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

Cabayi[edit]

Final (133/20/5); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 12:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Cabayi (talk · contribs) –A devoted editor with a long and helpful history, Cabayi has been on my radar for a while. Cabayi is prolific at UAA and AIV, where I've always trusted their reports. I know Cabayi as someone who frequently provides thorough explanations at AIV rather than always just boilerplate messages, especially for tricky cases; beyond just being helpful, these kind of reports show that Cabayi is thinking about each case and has a good eye for what makes a blockable account. I also know them as a template editor, trusted with it since 2015. I appreciate putting their thoughts down for others, in particular the close attention to consensus.

Cabayi joined up as an SPI clerk last year, and it is clear they have taken a real shine to it. A full clerk for about five months, it would help the project if Cabayi had the toolset. Extra hands at AIV and UAA would be welcome, and it never hurts to have more template-savvy sysops. I know Cabayi as a principled editor who can admit mistakes and be trusted not to break things; having them as a sysop would be a definite positive. I hope you will join me in supporting this request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by QEDK[edit]

It is my pleasure to nominate a long-time editor and contributor, Cabayi for adminship. A lot of you have seen them around in their 12-year tenure here, in which period they have made over 95,000 edits. Cabayi does invaluable work as a clerk at Sockpuppet investigations even without the administator toolkit. They are a prolific new page patroller and also familiar with admin-related areas such as WP:AIV and WP:UAA where they have consistently displayed a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and their nuances. I think you will agree that Cabayi has demonstrated a need for this right, where they have been helping out at perpetually backlogged areas without the tools for it. Cabayi has proven themself to be a dedicated member of this community and I have no doubt that they will prove to be a valuable addition to the admin corps. —qedk (t 桜 c) 05:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks to Amorymeltzer and QEDK for the gracious nominations which I gratefully accept.

I have never edited for pay, or any other consideration, and never will. My previous usernames and alternate accounts have been declared & updated on my user page since 2015. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[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've been an SPI clerk for nearly a year and intend to stay active in this area. Just in the SPI area the admin toolset would enable me to see deleted contributions and make judgement calls on more of the SPI cases, to handle the G5 deletions of socks creations, to carry out blocks rather than request and wait, and to move/merge SPI cases as required.

I've also encountered many cases requiring attention at WP:AIV and WP:UAA, an area which frequently needs extra hands. I will help keep these boards from running up backlogs.

SPI reports on IP users are often dealt with more effectively with page protection, so WP:RFPP is an area I'm likely to get involved with.

As ever, I'll review the policies involved and be cautious in using any tools entrusted to me.

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

A: My earliest contributions were focussed on local history, Benskins Brewery, List of lost settlements in Hertfordshire, and MPs for my local contituency. That led to discovering succession boxes, and creating articles for missing MPs William Helmore & Arnold Ward so that the succession boxes presented an end-to-end trail. From there I slid into working on succession boxes and more geeky work.

My most bling-worthy contribution was on List of Watford F.C. seasons. Over an evening with my copy of Phillips, Oliver (1991). The Official Centenary History of Watford FC 1881-1991. Watford Football Club. ISBN 0950960160. I was able to fill out the top goalscorer for each season with sourcing. Thanks to the generosity of StillWaitingForConnection (then editing as WFCforLife), this earnt me a co-nom on the article's Featured list nomination.

On a more mundane level I enjoy using the template editor permission to service template edit requests. It's a learning experience for me, seeing what creative use can be made of the template syntax. It's also an opportunity to help other editors. On a practical level it's taught me the value and skill of saying "No" in a way which is still helpful and constructive, not just an outright negative.

I have (not so much recently) been an active New Page Patroller. I realise that, for some, my AFD stats look as though I'll vote delete on almost anything. I'd ask you to look closer at the list, I don't show up as a "Delete" vote anywhere near as often as I do a "Delete (Nom)", and that a more truthful comparison would be between the number of AFD or CSD nominations and the number of patrol actions in the patrol log. On articles I've patrolled I've tried to remember to go beyond the NPR requirements and tag the articles for relevant categories and projects to attract interested editors and encourage the articles' continued improvement.

My only interest in deletion discussions is as a consequence of New Page Patrol or cleaning up after sock puppet investigations. Closing AFDs is not a task I intend performing. I will, of course, review the policies involved if I do.

The most impactful contribution was a requested change to the titleblacklist which prevents users from other wikis accidentally transporting their user pages into mainspace on this wiki where they'd often be deleted. Example: On the Italian wiki it:User:Jimbo Wales and it:Utente:Jimbo Wales are equivalent, but on this wiki Utente:Jimbo Wales would be interpreted as an article in mainspace rather than a user page. Users now get a message pointing them to the proper namespace, and advising them that global user pages are an option.

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 most stressful situation I've had recently was as part of my SPI clerk training. A report was filed on Wolf Cola & a retaliatory report on Kishfan who had filed the initial report. I'm painfully aware that SPI cases will impact editors' ongoing reputations and struggled to reconcile the stories contained in the two reports, to offer a true judgement, and not make mistakes. It turned out that both accounts were using sockpuppets just to advance an ongoing edit war at Playback singer among other articles, and both of them viewed SPI cases as merely another weapon to use in their battle.

The tricky learning cases have taught me to offer my opinion or interpretation of events for consideration by other SPI clerks, to feel more confident in falling back on their experience and help, and to proceed with pace while not losing sight of the need for accuracy. The experience also gave me more confidence in my interpretations.

In general, conflicts have taught me that:

we're all here to build the wiki, assume good faith;
spend some time trying to see the other point of view;
after you've made your point to another user there's a diminishing payback on repeating the point. Another user making the same point will have far more impact. Trust in the community.
problems don't need to be fixed by me. I should do what I can, but also know that help is available and trust in the community.

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.

Additional questions from History DMZ

4. Based on your experience in dealing with administrators, what would you say constitutes being a "bad" administrator? (by "bad" I mean someone who should never have been approved to be an administrator).

A: Can I flip the question? A good admin is one who will engage in meaningful discussion and explain their admin actions. It helps the user develop as a wikipedian and the admin to double check their reasoning. Cabayi (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. ~~Please provide two examples to support your answer to the above question.~~ Inappropriate line of questioning. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Ritchie333

6. Your previous RfA, although a very long time ago, failed in part because of putting an incorrect A7 tag on Henrik Heftye and then arguing with Dr Blofeld in the RfA over it. How you have you changed and improved as an editor since?

A: The practical answer to this lies in your next question. I took the discussion to your talk page, argued my case and, despite failing to persuading you, moved on. It's the point I made in the 3rd bullet point in my answer to Q3. Cabayi (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. On a number of occasions we have interacted (eg: User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 95#Sheetala Asthami), it has been over a disagreement with WP:G5. Can you explain clearly, in your own words, what you understand this policy to mean, what it doesn't mean, and why we might have disagreed on this issue?

A: WP:G5 is about block enforcement. Was the article created by a blocked or banned (or globally locked) user? Has it been substantially improved by a bona-fide editor since its creation? A Yes-No to those questions is a G5 candidate. It doesn't generally apply to templates or categories.

My reading of our discussion afterward is that you also consider the topic's notability to have a bearing on the decision. I don't believe it does. If the topic is notable someone else will recreate it, and the wiki won't be giving attribution to a blocked sockpuppet.

It's also about respect - respect the admin who blocked the sockmaster, respect their block, and respect the contributions of bona-fide editors.

In the article in question, I don't believe that the difference between the sockpuppet's creation Special:Permalink/889749120, and the version I nominated Special:Permalink/889834335 is substantial. The current version right now Special:Permalink/936053237 still lacks substantial improvement.

That said, all CSDs (except an emergency response to G10 attack pages) are a two handed process, nominator and deleter. I respect the opinion of the person at the other end of the pairing, even if I don't agree with them. Cabayi (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A2: I feel that my reply may have been open to misinterpretation.

WP:G5 is about block enforcement. Was the article created by a blocked or banned (or globally locked) user who was blocked (under any one of their accounts) at the time of the article's creation? Has it been substantially improved by a bona-fide editor since its creation? A Yes-No to those two questions is a G5 candidate. It doesn't generally apply to templates or categories.

