes with other areas I am not familiar with.
It is also important not to act when involved which probably is most often relevant for personal attacks. If I were the subject of a personal attack I would deal with the situation as I outlined in question 3.
My response may of course change with time and experience, but that is how I would handle it currently. --Trialpears (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from Elli
6. As a technical editor, would you consider helping to implement fully-protected edit requests, particularly on high-use templates?
A: I would, implementing template-protected edit requests is already something I do at times and I expect I would do the same for fully-protected edit requests at technical pages. There are two main things that should be ensured before any such edit is made: That the change is technically sound (usually using testcases) and that there is consensus for the change. In many cases this may involve waiting to allow for additional input or advertising the discussion at relevant discussion pages. --Trialpears (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. A template editor makes a change to a template-protected template with tens of thousands of transclusions. You disagree with the change, and believe it needs discussion, so you revert it. The template editor reinstates it without discussing. What do you do? (you believe said change is misguided enough that it remaining on thousands of pages is a serious problem - but it's not vandalism)
A: Given that I reverted it I would need to have had a good cause for it per WP:TPEDISPUTE, presumably something like the change breaking a significant number of transclusions or otherwise having a large impact on pages. The first thing I would do in this situation is making sure they haven't tried communicating through edit summaries, on another talk pages or something else. Seeing a template editor behave like this would be very out of the norm with it being one of the most vetted user rights. Assuming they haven't made any attempt at communication I would write a message on the talk page (with a ping) explaining why I believed this edit to be harmful and that they had violated WP:TPEDISPUTE since When a template editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another template editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision which isn't the case here. I would also explain that if they reinstate again without any discussion I would take away the template editor bit for the time being citing WP:TPEREVOKE criteria 1 as a second edit would make a pattern of performing obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus..
If it comes to this point the account being compromised wouldn't be out of the question and otherwise the editor had clearly acted in a way that is unacceptable for a template editor. Both possibilities carry a significant risk of disruption to the encyclopedia. I would also report the incident at the administrators noticeboard, both to make sure my behavior was appropriate and to see if other interventions are necessary. I very much hope to never have to do something like this. --Trialpears (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from EpicPupper
8. Which of the 5 pillars would you, in your opinion, remark to me most important?
A: All 5 pillars have of course been incredibly important for the encyclopedia's success, but I personally have to say pillar 4: Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. If we didn't have a respectful and civil community none of us would want to be here and certainly not want to dedicate the amount of time that we do. By respectfully discussing issues with other editors we can resolve most issues and come to a consensus conclusion which would hopefully reflect our ideals such as verifiability and neutral point of view. --Trialpears (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from HighInBC
9. Do you feel that the current RfA system is unfair or excessively harsh on candidates?
A: I think it's very difficult for anyone to answer such a question with a significant amount of confidence. All RfAs are different with some being intensely stressful and others, mostly back in the day, not being particularly stressful. I don't even know where on the spectrum my RfA will fall, much less how it would feel going through a different system or for a different person to do the same.
When this is over I do however plan on writing a debriefing as I found previous ones very useful and insightful when considering RfA. --Trialpears (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Hog Farm
10. As an editor active on the technical end, what do you think is the appropriate trade-off with proposed template/citation changes that would make things harder for most content editors, but make things easier for those who volunteer with coding/template maintenance?
A: Ultimately technical editors are here to help build and maintain the encyclopedia. If the only reason for a change is to make it easier for technical editors (say deleting the redirect {{citeweb}} to make regular expressions shorter) and there are no other benefits that would be a poor change. Generally speaking there are other reasons for changes as well even if they aren't immediately obvious. Cleaning up lint errors, for instance, may feel like people imposing certain ways of doing things and adding another thing for content creators to think about, but actually it's ensuring that our pages display properly for all readers regardless of what browser or screen reader they use.
