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

Less Unless[edit]

Final (160/4/4); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 04:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 03:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Less Unless (talk · contribs) – I’ve been a longtime supporter of Women in Red, and it’s nice to see prolific editors in that project offer their services for adminship.

Less Unless has written over 200 articles and participated in several Women in Red contests, helpfully addressing systemic bias on Wikipedia. She’s also a regular at Articles for deletion, thoughtfully offering good advice on numerous debates on whether or not to keep an article, even when consensus doesn’t go her way like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Okure. She’s also participated in WikiProject Cleanup, which I didn’t even know existed, helping to fix up problematic articles.

One of the best things about Less Unless is she’s consistently polite, courteous and welcoming to everyone. She’s happy to admit when she might be wrong, and is always self-reflective and looking for feedback on how to improve as a Wikipedian. That’s a great trait to have an administrator, and added to her content creation and AfD skills, gives me the fullest confidence that she will be trustworthy and responsible with the tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Barkeep49

I'm really excited to be able to present Less Unless to the community as the type of editor who used to be a regular at RfA but who has been rare in recent years. Namely she just goes about competently building the encyclopedia, in ways that Ritchie has already mentioned, and has a clear need for the tools, for reasons she'll explain below. I first became aware of her, when she completed New Page Patrol School and asked for the reviewer permission. I was pleased to see an editor eager to learn and who learns from mistakes. Since then I have seen an editor who wants to help others, who works hard to use tools responsibly and well, and who is unafraid to ask questions when she doesn't know something. LU has demonstrated more than sufficiently in her time here that she is here to build an encyclopedia and ready to be trusted with the administrative toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Ritchie333 and Barkeep49. It is an honor to be nominated, and I gratefully accept. I have never edited for pay. This is my only account. Less Unless (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2021 (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: Generally, I try to contribute to different areas – content creation, WP:NPP, WP:AfD, WP:RfD, reviewing pending changes and clean up are among the most frequent. Being an administrator, I see myself contributing mostly to AfD and RfD closures as I feel most confident in those areas. I can be of a good use in WP:REFUND having a solid experience in content creation. I will gladly help in other areas; however, I won’t intervene where I don’t feel completely confident – copyright and technical issues would be good examples of what is not my strength.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of the articles created, especially within the WP:WOMRED. I am a regular there and received several awards such as Mary Wollstonecraft Award and Precious Award. I am also a regular at WP:CLEAN and happy of my input there – a little pleasure of mine is to see an article without any tags which I also try to achieve while reviewing the new ones at WP:NPP.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I think everyone who has been here at least for a while had people disagree with them. There were points of view that differed from mine – mostly during the AfD discussions, but the communication has always been very civil and we handled it in a friendly manner. Everyone makes mistakes, I’ve always admitted mine and learned from them, like with WP:Articles_for_deletion/Teresa_Okure or Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride#Flag_transgender_biography_created_this_month.
Personally, I view any conflict as a possibility to understand each other better and grow. I have a set of personal do's and don’ts for such cases:
  • Be respectful – treat others the way you want to be treated. Everyone does the best they can. We never know the reason of a person’s behavior.
  • Discuss the subject, not each other.
  • Don’t take it personally – it’s not about you. It’s not a place to nurture your ego, but a community of like-minded people with a bigger purpose. Act with regard to the purpose.
  • I believe how you say things is almost as important as what you say, especially in written conversation. So, try to avoid jokes, satire, or phrasing that can possibly be misperceived. Be as neutral as possible in your language.
  • It’s always important to clarify things that you feel you might have not understood fully.
These are basically my guidelines in every misunderstanding and they have always worked for me.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Mz7
4. Thank you for running! As a follow-up to Q2, are there any particular articles that you are particularly proud of contributing to?
