Enterprisey

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (201/1/0); Scheduled to end 23:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Enterprisey (talk · contribs) – My fellow editors, I am extremely pleased to nominate Enterprisey, who has been been a consistently helpful and industrious Wikipedian since 2013 (previously as APerson241 and APerson, including a previous RfA from more than three years ago). He was recently Editor of the Week, specifically cited for Technical skills mixed with Social awareness, which sounds to me like the making of a good sysop! Enterprisey has written a handful of articles, often related to tech, of which four were promoted at DYK (MNIST database, Convolutional neural network, International Bus Roadeo, Roadeo). He has also reviewed hundreds and hundreds of AfC submissions, especially during the 2014 backlog drives.

Enterprisey's more recent focus, and for what he is probably most familiar to some of you, are his technical contributions. Enterprisey has written a number of scripts and tools that the rest of us use hundreds of times a day. Some of his major work includes maintaining the AfC helper gadget, reply-link, delsort, and script-installer. He also hosts a number of tools at https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot and runs User:EnterpriseyBot. He is always responsive but beyond showing his willingness to help out, it shows a level of trust and familiarity that the community already places in him.

Take a look at his contributions and talkpage history and you'll see that Enterprisey is kind and always willing to help out; he's one of the first people editors approach for advice or help on technical issues. Many of us already implicitly trust Enterprisey's competence and judgment, and we could use more of it. He understands our content and sourcing policies, is careful and considered when editing and interacting with others, and can be trusted to be a clear benefit with the mopping toolkit. I hope you'll all join me in supporting this request! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Ritchie333

I have had my eye on Enterprisey for some time to have another go at adminship. Amory has given you most of the details, but from my point of view, I have been impressed at how he has patiently held off from running again until he is absolutely sure, which is a good sign. In particular, I think it's silly that I have the interface admin right and Enterprisey doesn't - he's far more deserving of it, and can make much more regular use of it. This is only because he hasn't filed an RfA recently, so it's high time we fixed that.

Enterprisey is a good programmer and gets heavily involved in technical issues, such as the AfD script most you will run when looking at RfAs. His reply-link tool has a made a huge difference to new users being able to use talk pages more easily, and he has been very good at supporting it and getting bugs fixed. He has also helped me out in getting some Python scripts up and running, fielding all manner of my myriad questions, and I'm far from the only person to have received his technical help.

However, he doesn't just do techy stuff; he is perfectly capable of writing content and getting involved at AfDs, and is always civil and polite. I believe Enterprisey will be one of our best administrators, and I hope you agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from L235

Enterprisey's sterling technical and editorial credentials are beyond dispute. What I would like to touch on are his other attributes that will make him a first-rate admin: his judgment, his patience, his calmness, his gregariousness, and above all his willingness to ask for help and advice. Over the years I've known enterprisey, he's never acted or spoken rashly, never escalated a disagreement, never irresponsibly handled any situation, never been afraid to hear when he's wrong. Enterprisey has earned my strongest recommendation, and I am truly delighted to co-nominate him. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you so much Amory, Ritchie333, and L235 for the incredibly nice nominations! I accept the nomination. I have never engaged in paid editing, and here is a list of accounts I've used. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My first priority will be gadget creation and maintenance, as well as other MediaWiki-space maintenance (and adminbots). I also intend to work on AIV and possibly edit filters, and I'm interested in PERM. I will only expand into more areas with a great amount of caution, and will participate first as a non-admin if it's sensible to do so.
To elaborate on the gadget maintenance part, if reply-link gets stable enough to become a gadget, I will be maintaining three gadgets (that one, the AfC helper script, and script-installer) and expect a substantial edit frequency as a result.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: reply-link is in a class of its own among my contributions, as far as I'm concerned, and has the potential to make life easier for a whole lot of people. I'm also fond of some of my other user scripts, like script-installer or delsort, but I think the whole lot of them together represent one of my best contributions. On the article side, I liked writing Convolutional neural network for the admittedly odd reason that it anticipated the topic's popularity by a few years, so I got to hear from quite a few people I know that they learned about the topic by reading the article. Actually, several other computer science articles I wrote have received similar responses from people I know, so I'm proud of all of them.