There are of course a few proposals where there is a tangible (but small) benefit, but it would cause significant annoyance to content creators. Here we would have to consider the trade off in the same way as we make any other potentially controversial decision: Through discussion and consensus. It is of course important to make sure the people who will be impacted by the change are aware of the proposal and it isn't hidden on some abandoned talk page only seen by a small handful of techies. Most of the best technical work (including the {{aircraft specs}} merger from Q2) is done in close collaboration with content creators and other non-technical editors. --Trialpears (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
11. Thank you for stepping forward, you already have my support, however I do need to ask you, Are you ready to do the arduous and very controversial tasks other sysops would generally shy away from?
A: I do when I'm experienced in the area and believe I'm qualified to do so. I will almost certainly end up closing a significant amount of contentious TfDs and CfDs for instance. What I will not do is perform controversial actions when I'm not confident it is appropriate or I lack relevant experience. For instance I would not be ready to make difficult blocks as discussed in Q5. --Trialpears (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Iflaq
12. What is your weakest area on Wikipedia?
A: Probably something like username policy. I've learned that I have no talent what so ever in spotting violations with several accounts I've given warnings to receiving a hard username block with my reaction being basically "Huh why?" until I read the block notice and it becomes clear as day what a bad username it is.
My weakest area that I want to actively work towards improving would probably be MediaWiki changes. I have no experience with PHP, always think the code looks quite cryptic and I barely have a grasp on how MediaWiki is organized behind the hood. I would love to take on some phabricator tasks some day though. --Trialpears (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Willbb234
13 Hello there. A look at your edit count shows that your editing varies wildly from month to month. For example, in May 2020, you made 43 edits but the next month you made 1528, then a few months later you made 106. Do you expect this trend to continue or do you plan on editing more consistently?
A: Not really as I don't anticipate any major changes to my editing patterns. I have to admit that it looks kind of bizarre however. Most of the edits in the high edit count months are from semi-automatic projects through AutoWikiBrowser, usually updating templates as a result of TfDs. Using AWB it isn't all that rare to get 500+ edits in a day which makes the rest of the months look a lot more flat. There are also months were my Wikipedia activity has been largely limited to checking my watchlist once a day and responding to discussions I'm interested in, either because I had a lot to do outside Wikipedia (much of the fall being a prime example of that) and sometimes because of other reasons such as the craziness and uncertainty of the world last spring. --Trialpears (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Interstellarity
14. I would like to analyze this scenario: On a Wikipedia article, Editor A makes a bold edit which is reverted by Editor B. Editor A make another bold edit which is reverted by editor C. Editor A brings the discussion to the talk page. After Editor A posted the talk page, responses on the article talk page show editors being argumentative at each other and being unproductive. Multiple editors come to your talk page asking you to block Editor A. What would you do in this scenario as an admin?
A: Alright, in cases like this it's important to consider the context and understand the dispute at hand, which won't be possible without reading the discussion, but I will write out some consideration that may apply and general impressions.
My first impression here is that editor A is attempting to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle by first making bold edits (I presume the two edits are decently different as it would just be a revert otherwise), notices the changes are being reverted and starts a talk page discussion. While the discussion appears to be quite heated and not particularly fruitful it doesn't seem like personal attacks and other incivility is rampant either making me doubtful blocks are appropriate here.
Never the less the reports should be considered and one thing that stands out to me is several editors contacting me specifically. This leads me to believe that I'm somehow connected to this dispute, even if only tangentially. It could be something innocuous such as me dealing with edit requests or vandals at the page or something more substantial such as me having participated in related content disputes previously. In a case like the latter I would be involved and should not act as an administrator.
The most likely course of action looks like posting something on the talk page. This could involve a lot of different things such as voicing an opinion on the content dispute, suggesting perusing more formal dispute resolution, inviting more input from related articles or WikiProjects, or suggesting some compromise. I've also found questions such as What do you think about proposal X? to be very effective at bringing discussion back to the core issue and gives the editor an opportunity to clearly explain the thought process behind their opinions.