A:Thank you for the question. The most recent article that I am very satisfied with is Marita Napier - currently I am working on improving it even more to take it to GA. This was my first experience collaborating with another editor Gerda Arendt and I really enjoyed it. The others worth mentioning are Bessie Van Vorst, Ottilie Baader, Amy Mack. I also felt proud creating articles for Azerbaijan/Kazakh/Uzbek women who I feel are less represented. Apart from women's biographies I have also "adopted" Monaco-related topics after a suggestion made by Encyclopædius here. Within this topic I have created many articles among which almost all the biographies of the current members of the National Council of Monaco. Less Unless (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Tim Smith
5. If promoted, will you join Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
A:Thank you for the question. I am definitely open to recall as I believe it is consistent with the core values of the community. Administrators are accountable as they are trusted with an extensive set of tools. If the community decides an administrator for certain reasons lost its trust or can’t perform to the benefit of the community, they should resign. If I am elected, I will list myself under the terms of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Less Unless (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from DanCherek
6. Thanks for running. Was this edit — one of the four times you've used rollback — eligible per WP:ROLLBACKUSE?
A:Thank you for the question and pointing out this edit. When I rollbacked it I thought it was justified. I have checked the full lineup of the Jingle Ball Tour 2016 and Harry Styles wasn’t there. So, I took it for an act of vandalism. However, from today’s perspective it obviously looks like a hasty decision and a misuse on my part. For this past month I have been reading a lot about vandalism as I often come across problematic edits while reviewing pending changes. Due to this I have gained a better understanding of what constitutes vandalism. At this moment I think the edit was quite ambiguous (could be good-faith, a test, even if vandalism, it wasn’t destructive) but not the case where rollback would be considered eligible.
Rollback is applied for obviously malicious editing, in one's own userspace or for reverting edits by blocked users - none of which applies to this particular edit. I think the most adequate decision would be to manually revert and provide a summary explaining the reasons. Also, I would drop a personal message to the editor explaining why I undid their changes and offering help and assistance in case they needed any. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful response! DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from EpicPupper
7. Which of the 5 pillars would you, in your opinion, remark to me most important?
A: Thank you for the question. In my opinion the five pillars are all intertwined to serve the bigger purpose. To me it’s a like a car - it needs everything - an engine, gas and breaks, steering and wheels and many other parts. Take any of the components away and it just won’t be able to do what it was meant for. So, I can’t say this or that particular pillar is the most important, it’s the combination that creates Wikipedia as we know it and makes it running. Take one pillar away and it will change everything.
Being a Free Online Encyclopedia – is the purpose that every idea needs as it builds the direction, NPOV makes a logical follow-up – an encyclopedia without neutrality is an oxymoron. Free content is at the core of the idea – take it away and the community will change drastically. Respect and civility are the base for any type of relationship, especially in such a diverse community. Assuming good faith, acting polite and friendly not only secures more or less smooth interactions, but also helps engaging new valuable editors who may feel lost or even scared in the beginning. “No firm rules” means that discussion, consensus and common sense prevail, it’s not a dictatorship. The community has a set of guidelines as any endeavour should to function, but what’s crucial here is that anyone can join and help, and this what helps the project evolve. When I just started editing, I was really scared that I can unwillingly harm, but after receiving support from several editors who told me to be bold, I felt more confident to continue. Less Unless (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from EpicPupper
8. Just curious, what is the meaning/origin of your username?
A:Thank you for cusiosity) My username is a creative attempt of mine to combine word-play with my life motto which is “Don’t look for excuses”, unless... kidding) no unless here). Less Unless (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from SunDawn
9. Hello! We never meet before but I think your works are great! I intend to ask this question to all admins. While we know that neutrality is one of the most important concepts in Wikipedia, how do you approach contentious situations that are on the opposite spectrum of your religious or political beliefs? (For example: Let's pretend you are Armenian and the case is about Armenian genocide, or pretend that you are conservative and the case is about liberalism) Thank you!