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: Yes, I've been stressed as a result of other users before, but not in some time. I made a series of low-quality and regrettable AfC decisions in late 2013, which led to a few messages on my talk page in early 2014. I reflected on how I had been conducting reviews and didn't run into any further issues in that area, although I drifted away from AfC in the subsequent years for unrelated reasons. My first RfA was also a source of quite a bit of stress as well; from that experience, I learned the importance of restraint and discretion in contributing to discussions here.
In my editing today, I try very hard to follow DGAF. When I disagree with other users, I try to be as courteous as possible, and to come back to a discussion later if I can't be as civil as possible in the moment.

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 question from Nosebagbear
4. Could I confirm that, if you are accepted, you plan to apply for Interface Admin rights, once you've had a suitable bedding-in period?
A: Yes, I absolutely intend to do that.
Additional question from Dolotta
5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
A:I like writing articles, but I find coming up with the structure of articles about larger topics to be difficult. In general, thinking at the level of sections and above is a little bit harder for me than, say, copyediting, which I enjoy a lot. As a result, I have a harder time doing GA/FA-related stuff than I'd like.
Additionally, while I think I probably would like to eventually try dispute resolution, I have no experience in it to date. I just don't participate in the relevant areas a lot. I'm also not very good at the especially tricky parts of certain areas, such as copyright or the MoS. There are probably many other areas where I'm not as strong as I'd like, but these quickly came to mind.
Additional question from Hhkohh
6. Why did you rename after your first RfA?
A: I had been using "enterprisey" on IRC because some #minecraft op had taken "aperson" already. I found I preferred "enterprisey" more, so I switched my Wikipedia username as well. Why "enterprisey"? Just a (mildly) funny coding-related adjective.
Additional question from usernamekiran
7. Hi. Please feel free to let this question go unanswered, but kindly reply something like "pass" if you dont want to answer.
Given your technical experience; after becoming a sysop, even if not regularly, would you occasionally perform hist-merges? —usernamekiran(talk) 10:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure! That area sounds interesting to me. I already deal with silly Git history issues on a regular basis for some projects I contribute to. (By the way, usernamekiran, would you mind if this question gets moved to the questions section above?) Enterprisey (talk!) 17:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. And the area of hist-merge interests me too. But I dont have any access except making a request lol. moved from "general comments" section by, and at —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
8. A user engages in serious BLP Violation and is reported in AIV but you find that the User is already globally locked .Will you block him and can you state the policy here on whether Admins should block globally locked users or not ?
A: In this answer, I assume that the BLP violations are serious enough to merit a local block. Globally locked users cannot make any edits, as their session gets removed and they are subsequently unable to log in.[q8 1] It isn't necessary to immediately block, so we can do a bit of research first. We then consider whether the global lock will ever get lifted, because we might need to place a local block in that case. There is no community-approved global lock policy, and appeals are by email (or by meta:SRG).[q8 2] Practically speaking, global locks are usually not lifted, but it may happen.[q8 3][q8 4] A local block is thus merited to cover that case. Moreover, a global lock will not block the IP addresses someone used (which is why the steward bot will report that a global block has been placed before each global lock), providing additional motivation for a local block (which will block the IP).[q8 4] An additional scenario is if the user uses a sockpuppet to circumvent the global lock to edit enwiki. A local block would make this case unambiguously block evasion, whereas it is unclear whether the "sanctions" referred to in ILLEGIT apply in the case of global actions. The user would have to appeal the local block only after the global lock and global block are lifted, of course.
There is no policy here that specifically addresses the exact point of whether admins should block globally locked users. As I said above, ILLEGIT may cover the case of a globally locked user evading the global lock. The local and meta policies on steward behavior have nothing to say here.