It is explicitly not a retroactive criterion. It doesn't apply to material created while the user was not blocked, for there was no block to enforce at that time. G5 is not a witch hunt. G5 is solely about enforcing blocks once they're placed - whether the reviewing admin agrees with the block or not.

If I disagreed with the block, I'd find it the kinder, more productive, and more admin-corps-collegiate move to start a discussion trying to get the block overturned. After all, an overturned block would see all the editor's creations rescued from G5 jeopardy. Any articles that had been deleted G5 could be undeleted wholesale. It would also relieve the editor of the burden of trying to conceal their identity like one of the Hollywood Ten. Cabayi (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Leaky

8. A newly registered editor makes 3 edits in the space of 5 minutes which are vandalism, not BLP vio or abusive edits, just puerile. On their talk page a user gives a final warning template - no prior warnings. As an Admin coming across this with no edits after the warning - do you take any Admin. action?

A: On the facts as you present them, no. They've done nothing since their final warning. It would be useful (though non-admin) to issue one of the welcome templates so that they know what is expected of them, where to go for help, and what the wiki is about. ((Welcome to Wikipedia)) is likely colourful and distracting enough for the user you describe. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hog Farm

9. According to your AfD stats counter, you have voted to delete on over 90% of your past 500 AfDs, and about 10% of those delete votes wound up ending in a keep result. Does this indicate that you lean strongly towards deletion in content discussions?

A: Can I point you to the fourth paragraph of answer #2? Cabayi (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from JAH2k

10. Why would anyone not support you for adminship?

A: You'll have to think of your own reason I'm afraid. In years past there was an editor who would always oppose on the basis that there were too many admins already. But it's not a reason I'd recommend (he got blocked for it). Cabayi (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Bobherry

11. Are you willing to be open for recall?

A: Yes. I'd prefer it if the recall process was a community standard rather than optional. But yes, accountability for admin conduct is key to the community's continuing trust, I'm in. Cabayi (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Andrew D.

12. In 2016, you changed your account name from Bazj to For (;;) to Cabayi. I don't understand what these mean or why they were changed. Please explain.

A: When I signed up I wanted the usename Baz, it's what my friends have called me since pre-school. Unfortunately the username was taken, so I tacked on a J and took Bazj. Still, at the back of my mind, it wasn't the username I really wanted.

Under the policy in play at the time username changes for users with over 50000 edits were problematic. So by May 2016 I realised I ought to choose my forever name. For those unfamiliar with C programming, for (;;) is a loop that runs forever.

No joke that weak ever goes unpunished, and programmers & template editors may already see it coming. Semi-colons and brackets aren't just neutral characters, they have meaning in wiki syntax. So, for example, I had to fix ((Rfplinks)) (here) to cope with my odd username before I could request Page Mover rights. Editing templates rapidly became tiresome when I was never sure if I'd made a mistake in the template code, or my username was intruding somehow.

By August I couldn't take it any more and changed to Cabayi which is what my friend's daughter called me when she was 3 or 4 years old, from which you can possibly guess my first name & gender (say it out loud, like a 3 yr old). Cabayi (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Amakuru

13. You mention List of Watford F.C. seasons as the most bling-worthy contribution, which is certainly a useful list and you did a good job with setting it up and writing the initial table. But it does look like the bulk of the prose-writing and fancy formatting, that got it up to its current WP:FL status, was done by another user. Nothing wrong with that of course, but to help judge your content-writing experience, please could you point us to the best quality article which is mostly your own work?

A: That would be National Land Company, about a project of the Chartist movement. I wrote it after becoming aware of its local site, Heronsgate (which I also wrote). Cabayi (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Robert McClenon

14. Do you have any experience in resolving or trying to resolve content disputes between editors, or in dealing with disputes that are a mixture of content and conduct? (Much of your recent work is in sockpuppet investigation clerking, and sockpuppetry is a conduct issue.)

A: My only involvement in such disputes is right at the mildest end of the scale, encouraging editors to respect the principles of WP:BRD, or to obtain consensus for a template edit request. I have vague memories of flagging up article disputes on the talk pages of interested projects, and of tagging an article's talk page with relevant projects in anticipation of a developing situation so that more eyes were on it, but I'd be hard pressed to locate an example.

Content disputes between editors, so long as they remain focussed on the content, are a matter for editors. Admins have no special standing.

Admins or any other editors may serve a useful purpose in de-escalating the dispute and pointing the way to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or recruiting eyeballs by project tagging as above. The only "extra" that an admin would bring is a degree of reputational gravitas behind the reminders & pointers.

Analogously, I believe McDonald's will send a junior member of staff to mop the floor nearby as a non-confrontational reminder that there are community expectations of how people should conduct themselves, and that other people are watching.

If the situation continues and, as you describe it, becomes a dispute which is a mixture of content and conduct, the admin's role is to deal with the conduct so that the community can continue peaceably with the work of considering the content. I can see that a situation like repeated addition of unsourced material may look to be about content and conduct, but in terms of the admin's role, the disputed content is just the manifestation of the conduct issues.

At each step the admin needs to be alive to WP:INVOLVED and not accidentally stray into taking on two roles in the same situation. Cabayi (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Bradv

15. What would you do if you were asked to delete an article that was technically eligible for G5, but you thought the encyclopedia would be better off if it were kept?

A: I have seen one instance in which the article was G5 deleted and the deleting admin then selectively restored those revisions which were not contributed by the sock. This approach strikes a balance between preserving content and still denying the sock any recognition.

A number of voters comments which acknowledged that I've been implementing policy accurately still expressed discomfort with the policy itself. I'm planning on raising the idea of selective restoration for general consideration at WP:VPP next week. Cabayi (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16. As a follow-up to the above, do you consider G5 mandatory – i.e., if an article meets the criteria then it ought to be deleted?

A: I don't consider it mandatory, but my threshold for keeping sock creations probably wouldn't give much comfort to those who have already registered their opposition. It's been my experience that the vast majority of the sock-created material is spam, UPE, or material intended to pursue an edit war, rather than the good quality contributions of unfairly blocked users trying to redeem themselves under a new guise.

Unfortunately I can't point you to the G5s I didn't file, just as I can't point to when (years ago) I learnt how G5 should be used (though for those who doubt my clarified answer to Q7, there are indicators of my awareness on 5 Jan, 23 Dec and 18 Sep).

I'd like to show you an article where, instead of tagging G5, I informed an editor who had made some edits to the article that it was the creation of a sock, explained G5 and left it to their discretion. To my detriment I kept my word and unwatched both the user and the article & can't provide links. Cabayi (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Can I Log In: 17. Where do you stand with the relationship between WP:IAR and WP:G5

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I Log In (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: To the question as asked: There's enough (though very little) scope for discretion. I haven't tagged everything I've seen, nor has every G5 I've placed been executed. I don't believe that any of them have been the result of rules being ignored, just of varying interpretations. Both my interpretations & actions and those of the admins handling the requests are open to challenge and discussion. At no point was it necessary for anyone to ignore any rules.

To the question as implied by your comments below: It seems you're advancing the idea that blocked users should be free to ignore their blocks. If that were acceptable then what need is there for admins at all? Cabayi (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Requests for adminship/Bazj

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

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

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights

Support[edit]