A:Hello and thank you. The situation you described is very common as we are a very diverse community. The most frequent reasoning in such discussions in my experience is WP:TRUE. And, indeed that may be true, but one of the most important guidelines here is WP:Verifiability and if we drop it in favor of what one believes is true, Wikipedia will turn into a battlefield for truth (philosophers alone have so many different views!). In order to avoid such or similar scenarios, the community elaborated a set of guidelines that proved its efficiency. So, for me it’s the guidelines we should base every discussion on, not personal beliefs.
Having said that I believe being involved doesn’t necessary mean being subjective. Although COI edits are discouraged on Wiki, having an “insider” can help a discussion if they are willing to put their emotions aside and help by, for example, providing IRS that contain alternative points of view thus adding to another important requirement - due weight. In such way we will be able to provide readers with objective verifiable information presented from a variety of perspectives.
However, if a person feels they won’t be able to offer objective facts based on the guidelines, or their emotional well-being may be hurt, it’s better to refrain from the discussion. Therefore, it depends on context and a person.
One of my principles – if you are not well informed about a topic or biased, be careful expressing subjective opinions. It may harm everyone involved – you, your opponent and the discussion. So, when I get involved in such situation, I ask myself if I know enough to provide thoughtful well-reasoned opinions, if not – is there another constructive way I can contribute (doing research, i.e), but also whether I can maintain my emotions and whether what I say helps the discussion.
Sorry if I rambled for too long) Less Unless (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Nsk92
10. On April 27 you !voted 'delete' in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jaslyn Adams, with the "fails notability guidelines per above" rationale. If this AfD were open now, and based on the coverage of the event available now, would you still !vote 'delete'? When, if ever, is it appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this type of an event? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you for the question. With this particular article I would still !vote delete as the coverage in IRS in not the only prerequisite of notability in this case. WP:GNG in the majority of cases can be the only indicator of notability, but with articles about events or crime there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration i.e. per WP:CRIME and WP:EVENT.
Regretfully, we live in the world where people get murdered every day but while creating an encyclopedia, we should keep a cool head and stick to the guidelines. Is this an event that has changed the society? Has it resulted into something bigger? This particular tragic case unfortunately has no lasting effect per WP:EFFECT. Another thing to remember with these types of articles is the duration of coverage per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Having conducted such an analysis I agreed with WP:NOTNEWS brought up by other users and I still hold to this opinion.
As a comparison, this article Murder of Joanna Yeates meets the requirements for inclusion as it was not only extensively covered but sparkled a vivid discussion in the society and the government about ethics in media (legal action was taken against six newspapers, a new legislation proposed) which has changed the way such events are written about. Less Unless (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Elli
11. Would you ever invoke IAR in an administrative capacity, and if so, what potential situation could you imagine yourself doing so?
A:Thank you for the question. I find it difficult at the moment to imagine a situation where I would definitely invoke IAR. The context, the details - there are so many variables that influence our decisions. Up until now the guidelines formulated by the community were quite comprehensive for me. Also, as one of the main pillars is consensus, I believe any new or alternative proposal can be brought up for discussion and accepted if proved effective.
To me IAR is not a synonym to “do whatever you want” rather a stimulus to be creative, express your thoughts and offer alternative ideas. If the project is not willing to at least consider new approaches, it won’t grow.Less Unless (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. As a (relatively) newer user, would you feel fully confident closing discussions involving, and potentially even blocking, users who may have many more years tenure, and hundreds of thousands of edits, than yourself on the project?
A:When I read the reasoning of users under a deletion nomination, I don’t usually check their userpage or rights. First and foremost, it’s the rationale that should be taken into account. Years of tenure is definitely an asset as a lot of knowledge comes from the details and experience, however everyone can be mistaken (and it’s ok to make mistakes, that’s how we learn the fastest). Basing a decision on the fact that a user is much older than me would be a very subjective approach. I have seen articles nominated for deletion by admins and saved by other users. Does it mean the admin is a bad admin? No. It just means that everyone can be mistaken.