References

  1. ^ Special:MultiLock code, personal communications
  2. ^ meta:Global_locks#Reasons_to_request_a_global_lock
  3. ^ SRG archives
  4. ^ a b Trijnstel in #wikimedia-stewards
Additional question from MattLongCT
9. As a possible newly-minted administrator, how do you feel the best way to go about resolving contentious disputes between long-time editors? Please feel free to cite any policies and essays you have found to be particularly helpful. Many thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 23:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: (Great question! Answer in progress... 06:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC))
Additional question from DBigXray
10. An experienced user and an IP are currently engaged in an edit war, IP has made 3 reverts while the user has made 4 within 24 hours, IP has reported the user at WP:ANEW and asked for a block per WP:3RR. What actions will you take on this WP:ANEW report.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: (Disclaimer: I will always be very cautious in areas in which I am unfamiliar, and will ask for the advice of other experienced editors in such cases; however, if I absolutely had to act and didn't have the advice of others, here's what I would do.) I am taking the word "currently" in the question to mean that the report is not stale, and that the edit war is very recent. I will disregard any reversions falling under 3RRNO. If any of the reverts are reinstating obvious vandalism, I would deal with it like an AIV report: if the IP's only contributions are vandalism, or if the IP had been previously sufficiently warned for vandalism, that would be a block of the appropriate duration (e.g. 31hr), and otherwise a (possibly final) warning. Some general principles I'd follow: blocks must not be punitive, and protection might be disruptive to many potential editors and is thus only appropriate when absolutely necessary. Thus, if I have a strong reason to believe that either the IP or the experienced editor will continue edit warring (say, via messages that indicate their intention to do so in the ANEW section), a block would be necessary (likely 24 hours, but possibly longer based on block histories). Were I not completely certain about any blocks I made, I would open an AN(I) section for more opinions. However, I would try to find a resolution other than blocking in the ANEW discussion, such as agreements by the parties to abide by 1RR or the result of a discussion on the talk page or elsewhere. If the page is a good candidate for protection (say, due to long-term vandalism by non-autoconfirmed editors) I would protect it in addition to other actions.
11. Which of the admin User group rights that are currently bundled in admin toolkit, would you support unbundling for being requested by users at WP:PERM--DBigXrayᗙ 17:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: Basically none at the moment, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise by a well-written RfC. I think we've been doing a good job of slowly unbundling some permissions. If I had to pick one, maybe tag management for template editors or another group? But that'll probably be controversial, and rightly so, since I recall (but sadly can't remember the specifics of) a discussion where a template editor was proposing some tags that were controversial because the community consensus on their use is still a bit weak.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Support
  1. As nominator ~  Amory (u • t • c) 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - about time. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support on the basis of the three editors vouching for them. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I'm happy to see this is finally happening. Good luck! -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - In the strongest possible terms - in this rare case I don't care about the noms vouching for him. He is a truly phenomenal user who contributes in multiple impressive ways. Beyond that, Enterprisey is generous with his time to those asking the impossible and is a great example of both skill and personality. Given IntAdmins decided RfA was a necessary pre-requisite this will also allow us to add another expert there. Am happy on both a personal and a Wikipedia level to see this RfA. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support High AfD match rate, solid edit history, and no blocks. My minor concern at lack of content creation (14 articles created with the highest classification being "C" on three, in two of those three cases apparently the result of other editor contributions) is totally ameliorated by the editor's substantial contributions in other, equally important, technical areas. I feel Enterprisey would make a great admin! Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support very much. My only hesitation is that if we let him become an admin he might make the cool tools for admins instead of for lowly editors. Natureium (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natureium: - an excellent point, what were we thinking?! Nosebagbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    we should start moving to oppose, right? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to oppose because (a) He'd be a fine admin, and (b) if I do, there's a chance the next cool tool would have a line like "if User = Natureium, don't function" (Note: I don't speak computer, so just pretend that's how you make a computer do things.) Natureium (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. good to see your RfA finally. I hope you get the toolbox, you would use it wisely. My only hesitation is that the candidate doesnt have any knowledge/experience of the technical side of wiki-software. /sarcasm —usernamekiran(talk) 23:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Stephen 23:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The candidate's technical contributions, especially the AfC helper gadget, are essential to Wikipedia's operation. — Newslinger talk 23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support The project would be immensely helped by having a sysop with this level of technical ability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, absolutely and immediately. bd2412 T 23:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - offhand, I can't think of any reason to not support. However...Enterprisey, if you and I have ever had a prior spat - let's say over the past 8+ years - and you prevailed simply because you have a proper understanding of our PAGs, please let me know so I can reconsider my iVote. [FBDB] Atsme✍🏻📧 00:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support We've been waiting for you. SemiHypercube 00:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, and onwards to intadmin. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support – it's about time. Enterprisey will make a fantastic admin. Bradv🍁 00:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Holy shit, yes, please for the love of God give him the bit already. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support work away, congrats Govindaharihari (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per noms. I don’t see any issues. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. It's hard to know where to really begin. Enterprisey is one of our most valuable technical contributors on Wikipedia. When all of you go to check his AfD stats, you will be using a tool which he is currently maintaining. If any of you are volunteers at Articles for Creation (AfC), the helper script you use to accept and decline submissions is a tool which Enterprisey is currently maintaining. His reply-link tool has the potential to be a revolutionary tool, and I'm not just saying that. I genuinely believe that this tool will eventually have the potential to retain new contributors who have historically been intimidated by the wikimarkup on Wikipedia talk pages—this is something which WP:Flow attempted unsuccessfully to address. With Enterprisey as an administrator, who knows what magical wonders he'll bring to the administrator toolset?