Support Have always seen them around. Can be trusted with the admin bit. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the points outlined in the nomination, adminship would be highly beneficial. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As nom ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I trust what I've seen from Cabayi, as well as the noms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support has been around since Feb 2008 ,clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor and SPI clerk. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great SPI clerk. No concerns. The issue raised in the neutral does not concern me. He was just saying to tweak the template: it’s actually a good suggestion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolute positive if added as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent candidate by all of the usual metrics based on everything I've seen through the years. The exchange highlighted in the neutral section slightly misses the mark, maybe, but does not pose a real concern. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the additional points that have been raised in opposition, I remain convinced Cabayi will be a net positive for the project. Lack of content creation is not an illegitimate concern; it's just one that I weigh differently than others might. The perfect editor has multiple FAs to their name, but as I've said in the past, adminship is not a perfect editor award. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nom. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doing great work in admin related areas; especially SPI, where having them mop will be helpful. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely no qualms from me about handing the mop. Good Luck! Aloha27 talk 15:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I remember them under different usernames but they have always been helpful and civil, from my observation. Per noms, there is a need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted editor and great nominators. Puddleglum ^2.0 15:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominators and other supports.Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per co-nom and obvious need for the tools. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the candidate would abuse the tools if given. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can be trusted with the mop. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Support I genuinely thought Cabayi was already an administrator. So, why not?~~ Doug Mehus T·C 16:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit conflict) - no red flags here. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for easily meeting my minimums and no reason to oppose. Anyone who is heavily involved with counter-vandalism will be a frequent user of automated tools, certainly not a negative in my book. Ifnord (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far more than enough experience, and as an anti-vandal, I say that we need as many admins holding down WP:AIV as we can get... King of Scorpions 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Welcome addition. El_C 17:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know this user from frequenting m:Steward requests/Global.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate. With regard to the sole oppose !vote (as of now), issues relating to G5 deletions can be complicated both philosophically and practically (see my essay here), and I don't see a good-faith disagreement on that issue is a basis for opposing this RfA, even if I agree with aspects of the opposer's opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia needs more administrators, and Cabayi sounds like an excellent candidate. -- The Anome (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I disagree with this editor's hard line on G5, I have no reason to doubt that they have the judgement and temperament to be an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cabayi has a need and the experience. I think the content creation is acceptable, and they have almost 50% mainspace edits, so that resolves any concerns I might have about contribution. I see no redflags, and a great deal of maturation since their last RfA (11 years ago!). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while philosophically I agree with Ritchie333's argument below, as they say, it's a minority position and thus, not a big enough deal for me to refrain from supporting. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive to the project, not seeing any obvious issues. Kb03 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
support I regularly come around their contributions in multiple venues. I am very well familiar with it since last two years. No concerns at all. A few weeks ago, I had even offered them a nomination for the RfA —usernamekiran (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update: my vote has supplementary rationale as my own comment in comments section, and later posted support vote by Buidhe. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likely net positive. Happy with answer to Q7. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would have supported based on SPI experience and future needs alone, but also happy to have seen good indications in other areas as well. Loopy30 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good work at SPI, clear net positive for the encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all my criteria and then some. I particularly like their philosophy as expressed in Q3. The opposes are not convincing. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Good content record, good record in admin areas, I cannot see a reason to oppose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tolly 4 bolly 02:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Q7. You can't have it both ways with users that are disruptive enough to warrant a ban; by what the opposers says we might as well unban half the users that have bans since sometimes they write nice articles. Wizardman 03:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, tentatively. I do not like the answer to Q7 very much (for example, it seems to imply that blocked editors will never be able to "return to the fold" in its indication that they are not "bona-fide", and it seems to indicate that attribution is a form of granting approval), but I find it hard to agree with the current opposition, and replying directly to RfA votes usually creates more heat than light. Blocks are preventive, and the goal is to develop the encyclopedia. But blocking socks and cleaning up after them is a significant drain on editor resources that could otherwise be used more profitably for content creation and other improvements. To the extent that allowing sock creations and other sock edits to stand encourages the creation of further socks by editors who have been blocked "for cause", G5 is useful, and the fact that the criterion exists is evidence that the community thinks so as well. Thus my view is closer to that expressed by TonyBallioni in the linked archive page: these things have to be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to determine what effects a deletion will have, not all treated in a single way. My suggestion would be to add an additional reply to the question that deals with the archived comment "OK, I've read enough of the discussion to see that what I see as a bright-line rule others have reasoned arguments to see as more fuzzy. I guess my role in the SPI process is to keep tagging G5s and grow a thicker skin when someone ~~won't uphold the block~~ sees it differently." You are asking to be on the side that evaluates the CSD tags (as you put it, "deleter") so it is important for us to see more nuance than what is shown in the archived comment. Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with much the same caution as Dekimasu. An editor can be the worst COI sockpuppet in the world and still happen to create an article separately from their bad activities that should be kept. BD2412 T 04:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No grievances with the candidate; can be trusted. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems fine. I'm sympathetic to the concerns over G5, but the candidate's response seems well within the range of reasonable disagreement, and doesn't suggest any likelihood that they would abuse the tools. -- Visviva (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I wasn't going to vote but in the interests of fairness I need to partially cancel the opposes that cite Cayabi's answer to Q7, which read things into it that the candidate didn't put there. Reyk _YO! 05:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear net positive. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good SPI clerk, good answers to the questions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see Ritchie333's point of view, but I can't bring myself to oppose an otherwise solid candidate based on it. G5 says that articles created by blocked/banned users through a sock puppet are eligible for deletion; it doesn't say that they must be deleted. (Full disclosure: there have been a couple of times in the last year or so when I suspected that an account was probably a sock of a blocked user based on how they behaved, but I chose not to investigate further because they were obviously doing good work; in both cases, for better or worse, they quickly drew attention to themselves and were reblocked.) I see this as a question of how we weigh different aspects of our blocking and deletion policies when considering what is in the best interests of the project. Two competent, experienced admins could approach that question from different perspectives, and arrive at a different conclusion for a given scenario. There is a diversity of opinion on this area within the existing admin corps on how to weight these issues, and I don't think I could oppose someone for having a view that, while perhaps slightly at odds with my own, is consistent with policy and is not out of line with the thinking of a significant number of existing sysops. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work, and reasonable answer to Q7. CSD G5 is not a nice rule, but it helps to enforce bans (banned editors are not allowed to contribute at all, that includes good content). —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We could always use more help attending to reports on WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:SPI. In particular, vandalism and sockpuppetry stall progress on article editing, and should ideally be handled as quickly as possible. As an SPI clerk who has a history of properly handling reports, Cabayi would become even more effective in this area with administrative tools. Most of the controversy associated with answer #7 illustrates a conflict with how speedy deletion criterion G5 is received by the community, and I don't think Cabayi was wrong for nominating an article that qualified under the criterion. Although answer #7 didn't strike the best tone (with the "respect" line), I believe Cabayi would be a more helpful member of the community as an administrator. — Newslinger talk 10:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets my RfA criteria. In my work at SPI, I see them do good work as a clerk. Being a non-admin clerk at SPI is both difficult and restrictive, as you cannot access deleted content, so a lot of investigations (such as those which have a person spamming a G11'able articles) are difficult to evaluate. Then blocking the sock cannot be done without the admin toolset, so clear cut cases which have non-deleted content as evidence take longer to deal with, as the admin assistance status does not immediately get an admin to provide assistance. It can be sometimes days before a admin helps. To summarise, I see a need for the tools to help in areas which are backlogged (SPI is currently backlogged) and I also trust this candidate. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I support and consider Ad Orientem's reasonings for his vote as part of my support vote. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me! Flalf (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – an obvious need for the tools if there ever was one. Candidate has an excellent track record as a contributor and a well established presence in AIV/UAA, hence their promotion to admin would be a net positive for the project. Not the slightest bit swayed negatively against the editor for their answer to Q7; G5 reads to me (and looking at the archived discussion Ritchie333 linked in their question) as a matter of discretion. Ritchie333's attitude is that "the general gist of WP:G5 is that articles creating by block-evading users may be deleted, not must be deleted", which is why they declined the G5; fair enough, but Cabayi can have a different approach (which does not make them wrong per the same criterion). On a separate note, it's always fascinating to see others dissect a candidate's anti-vandalism work or attitudes towards disruptive editors, despite hardly any presence on AIV/anti-vandalism boards themselves. All the best Cabayi! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have no concerns about this editor and believe they will do a great job helping to administer Wikipedia. The answer to Q7 is firmly grounded in policy and shows that they give careful consideration to how our policies should be applied. - Mr X 🖋 15:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent, trustworthy editor. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- everything I've seen of Cabayi's work has left me with a positive impression. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 20:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily based on their work at SPI, which is greatly appreciated. I find myself agreeing with Dekimasu's reasoning above. Having seen that eager/aspirational editors will tag every possible SD if given half a chance, I think that admins who are able and willing to educate tagging editors on the difference between "can be deleted" and "deletion improves the encyclopedia" are extremely valuable to the project. I hope (and believe) that the candidate will take the feedback here as encouragement to continue developing their own abilities in this regard. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - competent candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My interactions with Cabayi, mostly at SPI, have been nothing but positive. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've read the opposes and have zero reservations about supporting this nomination. Cabayi will be a terrific administrator. – Athaenara ✉ 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A solid editor with a good track record and no red or yellow flags that I am seeing. The opposes are unpersuasive. On which note, I appreciate Richie's view expressed in his oppose based on Q7, but find myself in respectful disagreement. We have a problem with block evading sockpuppets and I tend to take a somewhat stronger view on this matter. In all but the rarest cases, their edits should be reverted or deleted. Recently we had a rather ugly incident where an LTA sock nominated scores of redirects created by a longtime editor with whom the LTA has a well documented and highly acrimonious relationship. The nominations were unquestionably done in bad faith as a deliberate act of harassment. Unfortunately, and despite all of this being clearly stated, many of the redirects were deleted. Had they been nominated by someone else, in something other than a targeted act of vindictiveness, its pretty likely even more would have been deleted. But the point is not that there were some legitimate arguments for deletion or changing the targets. The point is that a C Banned LTA got away with a flagrant act of harassment because we are too lax in enforcing bans and blocks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support as a net positive, although I hope the candidate will consider the oppose votes. Miniapolis 23:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really thought they were already an admin. They have an excellent, concise demeanour. In a few days they will have 12 years of editing. The G5 issue is a non-starter as there seems to be no consensus among admins as to whether articles created by banned or blocked users should be deleted by default.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The opposers are strongly motivated by the answer to Q7. In my reading, the candidate's approach in this situation is 100% correct. Procedural reversion and/or deletion per WP:DENY is the default practice here. Yes, this practice is absolutely easily overruled if an established editor has or intends to "take responsibility" for a G5-eligible article, via edits or verbalized intent, but that wasn't the case here. In this case, the reviewing administrator declined on the basis of their subjective editorial judgment that it was a "good" article, which is not the point of the procedural CSD. If Ritchie wished to take over responsibility for the article, he should not have simultaneously actioned the CSD request, as he had become WP:INVOLVED in having vetted and defended the editorial merits of the article from a subjective personal perspective. Ritchie is in the wrong, the candidate is in the right. In the answer to Q7, the candidate does nothing but simply reiterate their correct understanding of the CSD, and yet Ritchie still opposes them, and others are following suit. This is inappropriate. The candidate is not in the wrong here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Ritchie is in the wrong, the candidate is in the right." Then please start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheetala Ashtami and prove your case - I cannot easily improve the article as I am not familiar with Hindu festivals except that I note there is lots of news coverage that would lean me to !voting "keep"; also read WP:AVOIDYOU. I have remarked elsewhere how nice is it in this RfA that editors can disagree with each other in a civil and constructive manner. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. The issue was banned user deletions, which is an uncontentious procedural deletion under the CSD and has nothing to do with the notability of an article or AfD. This clause is easily overruled if a non-banned user wants to "take over" responsibility for the article from the banned user. But in no way is it subjected to administrator discretion regarding the article's quality, the underlying concept is WP:DENY, not anything to do with article quality. The point is to discourage sockpuppetry, which harms the encyclopedia. Your approach is out of line with policy, while the candidate's in in line with policy. Pointing this out is not a personal attack. Yes we avoid personal commentary, but obviously not when directly evaluating a person. If you denigrate a person a basis that their judgment was inferior to yours in a given scenario, your judgment obviously has to be examined in order to substantiate the veracity of your claim, and in this case, I find the candidate's judgment was superior to yours, in terms of policy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: an editor who is willing to contribure to SPI would always be a net positive. No concerns with past contributions; would a solid addition to the admin corps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I wasn't going to !vote for this one, but I want to counter some of the opposes which I do not consider to be on a strong foundation. There are three main arguments on this candidate: 1) The G5 answer, which I already discussed below. 2) the candidate's high rate of !delete at AfD I do not consider an issue. As a prolific New Page Patroller one ends up nominating a lot of unsuitable articles for deletion. The fact that a vast majority of this user's noms have ended in delete vote is a testimony of their strong understanding of deletion policy, notability, and consistency in WP:BEFORE. 3) Lack of content creation. Personally, I think that content creation and admin work are separate areas and one is not necessary for the other. I am happy for users like this one to take care of SPI, vandalism, and other admin tasks so that I can focus on content creation. b uidhe 07:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I see no good reason not to! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No major concerns, learns from their mistakes. As always, there are things to learn from RfA's opposers. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 12:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be good to have an extra set of admin hands at SPI, and the answers to the questions show a good understanding of policy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging support. My fondest memory of Cabayi was this DRV meta-discussion on which I criticised Cabayi for being a bit trigger-happy with CSD'ing things. But don't we all get trigger-happy once in a while? Cabayi's response was well tempered. While Cabayi does have a tendency to prefer deletion over other solutions, conflicts arising from such scenarios only form a small minority of cases. Overall I think Cabayi will make a good admin. Deryck C. 12:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more admins is always a good thing.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no concerns that Cabayi would be anything but a net positive should they gain the extra buttons.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has done good work at SPI. I also happen to think that we need some admins who are not "excellent content creators", because a minority of excellent content creators (but a few) are problematic, either for article ownership or for biting other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dreamy Jazz. Has a clear use for the tools and will help streamline anti-spam (and anti-sock) efforts. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see several RfA critics on the support side, which means I am on the right side. I have seen positive things while checking this editor in past few days and I dont see a lack of "keep votes" in AfDs as a justified reason to oppose (see my RfA talk page comment). ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have seen the candidate around at AIV, has my trust. Will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Dekimasu. Holding one particular reasonable stance (shared certainly by many other editors/admins) on a controversial policy is not a barrier to adminship. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I recognize Ritchie below is not opposing merely because Cabayi disagrees with him but I think Cabayi's response to his questions above while not perfect are adequate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support has the temperament and understanding of the application of policy to be a good admin. I understand the reasons for Ritchie333s opposition, but I don't agree with them - the interaction between two policy objectives will always be a matter on which reasonable minds will differ. What followed was a logical and rational discussion that gives me no pause for concern about his his knowledge of policy & capacity as an admin. Raw statistics without analysis are a poor basis for drawing conclusions. good starting point for analysis, but a deeper probe is required to draw any conclusions. In Cabayi's case I would be concerned if a new page patroller did not consider some articles should be deleted and that a high % of those nominiated by them were in fact deleted. --Find bruce (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not see any issues. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I disagree with the candidate about G5, but that doesn't mean he would be bad admin. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Captain Eek, Loopy30, Girth Summit, Newslinger, Dreamy Jazz, Ad Orientem and Swarm. (I had to change the fancy styles; wrong words, especially "support", were being italicized before the change.) Cabayi has made many good contributions in important admin areas. The candidate has proven to be reasonable, has a good knowledge of policy, has had good interactions and has a good demeanor. The cited users' statements at the beginning of this comment, and others, provide a firm basis for support notwithstanding the opposers' good faith position as to a complicated standard not often in issue. Reasonable people may differ as to it. I think that Cabayi's clarification answer to Q7 is also helpful. This shows that the candidate has not made some wild disqualifying statement or that Cabayi would proceed without consideration and consultation in a difficult situation. Competence and trustworthiness has been established. Definite net positive. Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe Cabayi's work with titleblacklist was a good case of looking at the entire problem and working on a good, long-term, solution. The discussion and evolution of the solution was well thought out. --Lent (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Foxnpichu (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a little weakly, per Donner60; despite great sympathy with the opinions of the opposers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the G5 response is concerning, as Ritchie333 has expounded upon, I don't feel it rises to the level of denying the bit to an otherwise well-deserving and trustworthy editor. By the way, I liked the answer to Q10 – a dash of tongue-in-cheek humor is nice. JGHowes ^talk 13:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have no serious concerns with this user being a sysop. Quahog (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have seen a lot of Cabayi's good work in SPI, and it would definitely be a bonus there to have them get the mop. While I can understand (some of) the opposing points of view, I don't share them, and I see no red flags. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems like a trustwothy contributor whose work on SPI is valuable to the project. Net positive. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not convinced by the opposes. Seems to have the necessary experience in the areas in which they have expressed a need for the toolset.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive and does good work. Concerns about content creation are not demonstrated by any evidence of significant errors from this candidate so it is the usual red herring.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a need. Record of being trustworthy and acting within policy and guidelines. Do I prefer people to be content creators? Yes. Do I need to see it in order to support in an RfA? No. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust that Cabayi will use the extra tools responsibly. About the opposes related to CSD G5, I think it is a bit unfair to oppose in part because of a disagreement about one of Wikipedia's most controversial policies. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Closest we're going to get to an admin cabal. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likely to make good use of the tools. --kingboyk (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy from my interactions with him. His willingness to be open for recall makes me more likely to trust him with the tools. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support. I don't see any problems here. It is true, as several commentators have said, that the candidate is weak in article creation, but it is not completely absent and we have plenty of admins who have no content creation experience at all. Somewhere on this page someone said candidates should have articles at GA standard. If you are looking for candidates who really understand what content creation is all about, even that is not enough imo. One only really understands the effect on creators if one has actually had an article deleted, or rejected at GA. But we won't have many new admins at all if we set the bar too high. The big content creators are usually not interested in admin work, so we will have to settle for those who actually want to do the job. SpinningSpark 11:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I'm later to this than I would like, but as I said elsewhere, flu. Cabayi is my trainee as an SPI clerk. He was easy to teach, very willing to learn, and a joy to work with. He takes lessons from mistakes, incorporates them into his routine, and moves on with an improved practice. I see there are concerns about automated edits. I don't care that there are a high number of them. I do care what he does with them, and Cabayi uses the automated tools when appropriate and uses them correctly. He's a fine candidate and will make a terrific administrator. Katie^talk 11:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Whatever disagreement I may have with Cabayi's answer to Q7 is not sufficient reason by itself for me to oppose. I also don't believe that it is essential for administrators to be prolific content creators. Not writing featured articles does not mean that they lack the capacity to empathize with those who do. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 16:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support helpful and clueful editor. I can empathise with my friends in the oppose section who are opposing per the candidates enforcement of WP:G5, but my suggestion would be that they seek a review of that policy rather than oppose someone who takes that policy literally. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The G5/Q7 issue does not persuade me at all–I might agree or disagree with the candidate about a philosophical policy issue, but it doesn't mean I don't trust them with the tools. I believe they have a correct understanding of G5 policy as it's written, regardless of how we may feel about the policy itself. I stayed on the fence for a while because of the lack of content creation. The opposes on those grounds gave me pause (see my comments below under C&C's oppose). I think a good candidate needs to have both content and back-of-house experience, and this candidate is strong in the latter but not the former. On balance, though, their answer to Q11 (yes to recall) makes me more comfortable supporting (as it usually does, since I'm a big fan of voluntary recall). Levivich (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with, for fear of trotting out rather a cliche, some mild surprise that they weren't already. "Content creation" opposes are always unconvincing, as that is not what the admin tools are for, and the answer to the question on G5 is correct as the policy stands today. The job of admins is to uphold policy as it is. If any editor thinks a current policy is wrong, advocate that it be changed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Answers show a great deal of clue, especially Q7A2. Pointing to previous answers doesn't show flippancy, just the mindset of a programmer who'd think an infinite loop was a good idea for a username. :) I haven't run into them much, which is probably a good thing - no reasons I know of to oppose. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good and friendly candidate. - Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be a good candidate. - Chandan Guha (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it and reading the different oppinions, I support. Although some arguments from the opposes make sense to me, I think they are too strong in this particular case. But I hope User:Cabayi takes some objections to heart and does some article work (after a successful RfA).--!nnovativ (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while I absolutely agree with some of the oppose voters who say "we need more admins with lots of content experience", that ought not to mean "we must therefore not have more admins with less content experience". We need more admins full stop. I see no reason to think Cabayi will fuck everything up and destroy Wikipedia and so must therefore support their effort to further help the project. Fish+Karate 10:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support G5 complications, we may need this person. Open to recall, yup, this person's willing to go for reconfirmation and risk of losing adminship voluntarily, open to anything low risk or high risk. To reply, copy and paste this: ((SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]])) [[User talk|(talk)]], 14:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy. Deb (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have memories of the draftifying of my love productions as non notable or something which was a a bit of a bake off; but what is relevant about that was the communication experience which I found to be of admin quality. Happy therefore to support (Djm-leighpark) Djm-mobile (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think they will make a fine admin. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mostly per Swarm. Candidate's answers to questions, especially Q7, are in line with my thinking as well. I think they will make a fine admin. Valeince (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, needs to work more in the area of content work experience, but with that said, still hereby support as will be an asset, overall. Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have a good feeling that you’ll do a great job being an admin. Meowzerz (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Net positive. — Wug·a·po·des 03:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sro23 (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I appreciate the thoughtful answers to my questions. While I'm not sure I entirely agree with their approach, there is nothing that they've said that suggests to me they won't be a trustworthy admin. We have many admins who take the same approach to G5 and BMB, and several who go too far the other way, but they're all still good admins. – bradv🍁 05:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Lots of good work in hard to work places and good communication. Net positive. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No material concerns. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Oppose with regret per Q7. Looks like I'm in a minority view on this, but "respect the admin who blocked the sockmaster, respect their block, and respect the contributions of bona-fide editors" just leaves me cold. Speaking personally (and I know there are plenty of people who disagree with this), there are far too many blocks that in my opinion are just not necessary or overblown. Focusing on AIV / SPI is not a problem in itself - we do need admins to do that work - the problem comes when that editor doesn't have enough experience or demonstrable empathy to distinguish genuine disruption from good faith editors who occasionally get grumpy. And often the problem is not simply black and white - is User:TheGracefulSlick a prolific content creator, a serial sockmaster, or a bit of both? I think RexxS said it best here "Personally, with established editors, I'm in favour of talking far more and blocking not at all. When I was teaching, I often felt that punishing a naughty child was a mark of my failure to get through to them. Handing out blocks leaves the same impression. Except that we're now dealing with grown people, and frankly, that isn't the way to solve problems among adults." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm earnestly a little confused on what you're taking issue with. Your oppose suggests you have an issue with how Cabayi would apply blocks (e.g., distinguish genuine disruption from good faith editors who occasionally get grumpy) but you quote Cabayi answering your question about when G5 is applicable (e.g., WP:G5 is about block enforcement), not about blocks. I read "respect" as given in the context of that boiled-down thesis: if the page was created by a banned/blocked editor in violation of said ban/block, it is G5. Your concern with blocking, though, seems orthogonal; if the block itself is subsequently found to be inappropriate, we've got a whole different ball game. Cabayi didn't say anything about that and there's nothing in Q7 that suggests Cabayi is trigger happy or inappropriate with blocks. If anyone thinks a block is inappropriate, that should be dealt with directly, but it doesn't do to have special "banned but don't G5 articles from their socks" status. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the confusion. Your question and Cabayi's answer were focused on speedy deletion. Your oppose is based on blocking behavior. As a regular editor and clerk, Cabayi is currently supposed to respect the administrator or steward's block, especially in their SPI work. To tease out any conclusion about how this hints at their future likelihood to issue blocks is opaque, at best. There may be other communication at play here that gives you reason to make that conclusion but it's not apparent to other editors considering the candidacy. As it currently stands, the oppose rationale seems to be more about general blocking standards of the project than Cabayi's fitness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully per the candidate's response to Q. 7 as noted by Ritchie333. I tend to think the same way as RexxS, identified in Ritchie333's comment, and that response that, essentially, the original blocking administrator's block must be upheld unequivocally regardless of changing circumstances turned me off. Doug Mehus T·C 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I wish I could have supported as I greatly appreciate efforts of all Wikipedians who try to defend the Wikipedia from various forms of disruptive editing. Your answer to Q7 saddened me – we are here to create the online encyclopedia. Removing (legal) good quality content just because it was started by a blocked/banned user, is just against that purpose. Per WP:NOTBURO – the project is not for policies, policies are for the project. On Wikipedia, there are no fruits from a poisonous tree. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the answer to Q7. Notable content is notable content, regardless of who created it. There may well be problems with the content that need to be addressed, but I don't believe deletion is the solution in those cases. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the answer to Q7 is a deal-breaker for me. At first and last, we're an encyclopedia and we serve the readers. If a subject is notable, we should have an article on it. Playing "whack-a-sock" should take a backseat to the bits I just enumerated. Admins exist to help the content creation of the encyclopedia. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Zilch substantive article creation. De minimis awareness of BLP issues. And a handful of "Keep" !votes out of over 350. When "Keep" is the answer only about 1% of the time, I fear the person might be "delete prone" a tad too much. Three reason I look at - so I oppose. Collect (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, so far you're the only editor to mention awareness of BLP issues. Is that based on their response to questions, or where can I look to evaluate the candidate's awareness of BLP issues? Levivich (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully. Sorry, while I can appreciate this editor's work against disruptive editing, there are too many concerns here. For one, I share Ritchie333's idea that we need to examine the block instead of a knee-jerk upholding of the original admin's actions. Second, I'm concerned due to the lack of content work, since that is the prime focus of the encyclopedia. Third and most importantly, too few Keep votes at AfD, so I would be concerned if we gave the tools to him he would be a bit "deletion" prone per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie's point about the block is very different compared to the application of G5 (as Amory and Eggishorn pointed out above), following policies as they stand is not at all equivalent to not examining blocks, it is absolutely possible to uphold an administrator's actions by examining it and vice versa, it does not have to occur in a vacuum. Lastly, I feel you're overestimating the importance of content editors (...that is the prime focus of the encyclopedia) and downplaying janitorial duties, is it possible to have a wiki where administrators only edited content with no behind-the-scenes maintenance work that need to be done? --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to erect a more obvious straw man? I think this badgering should be refactored to the talk page. Aside from the silly reductio ad absurdum ploy, it's not QEDK's role to try to impose on others a highly personal view of lowered esteem in which the community should hold content contributions over other activity (at RfA, that's a distant minority viewpoint anyway, so this is a bit of a signal-to-noise ratio matter). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking an editor for their viewpoint is not imposing. Questioning the opposition respectfully is not badgering. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but that's not what you did. You used a rhetorical-question format to advance your own viewpoint, and straw-manned his position in a silly and unkind way. It was not respectful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I sincerely appreciate that the candidate did not misrepresent the extent of their contributions to featured content (as we've seen in recent nominations), and appears to be a long-standing contributor with a good record, I have to question several things about this nomination. First, Cabayi highlights one of their best efforts as Benskins Brewery, which was started by them without inline citations, and remains uncited today (particularly the first portions added by Cabayi), more than ten years later. Ten years ago, we didn't often add inline citations; today we do. It seems to me that in a deliberative approach to Wikipedia, and RFA, one would at least go back and correct one's first efforts-- especially if highlighting those as one's best efforts-- as a demonstration of understanding what Wikipedia is about (content) and what kinds of issues often need to be dealt with by admins. Second, again, sitting down calmly, without interference, with one book and adding some citations to a Featured List is well and good and appreciated, but is not the type of effort that builds a long-term understanding of the kinds of conflicts that can occur during real content building, when admin intervention is often needed, or is misapplied. Clerking at various processes is helpful, but not where one will encounter on a personal level the kinds of conflicts that happen in the trenches. Third, in spite of 12 years editing, the candidate has not contributed significantly to a single well-assessed article. Fourth, what is this rush lately to put up admin candidates who can't take a bit of time to show the rest of the community they understand content creation, before we give them the right to block those who do? And finally, the answer to question 7 reinforces my concern about these very matters. We don't need more admins (and certainly not more beaurocrats) who have not engaged in the trenches so that we can develop a sense of how they will then use the tools they will be trusted with. Ealdgyth has it right. Please spend some time in the article content trenches before asking for tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Largely per Sandy. Wikipedia is essentially about creating content. The content creation by Cabayi is distinctly underwhelming, and if you are going to have the tools you need to understand what it takes to create quality content that is fully cited to reliable sources. That experience (for me that means getting an article GA or higher, which isn't that difficult actually) is in my view necessary if you want the power to intervene in disputes between content creators. Work up a GA and come back. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I hesitate to vote in favor of someone who hasn't walked the walk regarding article creation. Participation at AFD is more a matter of finding sources (or not) as to whether the AFD should proceed. In and of itself, it doesn't provide the experience to use the tools. There should be content requirements for admins, for that is the way to understand much of how the tools should be used. You build up knowledge and instincts by creating and participating with others in their creations, by going through the various review processes. Even something as basic as what is, and is not, vandalism, is not always so clear-cut. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The amount of delete !votes at AfD and virtually non-existent keep !votes is reason enough. We are building an encyclopedia, not erasing an encyclopedia. Also strong oppose per Ritchie333's remarks above. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk (t 桜 c) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret per Ritchie333 and Lightburst above. I just don't think I'd appreciate someone like Cabayi to rule on a contentious AfD. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 10:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and is also not a content creator. The candidate has very little experience building an encyclopedia. They have not created an article since 2017 that was not deleted and their most edited articles are also still in bad shape. The best way to fight disruptive editing to create good content. The best defense is a good offence. Deleting notable subjects only breeds more socks and more sock masters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to ask but, what are you even talking about? The best way to fight disruptive editing to create good content. If you create good content, how will disruptive editing stop elsewhere? Deleting notable subjects only breeds more socks and more sock masters. No! Not deleting them ensures that sockpuppets just have to sock until they get their articles created. I don't like calling out the opposition but this just makes so little sense. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me and I think it's very true. The best cure for disruption is high-quality encyclopedia writing–not page protection, blocks, or any other admin tool.