There are of course many other factors that could be at play such as sanctions being in place (either for the article or the editors), there being sockpuppetry or external coordination involved when contacting me, the discussion could be a lot worse than I interpreted it as here with severe civility issues. There could be a pattern of issues with some party or I may have had a lot of interactions with some participant. Or any of dozens of other possibilities all of which would have to be handled somewhat differently, but this is in general how I would approach it. --Trialpears (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Hawkeye7
15. I note that PearBot is written in Python using Pywikibot, and your comment above about PHP. What was the reason for your choice of Python, and what other computer languages are you proficient in?
A: In contrast to many of our other technical editors I'm not a computer science major and don't have any relevant professional experience so I'm generally a weaker programmer than many others here, but never the less I've picked up some competency in several languages.
Python is the language I'm the most comfortable, it's the main language I use for my bot and in my university studies. I've also done quite a bit of MATLAB programming which I have a quite strong love-hate relationship with. I think other MATLAB users can relate to that. I've also used Lua to make a few Wikipedia modules, as well as ComputerCraft turtles if anyone knows about that.
When learning programming I started out with C++, but never did much practical work with it so it never really stuck. I have however written a few AWB modules in C# so I guess it wasn't completely useless. JavaScript was my second language and I'm decently competent at it still, I haven't written any user scripts though and don't know much about interacting with MediaWiki through it, but occasionally it comes in handy being able to update existing scripts. Finally I have some quite basic SQL skills, nothing like our quarry expert Cryptic, but usually enough to get something unpolished up and running on my own. --Trialpears (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Parnaval
16. Just curious, you have so much interest in coding, but still why didn't you customize your signature to something fancy ?
A: Just didn't see a benefit to doing it except giving newcomers a false sense that I have some special status because of it. I also think I was influenced by my experiences from various Minecraft servers where it's common to sell (on a subscription basis to mostly children) the ability to change the appearance of your name. This often creates a two tier community where the folks with unreadable or animated nick names are treated completely differently from folks with a plain name. The situation is obviously very different for Wikipedia signatures and I don't mind them (as long as they are easily readable and clearly convey your account name), but I can't be the only person who arrived here with a negative impression of them. --Trialpears (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Tim Smith
17. If promoted, will you join Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
A: I believe admin accountability and community trust are both important things and recall looks like a decent way to work towards that goal. I think the sample process looks alright and intend to use that if I get promoted and don't announce anything else in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

  1. Support trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. As nom Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support per noms and my interactions with the candidate. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Excellent candidate and glad to see this request. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support, great candidate. Seen them around quite a bit and they definitely can demonstrate a need for the tools. — Berrely • TalkContribs 14:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support was on my list of potential nominees, but already had nominators. I think Trialpears will make good use of the technical tools in areas that need attention. — xaosflux Talk 14:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support - honestly surprised they aren't an admin already! Every interaction with them has been positive, also per noms. Remagoxer (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Go ahead; they were a pleasure to work with in discussions such as these, which had/ve an unfortunate habit of regularly descending into trolling. Best of luck TP! ——Serial 14:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Sure, why not. I've seen them around and have only a positive impression from their interactions, and it seems like they do need the tools. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support another one where I'm not familiar with their work, but not only does the need seem clear, I trust their nominators. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, and technical skills to boot. Will be the kind of behind-the-scenes/techie sysop we need more of. Yes please. firefly ( t · c ) 14:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Seems like a great candidate that has a good amount of knowledge, I wish you luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support I know I've run into them somewhere but can't remember. In any case, I've seen their work and their activity indicates they both have a need for the tools and can be trusted with them Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support per noms and Serial's recommendation. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Thanks for volunteering. Levivich 15:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support I have seen their work and they'll make a good admin. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 15:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support per noms, great candidate. DanCherek (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. A need for XfD admins presents itself. While not very familiar with their work, clearly a trusted user and will be filling a need. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support - Definitely seems like a great editor that would do well under adminship, plus they are doing great work! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. For deft handling and peacemaking combined with technical skills, bringing an end to an old feud. –xenotalk 15:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support for meeting my mins and no big deal, no reason to oppose. Ifnord (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support. Any time I see "cool head" and "calm voice" combined with this kind of competence and cluefulness, I'm in. —valereee (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Squee! And they think civility is the most important pillar! I was so prepared for someone to ask me the which pillar is most important question and no one did! —valereee (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. The content creation isn't quite as strong as I'd like (the Featured List candidacy failed), but it's not frighteningly negligible and adminny work, combined with the noms, bring this over the line.