    But enough about Enterprisey's tools. Let's talk about him. He's one of the most personable editors I've had the pleasure to interact with. A scroll through his user talk page archives will demonstrate his friendliness with everyone he interacts with, even those who criticize him. He's an incredibly clueful Wikipedian; he spearheaded the English Wikipedia's drive to craft our interface administrator policy, and he has given insightful feedback that have made me think carefully about my own administrative actions. There is no doubt in my mind that Enterprisey will be one of our best administrators, and I hope others will join me in supporting him. Mz7 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, ((subst:thoughtyouwereone)) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Can't get that song outta my head... ohhhhhhhhhhhhh – that's the way uh-huh uh-huh I like it uh-huh uh-huh! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it's in mine, uh-huh uh-huh. 🤯 🎼🎶💃 Atsme✍🏻📧 04:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support With their knowledge of coding and scripts, they should be interface admin also! -- 1989 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Kpgjhpjm 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. for the encyclopedia power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support of course. Balkywrest (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Finally! The nominators have said everything I would have wanted to say, and I would have nominated Enterprisey myself, if asked :) — MusikAnimal talk 02:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Knowledgeable, helpful to others, and creates many useful scripts. Loopy30 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Is a valuable Wikipedia contributor and nothing in his history makes me think he would abuse the admin tools. Why not? This has been a long-time coming, imo.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Indeed, why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Easiest vote in recent memory. Nihlus 03:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support enthusiastically. Yes please, thanks for stepping up and good luck. Vexations (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support: no concerns whatsoever. A user with clear technical expertise who has use for the tools. No behavioural issues that I can see. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 04:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I really liked script installer. Solid bit of work. And it saves all of mankind the burden of manual installation. scope_creepTalk 04:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support without any further reading. Finally. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Largely per Mz7. Looks to be an excellent addition to the corps! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Finallllyyyy! :D :D :D Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support an editor whose work helps hundreds of editors make positive contributions to the project every single day. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Meets my basic criteria and nothing has been voiced why not. Ifnord (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A clear net-positive to Wikipedia. The concerns I raised at the last RFA are no longer relevant. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support (Moved from "neutral") since once upon a time somewhere on Wikipedia, I promised to support the editor formerly known as "APerson" if they ran again, though I cannot find the conversation which I am referring at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support more than well qualified for the role, no concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support as user has a good practical use for administrator tools, has good overall conduct and is sufficiently experienced, clean block log, CSD and PROD logs and AfD votes all look good as well. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 06:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A trusted user who will not abuse the Mop. ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 06:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Ever since I first ran into Enterprisey at the RfC about allowing non-admins to have the interface-admin right I thought he would make a great admin. Enterprisey also helped fix the WP:EPH userscript which I use often. Very easy to support this RfA! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Competent editor who I have seen around, I am glad to see them here. Enterprisey admittedly wasn't on my radar for adminship, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Given the nominators, their competency, the supports above, Tazerdadog's expression, and what Mz7 has pointed out in their support above, I could not possibly oppose or stay neutral; thus, I am landed here. I did not realize that Enterprisey was the maintainer of the AfC review script and that this was in the works or I probably would be up in the co-noms myself. My door is always open if you ever have any questions about the tools Enterprisey, as are those of a ton of others. Best of luck, but you've got this. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support clearly a net positive. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I supported the candidate during their first RFA and I am happy to support again. Mkdw talk 07:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support . I was neutral at the previous RfA. It was really an 'oppose' but there were already enough oppose votes to ensure it would not pass. That was three years ago and I'm very happy to say that this time, the candidate has my full support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Supported last time, and has continued to be helpful. feminist (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Yes please. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support- competent editor, deserves adminship. Hitro talk 09:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - seems to be an eminently suitable candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - fully support. Reply-link is a great tool. Meets my RfA criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support again, absolutely. Katietalk 10:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support normally I'd like to see more content creation, particularly a few GAs and even a FA or two, to show that the nominee understands what content creators go through to get articles to our highest standards before they have the power to intervene among them. However, on this occasion I think there is just enough content creation and a lot of other good reasons to say yes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Well qualified in every important way. --Pipetricker (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Hands needed for thankless tasks. No immediate red flags, and nominated by people I trust and respect. Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support We need more good Admins, and I've seen Enterprisey's work before and was impressed. The fact that they are an involved and active coder for the project is amazing! I think they've proved that they have the skills to pay Wikipedia's metaphorical bills. They also appear to have come a long ways since their last RFA. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 11:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, good noms. It's either that you really have so much deserved support, or you've been running a script automatically undoing-last-edit when an oppose vote appears. wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support yes has made mistakes, appears to be willing & able to learn from them. Significantly exceeds my low standards. Find bruce (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Strongest possible support. Vermont (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Great contributions since previous RfA, and I see no downside in handing over the admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Seriously competent. jni(talk)(delete) 12:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Last year, in March, I had asked Enterprisey to run again, based on my many interactions and on the feedback I received from others. One of the most helpful editors, one example is when I suggested to Enterprisey that the AfD script should also display the keep and delete !vote summary without the no consensus count. Look at the speed with which Enterprisey responded. That's just how he is. Should have been an admin long back. Good to go here. Lourdes 13:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - No-brainer. I was an early supporter last time and he has only improved since then. Kurtis (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I've seen enough of Enterprisey's good contributions here to support without significant doubt. Deryck C. 14:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Fine candidate with trustworthy noms, who should use the tools well. As close to a no-brainer as RfA gets :-). Miniapolis 14:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. One of the editors I have been waiting to run for a while now. The three trustworthy noms are just icing on the cake. Regards SoWhy 14:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Of course! Orphan Wiki 15:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - I have no memory of this person ever causing a problem. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - I do not see any red flags--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - He genuinely sounds like a nice guy. Let him have admin! AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. No concerns. Hope you can request Interface admin permission after RfA is successful Hhkohh (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support of course. I'd formed such a positive impression of you from your presentation at the wikiconference that I was really surprised to see the "2" in the subpage title. And I'm still looking forward to having an improved Navpops that speeds up one of my maintenance tasks! wbm1058 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Obviously competent. Can be trusted not to block Wikipedia and delete its users. << FR (mobileUndo) 18:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Will continue making great tools. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong support - I supported in 2015, and after re-reviewing that discussion, I remain confident that this user was sufficiently ready for adminship back then and should have re-run in six months. There's no measuring how much the project lost out on due to that RfA failing with lukewarm opposition. I'm more than happy to carry over my support from then, as this is long overdue. However, the impressive endorsements from Mz7 and MusikAnimal on top of that put me into strong support territory.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - There's something about your user name that bugs the pedant in me ("enterprisey" sounds like a valley girl way of saying "enterprising"), but certainly nothing about you that does. :) Happy mopping, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - A (fantastic) Person. Legoktm (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Nothing more need be said. Risker (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support per what the others have said. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Per others. Sounds like a great candidate. Abzeronow (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Competent, trusted and knowledable, Would make a great admin no doubt about it, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - From his EotW Award; Technical skills mixed with social awareness. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - He will do great with the tools.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Hands down support per pretty much everyone else here. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Of the highest order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Thank you. Mainly glad to have the prompt to say an overdue thank you for how majorly your tools have improved my experience of contributing to the encyclopedia. Immense thanks. Also, such a thoughtful answer to Q5. By all means, go forth and mop. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support This is long overdue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support I've interacted with Enterprisey and confidently trust their judgement concerning both content and technical matters. I understand their content contributions are on the low side (for good reason, of course - one need only look at their extensive technical contribution and commitment) but they display a knowledge and a maturity about content and content contributors that many of those editors with FAs, GAs and extensive DYK contributions do not. Nick (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Strong record. Plenty of clue. No red or yellow flags. Looks like we have a winner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support the tools will only enhance this editors value to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Can be trusted to use the mop competently. Has improved immensely since their first RfA. – Teratix ₵ 00:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support without hesitation. Nominations from Wikipedians I respect and Enterprisey has shown himself to be a great help around the project. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, very knowledgeable and friendly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. In fact, I supported the last time. The nominations are convincing to me, and I like the way that the candidate talks in a self-aware way about having less experience with dispute resolution. This is someone who has good skills to offer, and who can be trusted to do no harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support per Ritchie333's point about the candidate holding off on running again until they were sure they are ready. Also, those opposing an RfA because of a perceived need for token opposition should review Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX#Requests for adminship to see the existing precedent for unopposed RfAs for seriously good candidates, such as this one. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That account that you're probably talking about was blocked as a sock. SemiHypercube 01:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose because I can't use Reply-link to !vote support. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Great candidate and no concerns from me. -- Dane talk 01:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, obviously. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support — MRD2014 Talk 02:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Very happy to do so, and thank you for reply-link and script-installer! SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support --Binod Basnet (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Three years ago I !voted neutral with moral support for a future RfA. I can't remember any candidate doing so much to earn the trust and respect of the community and waiting such a long period to do so, and to show they are ready, as Enterprisey 2 has done. Enterprisey 2 is now a model for doing it well. I can now wholeheartedly support a user who has brought so much useful work and skill to the community (and to do so despite my temporary limited ability to type). I also think Enterprisey 2 has shown a knowledgeable and friendly demeanor and will not jump into a new area without learning about it and seeking advice where needed. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - trusted editor with a helpful constructive attitude and lots of positive contributions. No concerns. GermanJoe (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per Nick. Strong net-positive. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support, a name I'm glad to see nominated for adminship. No doubt about it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Needs interface admin tools, needs to be admin to get them would be reason enough, as there are no apparent reasons to oppose. No-one needs to be expert at everything, good enough at what you choose to do is good enough, and candidate clearly exceeds this requirement. Also per noms and most of the rest above etc. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support all around qualified, very nice and helpful, especially with scripts and stuff (as per Peter Southwood) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support TheMesquitobuzz 07:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Yes! ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Jeez - 124-0 two days in to the nom (and a struck neutral !vote which was objecting to the nom page name....) - seems like a WP:SNOW (not allowed for RfA, I think) situation. Seems competent and a good addition to the admin corps. Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: To paraphrase from WP:BOBSLED: Often, after a short time, a consensus may appear evident during the run of a process at Requests for Adminship. There is often a temptation to ignore the process and end discussion prematurely, citing an emerging/evident consensus after a short time. The Jamaican Bobsled Team clause implores editors, when faced with this temptation, to think of the real life team. Initially, most people would have probably thought that a team of bobsledders from a tropical region would not have a snowball's chance in hell of success. However, the team defied the odds. Often, even if a significant number of editors feel, for instance, a user should become an admin, it doesn't harm anything to allow the RfA process to run for its full seven days. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Don't usually participate in RfAs, but I have to make an exception for this user. Hey BTW why is reply-link not working on this page? SD0001 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed! Enterprisey (talk!) 02:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support without reservations. EclipseDude (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support, no concerns whatsoever. Fish+Karate 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support talk to !dave 13:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Of course Zingarese talk · contribs 13:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Yes. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 14:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Could have taken longer about making reply link work on AFDs :) [FBDB] Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Strong Support Awesome editor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Best nomination I've seen in a while. Jacona (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support As everyone else has said, without a doubt. Seen his work on IRC and he really deserves it. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Knowledgeable, level-headed, no-nonsense solution finder/creator.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support – Have interacted with Enterprisey for years on various things, and I have no concerns about him becoming an Admin. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support -- More than competent. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, It's about time! SQLQuery me! 17:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support I will comment on Enterprisey for their in-person participation at Wikimedia New York City events. This person is well-spoken, polite, friendly, sociable, and takes initiative to represent the Wikimedia community on stage in public places. This person has years of relationship with the Wikimedia community in New York City and has consistently been a pleasure in person at events. This user is trustworthy in a leadership position and as a model of good engagement in Wikimedia projects. I want to particularly say that their software tools are interesting and useful, and this user does an excellent job of showcasing them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support It's a no-brainer. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Will make an excellent admin. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Experienced, trustworthy candidate. AGK ■ 19:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Clearly capable and obviously willing.