Take, for example, North East Delhi riots. An admin without content creation experience may look at that article and see edit warring, lots of new accounts, non-neutral edits, incivility on the talk page, etc., and that admin may start thinking about blocking or protection. An admin with content creation experience, however, may see something different: The article (like all current events articles, and too many others) has too many sources–like trying to knit a sweater using a million bits of string instead of a few solid balls of yarn. The timeline and investigation sections are underdeveloped, whereas the reactions and attacks-on-journalists sections are un-DUEly long. "Disruptive editors" may have correct intentions even if they employ incorrect methods. No use of admin tools will fix these fundamental content problems, and so the disruption will continue, as new editors without sufficient experience will try and fail to fix the article. Once the article reaches a certain standard–an adequate level of comprehensiveness and neutrality–the disruption will melt away.

A well-placed explanatory footnote, a top-quality source, a well-written paragraph... these are the tools that permanently cure disruption. Admin tools like blocks and protection just provide a temporary band-aid. I agree with C&C that editors without sufficient content creation experience may not recognize this, and thus my over-rely on temporary band-aids without understanding what is needed for a permanent fix. And those admin may do more harm than good if, for example, they block an editor for "repeatedly removing sourced content" but do not recognize that the sourced content may need to be removed because of, for example, neutrality or sourcing problems.