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    John M Wolfson is "Sure, why not" to be said in a Clarence Beaks voice...? ——Serial 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Impressed by noms, and very impressed by successfully changing many minds on a TFD merge proposal, as Xeno pointed out.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support, the mop will be in good hands, Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - good candidate. - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Strong support I believe they’ll do a not great, but outstanding and impressive job here. Good choice for a candidate. ScrapheapNinjaShuriken77 15:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support, looks like a good candidate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support: Great work! Stay beautiful. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support. The high proportion of deleted edits (8.1%) is explained by significant contributions to RfD and other "deletion" projects. The user is clearly reliable, and shows a need for admin privileges. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support precisely in line with SportingFlyer's comment; happy days, LindsayHello 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support: experienced and competent user with a clear need for the tools Vahurzpu (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Trial has been on my short list since Barkeep asked around offwiki in the second half of 2020 for suggested nominees, for Trial's good work editing and discussing templates. Happy to support. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Not a jerk; has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support. Constructive editor, demonstrates a need and desire for the tools, and competence to use them. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 16:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support I've seen them around and have no concerns. Good luck with the RfA. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support good editor, --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Clear need for the tools, no concerns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support, I'm frankly quite surprised Trialpears isn't already an admin. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Ready a year ago ~ Amory (utc) 17:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Never come across them, but a good solid record inspires confidence. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support No doubt they'll make good use of the tools. – SD0001 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support The more qualified administrators who understand and can wade into the more technical areas of the encyclopedia, the better. Trialpears fits the bill. Also, I was impressed with their thoughtfulness in the recent book namespace RfC at WP:VPR, which I thought demonstrated good judgment and a sound logic of thought around the issue at hand. Go Phightins! 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support: need for the tools (and very technically competent), lots of attestations to their good temperament. — Bilorv (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support. Can't think of a better candidate for the mop, and the admin corps needs more good editors like this one! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support, no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support: Great editor; seems fine to me. Tol | talk | contribs 19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. SupportTerasail[✉] 19:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support, techy admins are low in supply and high in demand. ♠PMC(talk) 19:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Kusma (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Wug·a·po·des 19:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Sonic screwdriver mop wielder without obvious issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support glad to see more technically-inclined editors running for adminship. I haven't interacted with Trialpears too much, but in the times I have they've always been kind and helpful - and their answers to my questions indicate that that will continue. I especially appreciate their willingness to consider TPERs and (in the future) FPERs, as I feel like that is one of the most important areas for users with extended rights to help out. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support absolutely. No question. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support looks fine to me. Link20XX (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Possesses a skill set that is currently needed in an admin. Such as tech experience and Xfd.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 20:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Skilled editor. 15 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support Pahunkat (talk) 20: 45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  64. Support haven't seen a clearer need for the tools in some time now. TP has been endlessly helpful towards me specifically, graciously answer questions and guiding me in various technical matters. For a while I actually assumed they were already an admin, based on their general demeanor and practices. The recent book namespace nominations shows that they are willing to be a leader in tackling large issues and initiating fruitful discussion. Exactly what we need in our admins. Aza24 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support, trusted user. NASCARfan0548  21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support yes you are ready. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support I see no reason to oppose. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support mo' admins, less problems? - TNT 💞 21:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. I don't recall interacting with them before, but I don't see any obvious reasons to oppose. Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support Can provide even more help to the project by having the tools. Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Good with TfD work and has bot skills. Has always been very helpful. NoahTalk 22:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support. Not a jerk, need for the tools. TfD work is also wonderful. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 22:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support looks good all around, thanks for volunteering for adminship.--- Possibly (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support It is hard to imagine a better candidate: technical, diligent, of a temperate disposition, and ever the voice of reason. Trialpears will make an excellent admin. — Goszei (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Trustworthy candidate who will make good use of the mop. Miniapolis 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Trusted user. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Unfortunately I dont think I have ever crossed path with this editor, but from their last 100 edits, I am okay with what I see. Furthermore their answer to question 3 was brilliant. Lastly, if Barkeep49 and Primefac trusts you, by extension I do too. Celestina007 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Yay for more tech admins. Nardog (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support, will be asset. Cavalryman (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  81. Support. I regularly interact with Trialpears at TfD and in other technical areas, and I have long been impressed by their competence, insight, and friendliness. They are already an administrator without tools and I look forward to them soon becoming an admin with the tools. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support, Doing good heavy lift work in some specialist technical areas and could do with the tools. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support, looks good to me.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support no concerns. Looks good to me and I have faith in the noms. Let's see how long we can keep the 100% train going Face-smile.svg. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support, no problems here. Graham87 05:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support. Unlikely to delete the mainpage. We can always use admin template editors. BusterD (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support for sure. This user looks like they will make a great admin. It is good to have technically minded people about to handle the more tricky issues. Good answer to my question. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support I commonly encounter this editor at TFD and hold them in high esteem both in terms of their words and actions. I am confident they would make a good admin and have need of the tools. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support. Experienced editor, good temperament, clear need for the tools. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support More technically competent admins would be welcome - thanks for offering to help. Girth Summit (blether) 07:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support–An excellent technical editor who will make good use of the sysop flag. Kurtis (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Trusted user. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support - Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support - almost did a nomination statement for them. Seems grand to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support per TonyBallioni. And excellent answers to questions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support. I really appreciated how in Question 7 you didn't just say "oh I'd be INVOLVED" (would be my answer) and say you'd refer the matter to another admin. You thought through the question and the implications of having to be in a situation where you have to revert a template editor making really bad edits (possible compromised account that could cause serious disruption) and came up with a thoughtful answer that while based on policy doesn't just repeat policy. Going immediately to AN based on the fact that removing a template editor bit would be especially controversial is the cherry on top. Based on what others have said about their experiences with you it sounds like you have very good conflict resolution skills and that's something I don't believe is valued nearly as much as it should be in a Wikipedia admin given how often they're called upon to resolve such. I hope you don't limit yourself solely to dealing with technical issues. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 10:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support per Chess. I like the answer to Question 7. They're a good editor who will make excellent use of the tools, a solid and extensive track record of making valuable and helpful edits to the project, and demonstrating that they can be trusted with additional tools. And they've a couple of great nominators in the shape of Barkeep and Primefac, who aren't the most prolific RfA nominators but pick and choose candidates wisely. It's a couple of extra ticks in the column headed trust for Trialpears when they've such good nominators. Nick (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. I see nothing to make me believe that the editor in question would misuse the tools. Excellent choice in highly trusted nominators. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 10:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support As with others above, very reassuring response in Q7, seeking peer communication, thinking before acting. More, please. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support Looks fine to me. signed, Iflaq (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support - excellent technical editor, happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Fine for me. --Minorax (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Looks like this'll go through without a hitch. Uncontroversial editor who has a genuine need for the tools, recognizes their strengths and weaknesses, and as someone who has pretty much negative technical experience, seeing someone who has that kind of know-how with the mop seems A-triple-plus. Kncny11 (shoot) 15:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support trusted user, has a clue, has a good need for the toolset. All the best! JavaHurricane 15:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support - no concerns here. Anarchyte (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support — Trustworthy candidate whose record speaks for itself. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support, one of those users that constantly appears in useful technical areas and would clearly be more effective there with admin tools. An obvious choice. ~ mazca talk 17:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support: Net positive. The few interactions I have had offwiki with them always brought clear and level-headed productive discussions. Will make good use of tools. Sennecaster (What now?) 18:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 18:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support No concerns, a trusted user. AnApple47 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support - Good work in technical areas, good answers to the questions. Hog Farm Talk 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Good luck! Wingwatchers (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support - a good editor with a good head on their shoulders, who would help resolve difficult issues on relatively complicated and obscure areas of the project. jp×g 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - I honestly thought Trialpears was already an admin. - ZLEA T\C 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support, obviously. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support Seen this editor perform a number of edits relating to the technical side of the platform and I honestly think they'd make good use of the tools that come with Adminship. Owen250708 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support - Thoroughly impressed with their answers, I don't see any red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support Vexations (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support Less Unless (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support Kind, cool, calm, compassionate, and competent. Yes, please do give them a few more tools to help us out. — Ched (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support Sounds ideal. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support easy to support - clearly here, competent, considerate. --Find bruce (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support, welcome to the party. BD2412 T 02:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support – clear need for the tools; competent; not the kind to cause drama. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support No concerns, good luck. ~ANM🐁 T·C 03:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support. User in good standing, lots of good work. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support No concerns, this editor seems to be well experienced and their answers to the questions appear to be very constructive.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support - I like the answer to my question. I bet Trialpears would make a great admin. Interstellarity (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support - clearly competent and able. Cloudbound (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support - thought they already were one. the wub "?!" 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support - No problems. SethWhales talk 14:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support. I doubt I will be seeing much of Trialpears, given that their stomping grounds barely overlap with mine (I don't believe I've ever touched CfD and TfD). That being said, going through Pears' talk page archives and my (admittedly brief) interactions with them in the delightful realm of short descriptions, they seem like a technically knowledgeable editor who is very willing to help. I am particularly pleased by the insight and nuance shown in the answers to Q10 – it's important to keep in mind that [m]ost of the best technical work ... is done in close collaboration with content creators and other non-technical editors – and to Q14. I wish Trialpears all the best and echo Chess's pleas not to limit themself solely to technical matters: I think there are many areas of the encyclopaedia that would benefit from their help. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support Per excellent answers to questions. I think Trialpears has a good temperament for an admin. ~Awilley (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support User is not a jerk, and has plenty of activity in areas where the mop would be useful. Per excellent answers and demonstrated temperament, fairly convinced that Trial is a great candidate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support A Barkeep/Primefac wombo combo! Never interacted, but seen them around, and am heartened by the answers. Also, what a great username...makes me think of a little pear wearing a suit in a courtroom :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. support per nom —MdsShakil (talk)
  143. Support, excellent editor who will no doubt make an equally excellent admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support obvious net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support Net positive to the project and a clear need for tools. Roller26 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support As I thought that T was already an admin I am happy to support since that will correct my error. T is an asset to the project and the mop and bucket will only increase that fact. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Good noms, not a jerk, has a clue. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support - This candidate has a clue and giving them the bit will very much be a net positive for the project. Happy to pile on my support! - tucoxn\talk 01:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support This editor works mostly in very different areas of this vast project than I do. I don't recall any interactions with them. I know next to nothing about the technical aspects of templates but certainly realize their critical importance. From all I've read in the past few days, this candidate is well qualified, level headed and has a need for the tools, and that makes me happy to support. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support Looks good Dracophyllum 05:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Trusted user, good answers to questions, has a use for admin tools, etc. eviolite (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support competent and trustworthy. Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support Level-headed and clearly competent. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support - Great candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support No concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support This one's a no-brainer. No reservations whatsoever. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support EN-Jungwon 14:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support. I've never commented on RfAs before as I just don't care for the drama, but I feel obligated to respond here as I've personally interacted with Trialpears since his first steps in TfD. Not only does he understand the technical sides of the pedia, which sadly a lot of admins lack, but he's also taken upon himself him start discussions, be it at TfD or VPP, which most know should happen, but no one wants to start, so as to not get all the ugly parts of the site thrown at them. Trialpears not only isn't afraid, but he's clam throughout and when needed, tries to reach a compromise. Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support because why not? I don't see any good reasons to oppose. Trialpears has no edits that are probably bad. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talkcontribs) 15:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be fair, nor do any of Wikipedia's most notorious crazies. That "hide probably good edits" tool isn't worth the pixels it's written on; I'm not sure why the devs insist on keeping it visible, as it leads people to assume in good faith that the results it generates are valid. ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be even fairer, anything outrageous like page blanking or even this always appears if you hide the probably good edits. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talkcontribs)I forgot to sign on time.