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support As many things are already mentioned, I just want to say that Enterprisey deserves adminship. -- SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 19:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support per Mz7 - a long-term constructive editor and high benefit to the project. (The AfC tool is great!) GirthSummit (blether) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Fully qualified candidate with demonstrated need for adminship. The opposer's rationale has no merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. We've already trusted you with scripts, and I think we can trust you with the admin tools. Go forth and do great admin things ... or even teeny admin things. Zap vandals once in a while. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Happy to support again, I was the nominator last time and after all these years I am glad to see that the candidate has run again. ϢereSpielChequers 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Obvious Support This is one of the very few RfA's I've seen that were worthy of the description "no brainer". Good Luck enterprisey. Operator873talkconnect 21:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support CLCStudent (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Why Not? --Church Talk 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - will certainly be a net positive for the project. —DoRD (talk)​ 22:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. ’’’Strongest possible support’’’ for reasons put more clearly than I could convey programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 22:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support One of our best editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Right person for the job, no doubt. — kashmīrī TALK 01:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Amazing tools, nice to talk to. WelpThatWorked (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Babymissfortune 06:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support One of the best candidates I've seen at RfA. --NSH001 (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. I'm pleased to support this fine candidate, who based on the statements here I believe will be a great asset. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  163. D'oh. He will certainly be a good addition to the admin team. — regards, Revi 12:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  164. S --Jetstreamer Talk 13:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support My support for the candidate is unchanged since their last RFA. All my interactions with APerson/Enterprisey in AfC, template editing, and gadget work have shown him to be competent, dedicated, and responsible. I have no doubt that he would be a net positive as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Everything looks good here. Will definitely be a net-positive to the project. Good luck! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Any issues I had during the previous RFA have been alleviated. I'm happy to support now. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  169. No concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support per excellent technical work and overall fitness for adminship. GABgab 16:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support--Ticks all the boxes. FitIndia Talk 16:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support- A technically expert user who plans to take up admin roles in gadget script, edit filter areas. So will certainly be a helping hand in those areas. Even if he plans to jump into other admin roles his record elsewhere is quite good. The user has a good tenure over a long period of time. 28% mainspace edits, Decent AfD, CSD and prod logs. His judgement on AfD votes I saw are good and reasonable. Nothing that I saw raises any red flag. overall a plus for the community. A perfect admin doesn't exist and no one is perfect. This one will do the job well. Hand over the mop. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Where's my Easy button? StrikerforceTalk 17:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support - to be perfectly honest, I thought you were already an admin. Large body of work. Clearly knows strengths and weaknesses (self-awareness is key in an admin). Technically proficient. Civil. Excited to welcome you as an admin! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support obviously. Home Lander (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support no issues seen, clear net positive. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support and thank you for using your talents to make cool tools for the rest of us. ~Awilley (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Yep! Airplaneman ✈ 19:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support - would make an admirable admin. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support more admins is always a good thing; also trusted noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  181. —Kusma (t·c) 20:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  182. I supported the first RfA and am glad to pile on my support here.--John Cline (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support I'm late to this, and my vote's not really needed, but here it is. Equineducklings (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You’d only be late if you tried to !vote on 27 January 2019. Until then, no one is late and everyone matters. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  184. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Strong Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support I do sort of see Pudeo's point below; while there is no history that indicates this editor handles conflict badly, they haven't been involved in much conflict and so in a way we don't know how they will handle it. If Enterprisey had 5,000 edits, that might be enough to sway me into an oppose. But I think if an editor is close to 30,000 edits without encountering conflict, I trust them not to go looking for it as soon as they have the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support  samee  converse  10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support - Kind user who has contributed several valuable tools to the project. Would make a great sysop.--NØ 12:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Have no concerns. -- ferret (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support - Happy to endorse Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support - Great contributor: helpful tools are helpful. And tools area is another place to show an equal mind. No need to burden another nominator with creating "Enterprisey 3" under the right name. Pldx1 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support - I have no reason to conclude that they are likely to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support - Looks good to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support - based upon review. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support: Thought I might reiterate one of my very old support comments here with a few corrections: "Wow, he may even be a bureaucrat if he keeps this up! Because he already has [over] 3 barnstars and 22,000 contributions without warning, he surely does deserve the prize of becoming an administrator [tools]." Minima© (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support. Perhaps the one person who most deserves the tools and doesn't yet have them. And yes, I know I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but I had to come back to vote "support" here. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Rcsprinter123 (blab) 20:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support I've had a brief look at the candidate's edit history, his talk page, his contribution statistics, as well as his answers to the questions above. I would certainly like to see a higher percentage of article edits (at least 40% is usually my threshold), but I've had a few encounters with Enterprisey and his bot, and am willing to support this RfA, as long as the candidate makes a concerted effort to get article contributions up, even if it's just correcting typos. I'm also a bit worried about his absence in early 2018, but I am confident that another extended absence like that won't happen, and if it does that Enterprisey's editing skills won't get in the way. Life's a bitch, and I think I can overlook this absence. I'm also a big fan of his 99.6% edit summary usage. If the candidate or anyone else has questions, s/he can access my talk page by clicking on the word "King" in my signature. Thanks, WizardKing 21:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Nothing has changed after the last RfA. The editor has a pretty narrow editing area so knowing how he would perform in actual (and more controversial) admin duties is anyone's guess. He makes great scripts and tools. Maybe he should be employed by the WMF tech dev team, but being an admin is a lot more than that. --Pudeo (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion moved to talk page Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral. (Moved to "Support". Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC) ) The fact that this RfA wasn't filed as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2 (Fixed per RfA naming conventions. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC) ) bothers me since the title "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey" should have been created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson. Many editors may overlook the fact that even though the fact that Enterprisey was formerly APerson, and not follow the fact that this is the nominee's 2nd RfA, though this was plainly stated in the nomination statement. Well anyways, since I'm a bit of a stickler for archive organization. this issue has bothered me to a point where I'm sitting this one out. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unfair to me to penalize Enterprisey for this. As you note, it is clearly stated in the nomination statement, and it was Amorymeltzer who first created the RfA subpage at this title, not Enterprisey. Furthermore, it's not clear to me there is a strict convention in cases like this where the user has renamed their account. There doesn't seem to be any intent to obfuscate the past RfA, so I feel this isn't a very good reason to disqualify Enterprisey from the toolset. If the organizational issue bugs you a lot, I suppose right now we could move the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2 (which would be the actual convention) and redirect as you suggest. Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to need to do that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943, if this is the only reason for your neutral position, there you go. I've moved it. It's not too much of an issue. Lourdes 02:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: Thanks, yes, I meant Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2. (Geez, me, an archive stickler can't even get the naming convention right!) However, I put this in the "neutral" section because I didn't want this vote/comment to affect the support/oppose tally, but rather just make an observation. @Lourdes: Thanks, but IMO, besides the fact I have yet to form any opinion on the nominee, in addition to if I recall voting in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson and not recalling what stance I took at the moment, the action I recommend for the redirect should have been taken by someone involved in the nomination process prior to the nomination transclusion occurring. The reason I say this is new user names can be seen as a WP:FRESHSTART in some form or fashion, and I'm in the belief that all related archives need to be updated prior to help put the pieces of old user names together prior to a nomination such as this starting. (I recall that there was a very recent RfA that had the aforementioned issue in a lot greater significance than this one, but fortunately in this one, all previous information was declared in the nomination statement.) I mean, for example, it gets really confusing to find an old RfA when an administrator has a successful RfA under one username, but gets renamed after their successful RfA, leaving no existing RfA subpage or redirect with their current user name. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, though I've moved to "Support", my concern regarding RfA naming for a clean paper trail, such as what I have mentioned in previous statements, still exists. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think this is silly. Anyone can find out just by looking at the nomination that this is his second RfA. Moving the page was unnecessary. Kurtis (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone can find out just by looking at the nomination that this is his second RfA." That's not always the case. Yes, in this case, the nominators made mention of the previous RfA in the nomination statement, but there is no guarantee that will always happen. That, and let's say 10 or so years down the road, a new-ish editor is trying to figure out something and needs to look at the RfA archives for a certain editor/administrator who, like the nominee, ran under one username and failed, then ran under another username and passed. There may be a reference somewhere about a "1st" nomination, but since the editor researching the archives knows nothing about any of the former names of the administrator they are researching, they fail to find the first nomination. I've even seen a case in the past where an editor had 3 RfAs, but each of them under a different username. Best to make locating all to find the information they are looking for as simply as possible at the present time and the future, rather than potentially confusing readers by not making it clear in all ways possible the "paper trail" of nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I look at the title for this purpose, and expect it to be consistent. The automatic "RfAs for this user:" box also relies on this syntax. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
More