The same goes for page deletion and re-creation. A notable topic will get re-created no matter how many times we delete it. This is because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and readers who do not find what they're looking for will go out and create it, totally ignorant of prior deletions. Some admin may look at a new editor recreating a page and assume it's a sock and block the account. A content-experienced admin, however, will be able to recognize when a page is being re-created because it's actually notable (because they will have experience checking and establishing the notability of other pages).

It's true that one doesn't have to actually create articles from scratch to get this experience; improving existing articles, or participation in AFD discussions, may provide the same experiential learning. But someone who can't tell the difference between good content and bad content is going to have a tough time effectively addressing disruption, such as edit warring or re-creating deleted pages. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Ritchie and Sandy particularly. We need more administrators with actual experience in creating content, which this candidate does not have. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced that it would be a good idea to have you as an admin. The Banner talk 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, without prejudice against a later RfA. I'm seeing a flippancy, a dismissiveness that bugs me (like go see paragraph A in post B; go rewrite the software if you don't like it; etc.). It's a form of civility problem, just a less obvious one than usual, and it has implications for WP:ADMINACCT. The candidate expresses a belief in the principle but isn't evincing it very well. I'm not entirely certain about all the Q7 (G5) opposition. While the candidate did revise their answer, it's not clear to me that they knew the difference between these versions of the answer before opposers made it clear. Good SPI clerking, and I like that the candidate seems to be a competent template-editor. But the content contribution level is lower than I'd prefer. I'm not an FA fetishist, but as someone said above, if one's "best" article has substandard sourcing, there's an issue that needs addressing. What Coffeeandcrumbs linked to actually matters to me: "not created an article since 2017 that was not deleted and their most edited articles are also still in bad shape". I share some concerns that the candidate may lean toward proceduralism and lack an understanding of what content-focused editors are doing and why. We need admins who handle content disputes properly (and we lack them more than we lack technically competent ones, or policy-memorizing ones). I'm not seeing any evidence that the candidate would outright abuse the tools. It's more a sense that their application might be mistaken at times and overly rigid at times. PS: collegial and collegiate are not synonymous. More seriously, the statement from the candidate that I'm referring to, and some others in here, seem to indicate a strong sense of "admin brotherhood" mumbojumbo that I find distasteful. We already have way too much of an "admins are first-class citizens" problem, and I can't in good conscience support a candidate who seems apt to buy into it and perpetuate it, most especially if they are also oriented toward rigid rule interpretation. G5 permits us to delete something but does not mandate it. I might be reading into things, but the general trust with blocking and deletion tools vibe isn't happening for me, for a collection of reasons that are not obvious smoking guns. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC); revised 09:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose . Mainly per Ritchie333 and SMcCandlish but other opposers have also made appropriate observations. There are other issues that give me pause, but as this is enough already, I don't intend to dig out the diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: On grounds of lack of article creation, concerns about how that might affect administrative decisions; per SMcCandlish, Coffeeandcrumbs, et alii. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 05:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ritchie, Sandy, Kudpung et al, In short the answer to Q7 is poor and IMHO given the forementioned issues here I cannot support this candidate. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

I was unimpressed with the response at User talk:IceIR#September 2019. I felt that the automated message they left for this user was somewhat inappropriate, but instead of taking my concerns on board they suggested I go and rewrite Twinkle! This is not exactly what I was expecting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good editor, but I strongly disagree with their position on G5. The criteria for which G5 is designed is for when content is created in violation of a block (basically making a sock to create content after the block/ban). Editors who get blocked for various reasons can still have created valid content before then, that at least deserves a discussion. Not all indeffed editors received the blocks due to vandalism/sockpuppetry et al. Just because an editor got indeffed for, say incivility or the account being compromised doesn't mean the content contributed by that editor is worthless. Hog Farm (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article that Ritchie333 and Cabayi disagreed over was created in violation of a block: Marwariguy, who created the article Sheetala Asthami on 27 March 2019‎, is blocked as a sockpuppet of Dashing boy31, who was blocked on 2 November 2010. Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to point that out as well, Hog Farm. Thanks, Mz7. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No vote.,11cookeaw1 (11cookeaw1) 15:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@11cookeaw1: Why vote then? --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are beyond yourt feeble mortal comprehensions.,11cookeaw1 (11cookeaw1) 15:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually someone with a big history and very little drama is plenty for me to support. Q7 has me all sorts of worried though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uncomfortable with no. of experienced editors that are opposing this candidate. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Go for it, Cabayi ——SN 54129 12:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although, talking about that template business, it would've been avoided if *gulp* you didn't rely on automated tools so much. 80% is perhaps a little excessive. ——SN 54129 13:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the edit counter, it looks like that's mainly a few specific large AWB runs, rather than an ongoing reliance. Things like replacing categories and templates. Bot might've been warranted but I don't think it diminishes the rest of the work. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more solid answer would have been to point me here :) if one has a trumpet, blow it; neither you nor your co-nom mentioned content, which in today's environment should probably be emphasised from the start, rather than making voters hunt it out themselves. Stil, no worries. All the best, ——SN 54129 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think 7,500 non-automated edits is more than enough to allay any fears of an over-reliance on automated tools. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whom you talk to. My RfA standards expect 10K (though I make exceptions, as I did earlier in the month). I agree with Amorymeltzer that in this case it look like a few big AWB runs (I've done some myself, but they don't account for much of my editing history). Still, it seems downright weird for an editor to have been here since 2008 and to only have ~7500 non-automated edits. That 10K number was what I came up with for 2-year editors seeing early RfAs. By contrast, I have about 2,500 non-auto edits just since 2020 started, and I'm only participating at a small fraction of my former rate. A more important line-item in my RfA standards, and those of many, is a demonstrated activity and commitment level. Even accounting for SPI work being time-consuming and having more to do with diff-reading than with writing, 7,460 is kinda depressing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC); revised 10:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this debate over the extent to which administrators should exercise discretion when applying WP:G5 is something that a lot of different administrators have different opinions on. Looking at the history of Sheetala Asthami, I think it would have been entirely "within discretion" for an administrator to delete the article under G5 at the time Cabayi added the speedy deletion tag. It was indeed created by an editor in violation of their block, and if appealed to WP:DRV, the deletion would've been endorsed. On the other hand, I am somewhat sympathetic to Ritchie333's view that we should not throw away quality encyclopedic content just because the rules said so. However, if an editor is blocked or banned, they are usually blocked or banned for a good reason, and if we allowed every blocked user to continue contributing to Wikipedia by creating new accounts and editing around the block, then that totally undermines the purpose of blocking the user—I think this is the idea Cabayi was getting at in Q7. This is the reason we have WP:G5 and WP:BE, and this is why we do delete content created by blocked users, even when they appear good on the surface. It's one of those "net negative" arguments where "the benefit of having this article remain is outweighed by the cost of allowing this blocked user to continue contributing". I think there are valid points on both sides here, which is why I don't think Cabayi should be penalized for their specific viewpoint in this situation. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not interacted with this editor so will not be !voting, but I have to say that I don't understand the Q7 opposes. I actually agree that CSD policy should be changed to end G5 deletions. However, it doesn't seem right to penalize editors for following the rules as written and determined by previous consensus. b uidhe 04:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. On the contrary, I wouldn't want admins to apply their own readings to rules that clearly have consensus, particularly if they disagree with them. As bad and ineffective the argument is, go out and lobby for a change of rules first. --Pgallert (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  My concern over Cabayi is not so much over the specific policies but more over his attitude towards them. Specifically, in Q7 I asked "Why did we disagree on this?" and as far as I can tell he didn't answer the question. If I could have found evidence of empathy and being able to explain and understand views he disagrees with, I could have supported. Similarly, on Q6 I asked "How have you got better as an editor since then?" and I got no answer. Saying "go and lobby for a change" is missing the point; I can criticise a policy as being ineffectual in certain circumstances without wanting to change it, possibly because I don't think it'll gather consensus or because the policy works in the general case but not in specific areas. I realise RfA is a stressful place, but I'm not saying any of this to be mean to Cabayi or wanting to belittle him for his views - I just don't have enough confidence to fully trust him with the toolset. I don't think the RfA will fail; and I'm pleased to see people supporting but still respecting my view on this; I also think that RfAs that pass with a significant and respected opposition take the feedback on board and become better admins. Regarding. "we might as well unban half the users that have bans since sometimes they write nice articles." - We will happily call out bans as poppycock when necessary. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  It's clear Cabayi leans laconic, but isn't "My reading of our discussion afterward is that you also consider the topic's notability to have a bearing on the decision. I don't believe it does." a fair summary? I won't try to change your mind, but Mz7 says it well: there's a lot of wide variety of opinion on this, even in this RfA! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I actually picked up on a dismissive/dodging vibe myself, without even noticing that specific instance of it. I don't think it's Ritchie333 imagining things or overreacting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @SMcCandlish: Read SpinningSpark's comment below, I'm not aware of any between the lines reading of what Ritchie said but the crux of it is to blame on the candidate the misgivings of policy, which is really unfair and that's literally all that anyone on the support side of things is trying to say. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I saw it. That and some similar comments have much to do with my longer post below. If the only concern were the policy facts in Q7's answers about G5, then this would be a shoo-in; but it's not the only concern. In the end, my opposition wasn't very firm (though discussions like this are firming it). It's a general sense of admin temperament and community-compatible judgement. I don't expect my stance to matter much (i.e., I expect the candidate to pass, absent some big new deal popping up as late evidence of unsuitability). As Ritchie333 said earlier, candidates who do pass generally take concerns and criticisms and doubts on board, and will be better admins as a result. I will say that if the candidate's original wording in Q7 was just a slip of the fingers and there was no actual misunderstanding of G5's operation and meaning (that is, if the corrected version later posted was already in the candidate's head and not learned from the opposes), then, yes, some of the opposers who have no opposition but the G5 matter might want to revise; AGF would suggest doing so, I suppose. But the G5 matter in and of itself isn't what concerned me in the first place; the viewpoint shown while discussing it was. The initial red-flag was "respect the admin who blocked the sockmaster, respect their block", and it got worse from there. Admins don't auto-receive any more respect about their decisions than any other editor, and we should examine and when necessary question them, the more so the stronger the effect they have. The idea that we'd make a content decision on the basis of possible offense to some admin rather than on broader contextual common sense isn't something I'm comfortable with. We do not need "literal interpretation of the law" admins. WP is not a legal-system simulator (ArbCom's pseudo-legal posturing notwithstanding). The only admins I've ever had trouble with are of the excessively processy and rule-mongering bent, disconnected from the concerns of the average content editor and more concerned with WP as a system for its own sake rather than in the encyclopedia as output. I won't have more admins like this if I can help it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have never responded to opposes in an RfA. But I am finding the oppose rationales a little odd.
- Regarding lack of content creation: the candidate wants to work in SPI, UAA, RFPP, and WP:CSD#G5 deletions. These are janitorial tasks, and "admin needs to know how it is to create content" mostly doesnt apply in these areas (except for G5 - sort of). G5 deletions, for most of the times, are either A7, or G11; and sometimes they are G4. It is not that any admin would keep on deleting GA worthy article under G5 rationale.
- Regarding high number of delete votes at AfD: the articles get to the AfD for a reason. For the 90% of the times, candiate's delete vote matched the consensus. This simply shows their good understanding of the policies. No matter what philosophical group an admin belongs (deletionist/inclusionaist), they dont go keeping or deleting the articles by themselves. enwiki runs on consensus. If someone closes any sort of discussion against consensus, then it either gets reverted or goes to review venue. I dont understand what is the "concern" for a candidate having hundreds of delete votes if the votes match consensus.
- Q7 issue has been/is being discussed already.