    Great. I forgot to check the box. Now I'm going to be starting User:Littleb2009/Why the "hide good edits" box needs to be removed. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talkcontribs) 16:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support - no issues that I can see. Seems fine. ♟♙ (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support, because they are expirienced. --BonsMans1 (talkcontributions), 17:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support Gladly. No red flags. Good answers. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support Seems like a good user. SVcode(Talk) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support Casspedia (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support - I don't think our paths have crossed, but based on their answers, I thinkthey will be a trustworthy admin. Thank you for offering your service to the community! Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. This RfA does not need my !vote, but I'm familiar with Trialpears for their work in technical spaces and I'm happy to support. — The Earwig (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support Uncontroversial, trustworthy editor who appears to be very experienced (especially on the technical side) and would certainly benefit from these tools. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support Looks like a good addition to the team. DrMushEa (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support A nice and non-controversial user who mainly focused on technical stuff. We need more admins like this. (Perhaps this vote is just the icing on the cake) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support Great answers, seems like they would be a trustworthy admin. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support. Piling on, great candidate. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 04:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support. My vote would seem superfluous at this point, but this candidate looks to be sufficiently level-headed to deal with the types of conflicts that they'd likely encounter, and I'm not personally off-put by the "inconsistent" edit count issue brought up in Q13 - this is a volunteer gig, after all. I also appreciate and agree with the answer to Q8, which would have been my answer as well. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support trusted user, no worries... --Assyrtiko (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue, a clear demonstrated need, and has contributed usefully in main space too. Good luck to you and welcome to the admin corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support good one it seems. Good answers.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support Have worked with Trialpears, and he knows what's going on! Good choice. GenQuest "scribble" 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support. Handled all fielded questions well. Haleth (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support. Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support – Happy to pile on here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support - per noms, answers to questions, and a casual overview of editing history. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support, experienced editor. -- Parnaval (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support, clearly competent and experienced user ready for the next step. ToThAc (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support with confidence, no issues or concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support looks like they're ready for the right. Zaitalk 21:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support. No reason for me to oppose! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support would make an excellent admin. Necctaylor (chat) 23:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support – seems like a valuable addition Jno.skinner (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support No concerns. — csc-1 02:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support I've never encountered Trialpears before, but, based on my thorough examination they appear competent, even-keeled, mature, and poised. I support their candidacy in the strongest way. Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support Trusted, experienced, and technical - I have no concerns. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support I was almost tempted to oppose just so that section would not be completely empty, That says a lot.--agr (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support Reading into the questions and he does seem to be qualified enough for the role with the mop despite having barely having any interaction with this person. HawkAussie (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support. Answers suggest competence and maturity. gobonobo + c 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support great candidate with solid experience and good answers to questions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support Cassandra Prime (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support. Meets my criteriapythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Steve Smith (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  203. Support because of their good contributions and constructive edits on namespaces Wikipedia and Template. Wario-Man talk 09:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Support We always need more techie administrators. Clearly competent, mature, experienced, and trusted. SunDawn (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support Promising candidate who would make a good use of their skillset with adminiship. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  206. Support No reason to object. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 18:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. Support will make a good admin. --Enos733 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Support Good candidate --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 22:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. Support. No concerns. – bradv🍁 22:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  210. Support. Seems to have done good technical work, and has agreed to be open to recall. Tim Smith (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. Support Echoing everyone who came before me. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support - Good candidate and a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support Literally cannot lose! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  214. Support - Not particularly familiar, but clearly a positive candidate whom has the trust of the community and gave solid answers to questions. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  215. Support: Seems to be a perfect candidate. Clog Wolf Howl 11:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  216. Support - An excellent candidate for the mop IMO.   Aloha27  talk  14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  217. Support It's my pleasure to be the last !voter. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]

Just for the record, following up on Q15, having programmed in everything from Z80 assembler to C++ to the odd Lisp macro ... Python just seems easier to get things done. The standard library is extensive, and documentation is pretty easy to understand. Indeed, I've found Pywikibot simple and straightforward for just basic WP data queries, which is why the scripts on my userpage use it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree regarding Python; the libraries available for interacting with MediaWiki are generally more mature and easy to use than those for other languages. (plug for The Earwig's mwparserfromhell). Moreover, I fail to see someone's choice(s) of programming language as germane to adminship. I realise however the question was almost certainly asked out of curiosity rather than getting at a specific point. firefly ( t · c ) 12:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Python is really nice. I've heard of parserfromhell before, but never actually checked it out. From looking at the docs it seems really powerful though. I definitely have to try it sometime.
Regarding the question I would say that it would be inadvisable during a stressful RfA, but given the current situation and that I've enjoyed answering questions just ask away. --Trialpears (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It must be like watching a conflagration from the other side of a river, Trialpears. ——Serial 15:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When someone is introduced as "technically proficient, from implementing complex template mergers to writing and running PearBOT for more automated processes" you have to anticipate questions like 10 and 15. Because we can really use some more admins capable of working with admin bots. So the question is germane; it is just posed in a friendly and non-confrontational way, and the expected answer is along the lines of that given and Ritchie333's version above. For those who know what it's all about, the answer tells us a great deal. (Ritchie333's answer gives us a pretty fair idea of his age.) For the record, I was a C programmer for many years, and worked with many other languages, from 6502 assembler to Lua and Ruby, but not Python; my bots are written in Perl and C#. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I'm curious to see if you can write a bot in BASIC... Primefac (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20 GOTO 10
... ——Serial 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear oh dear, it's 10 PRINT "THE END TIMES ARE UPON US". Didn't you ever practice this in Dixons when the shop assistant wasn't looking? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, print. No, on a BBC Micro c. early 80s, of which our primary school had... one  :) ——Serial 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A little something for anyone who likes BBC Micros and trains (basically most of the nerd population of the UK): [1]  — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru Did you know .... that I am on a Facebook group called "The Geoff Marshall Fan Club" and have a copy of his (and Vicki Pipe's) The Railway Adventures not six feet away from this computer terminal :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geoff Marshall is a British icon, and nothing will change my view. You have excellent taste, Ritchie. firefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we need someone like him, bravely travelling around the country with his camera and cup of Pret tea bringing us all the latest news and developments. @Ritchie333: you'll be pleased to learn that I finally rode the Marshlink line in person, from Rye to Hastings, last year. I had previously only encountered it through your excellent article and Geoff's video on Doleham...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petition for a snow close. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think RFAs are ever snow closed as successful. Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've removed the sock's oppose !vote (and therefore unfortunately Chess' truly with it); while I'm generally the first to call out bludgeoning of opposes, etc., this guy was just talking the piss. ——Serial 09:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was contemplating which one was best for WP:DENY, letting it stand without any comments, or reverting it and grabbing your neighbourhood friendly checkuser to do the obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have a self-disclosed past account, abandoned in 2018. Are there suggestions here that there are other accounts that were used in the meantime? Primefac (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could have just picked any account and pointed at it. Since pretty much every admin here is involved for having participated in the RfA I have made an AIV report to find an uninvolved admin. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) They're trolling. Their only non-user/project space edit has been bot reverted. So, we're meant to believe that, on the one hand, their previous account gives them the 'experience' to sign posts, use pings and comment at RfA; while on the other hand they're new enough to think that this is an acceptable edit? To say nothing of the big red light tey keep sticking on their user page. Can't have it both ways, them. ——Serial 12:36, 12 June 2021 (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.