—usernamekiran (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: - usually I would be concerned by a deletion rate this high, as while obviously AfDs are consensus decisions, as the usual participation is only a couple of people, any !vote has such a significant impact that it has a major reduction on the chance of a keep (since AfDs are obviously much more likely to be unclear keep/deletes). However, in this particular case, the fact that the candidate is the nom for most of them via NPP is an acceptable reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that except the part about RFPP. I think you need content experience to be able to process RFPPs correctly. It’s not janitorial work, it’s content dispute resolution, in my view. Levivich (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most RFPP requests are not related to edit wars/issues where there are content disputes, though, I'd say. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. RFPP is not at all about "content creation", it is usually about factual in/accuracy, POV, persistent vandalism/socking, subject is single/in a relationship, "current boyfriend", and similar stuff. But not content creation. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, content creation or just non-automated editing in articlespace is the only way to learn about the headaches, pitfalls, and problems in maintaining the encyclopedia. I would hate to make a request at RFPP and my request be judged by someone who does not understand how much work it takes just to get an article to GA, let alone FA.

Content creation is also the only way to truly learn what is and what is not notable. This affects everything! Even how to deal with the outcome of an SPI. Also, seeing how often the candidate participates in AfD, I seriously doubt they will avoid closing/deleting nominations. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate to be given the ability to delete an article who does not understand how difficult it is to write an article. The articles they have edited also have serious sourcing issues that leads me to believe that they do not really understand the current standards on WP:V, the bedrock on which this encyclopedia's reputation is built. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: yes, most of your points are correct. But I am not sure what content creation has to do with SPIs. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not that any admin would keep on deleting GA worthy article under G5 rationale." Well, that's an open question (about this candidate in particular, not just in general). G5 itself might be thorny (though the candidate is clear: "you ... consider the topic's notability to have a bearing on the decision. I don't believe it does."). But from a more general CSD perspective, I wasn't really comfortable with this candidacy. I've ended up in the oppose section in part because – in combination with other factors like all that "respect" stuff directed toward admins, and a general proceduralist approach by the candidate – it seems unlikely that WP:Common sense discretion would be applied. The strongly pro-deletion track record (yes, it's for new-page crap mostly – but that's also the bulk of CSD taggings, so it's directly pertinent) strongly suggests to me that reasoned discretion would be skipped in favor of rulebook-thumping. I don't see an understanding here that (except for legal-implications matters like copyright and BLP violations and such), the CSD criteria lay out what is permissible to speedily delete, not what must be speedily deleted on sight. It is quite often better do a little digging (in ways familiar to content editors), e.g. to find out of the page creation came out of an ongoing dispute and if other editors were already working on content for it, and had the gun jumped on them but are prepared to go fix the new-ish page, or whatever; just an example. Maybe someone wants the material userspaced because it actually has some good sourcing in it that can be reused. Maybe its an advertent or inadvertent content fork and should be merged. CSD is moderated by a whole lot of things that enable some "don't rush to delete this very second" options, including IAR, NODEADLINE, INDISCRIMINATE (and the implications it has for merging when stand-alone pages aren't appropriate), etc. Some of the criteria we do have are entirely subjective, like whether a claim of importance has been made; that by its very nature requires judgement and some familiarity with the general topic area (e.g. the kind of thing that constitutes an assertion of encyclopedic importance for a pop singer is going to be very different than that for a mathematical theorem or an archaeological site or whatever). As I said in my mild oppose, I don't see any smoking-gun behavioral problems from the candidate, but the level of absorption of "ground truth" en.Wikipedia community norms may be a bit low (or, more precisely, poorly distributed, being high in some areas like SPI, and rather lacking in others). WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:PROCESS are two extremes, and everything's telling me the candidate is way toward the latter rather than centrist about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC); revised 15:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit rich to criticise the candidate for correctly answering the question on G5 deletions. It seems to me that the opposers have a problem with the G5 policy rather than with the candidate. They may well have a point imo, but the solution is to get the guideline changed to say admins should exercise discretion in enforcing it. Shooting down someone's RfA over the issue is not helpful. SpinningSpark 18:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. But the answer seems not to have been correct until it resulted in the bulk of the opposition, which then inspired a more correct re-answer (which may well have reflected what the candidate already knew and thought, of course; we can't really know either way). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC); revised 10:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are frequently attacked for being "power-mad" when they use discretion rather than exactly following policy. You get the admins you wish for—they're appointed by the community, not some faceless secret committee. I wonder how many opposes the candidate would attract if they said they would sometimes not follow this or that policy? SpinningSpark 10:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, probably somewhat fewer opposes than are on this RFA? Admins are selected based on their ability to use judgement and act for the best interests of the encyclopedia. An admin who blindly follows policy regardless of the circumstances is in violation of WP:5P5, and we need to see evidence at RFA that a candidate is not such. You may not agree with it, but opposing the candidate because they may delete good content based on G5 is a lego 8 point of view. — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If this is about exercising discretion in employing the criteria for speedy deletion to actually speedily delete something (or to sometimes decline to do so), that discretion is already an explicit part of the policy, similar to WP:AC/DS. It's right there in the very first sentence: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." (Emphasis added.) Additional comment on talk page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 This I see not once, but multiple times. What's the deal with it. Sockpuppetry, is that the main point of G5? What's the main concern, and why should I care over this RFA? Can I Log In (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having re-read Q7, I agree with User:Cabayi and confirm my support. Objective rules are not always possible. Sometimes we need subjective rules. But when objective rules are feasible, they work better. G5, as written, is an objective rule. It says that we as a community cannot tolerate block evasion, and that block evasion, as defined by G5, is in itself a reason to delete a post that never should have been made, without regard to content. When objective rules can be objectively enforced, we need them. So I agree with User:Cabayi and respectfully disagree with User:Ritchie333 and the opposers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.. Could that be as objective as the G5 rule for G5? In the case, "If a block prevents you from truly building an encyclopedia, ignore it." As long it's constructively helpful edits, G5 should not be used. Can I Log In (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Can I Log In: What's the evidence? My personal experience has shown that anything other than indefinite blocks do not deter long-term sockpuppeteers, and even then so many of them run amok, without G5 we would be missing one of our key enforcement policies and every fly-by content with a hint of notability even if posted in violation of WP:SOCK would have to be kept, that is an attack on the very foundation of the wiki itself - the idea of a free and neutral Wikipedia should be protected at all costs, that includes showing miscreants the door. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[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.