In case of a possible block though, I would most definitely seek to involve several other admins to shape a better vision of what has happened and which steps are the most adequate. Less Unless (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:StarshipSLS
13.How will you deal with disputes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarshipSLS (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A:Thank you for the question. I will first and foremost assume good faith, definitely use my do’s and don’ts guide stated in Q3 and stick to the guidelines. Keeping the discussion constructive would be my main focus. If needed, I will ask for help of other users as I believe it’s essential and appropriate in our community.Less Unless (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Sdrqaz
14. Hello, Less. Given your stated intention to work in AfDs, how would you close an AfD where there was a tension between the general notability guideline and the relevant subject-specific notability guideline? In your opinion, would meeting an SNG but not meeting the GNG automatically merit inclusion in the encyclopedia?
A: Thank you for the question. My decision would depend on the subject of the article and specific arguments presented. SNGs should generally help determine if a subject is likely to meet the GNG, they assume the coverage exists and where specifically it is likely to be found. While in most of the cases SNGs are subordinated to GNG, there are exceptions like WP:NPROF, which is an alternative to GNG.
Generally, all SNGs note that the subject is presumed notable if it can be verified by IRS. However, in some cases it’s the amount of WP:SIGCOV that may differ depending on the subject. For example if the subject meets WP:NPOL as being a member of Cabinet, they are considered notable even if there’s not much SIGCOV. However, if a politician ran for an office but lost and all the extensive coverage is build on this process only – a lot of users consider it a WP:ONEEVENT and !vote delete. These types of discussions in my experience were often closed as no consensus. Another example of discussions where things get heated relate to WP:NSPORT, and the question is if technically meeting a requirement is enough to pass.
So, it’s really tricky and all about the nuances - every case is unique. There are so many variables here, that it’s quite difficult to answer the question without a specific case.
As a new administrator, I would refrain from closing particularly controversial discussions, but observe and consult with more experienced sysops.Less Unless (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Steve Smith
15. Regarding Erica Rutherford, which you fairly cited in Q3 as a mistake you made, your response to the mistake was to say that you did not intend to insult anybody; I absolutely accept that, but it strikes me as an incomplete response. Can you now explain why what you did was in error, and what you've learned from it?
A:Thank you for the question. I agree fully, my answer looks incomplete and kind of reserved as I was petrified when I read the message. I instantly forgot all the words and it was the best I could say in that emotional state. One of my biggest priorities in life is freedom - freedom to be who you are no matter what, and I always respect the choices people make. When creating the article, I was using my logic that quit on me. I used “he” for the time in life when Erica was male, and “she” after transition. Another mistake of mine was not to check the appropriate wording.
What I’ve learned from this situation is 1) always familiarize yourself with the subject and the context; 2) consult with people who know more – I am a huge fan of WikiProjects; 3) double/triple check. Less Unless (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
16. You already have my support and you are definitely passing this RFA, so congratulations in advance, however I do have a question, When you invariably become an Administrator do you see yourself getting involved in anti spam? that is, would you be willing to combat spamming and undisclosed paid editing?
A:Thank you for the question and the support. If I become a sysop I'm goint to take it slow. I want to study all the guidelines thoroughly, observe other experienced admins, ask questions I don’t feel quite confident about. To me being a sysop is a big responsibility and I will definitely act with triple caution. If at some point I feel I have profound knowledge in anti-spam and UPE activities (or if anyone agrees to adopt me on these particular issues), I don’t see why I can’t contribute. While spamming is content related and I am more confident about it, dealing with undisclosed paid editing would be new to me, as I am not familiar with the procedures, so I would definitely need some time. Generally, I am willing to help out in any area, provided I gained profound knowledge in it. Less Unless (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from 2409:4054:21D:BFD1:406A:4E8F:CBD4:16D
17. Somehow, you granted Mass message sender right to some user who has no need for it and who is not much active. Realising you did a mistake, what will you do? Will you revoke right from the user?
A:Thank you for the question. If anything like this happens, I would first of all consult with other administrators on how to act as at the moment I am not familiar with all the specifics of granting\revoking user rights. Having made one mistake (granting the rights), I would try to avoid any others, so asking a more experienced admin(s) to help would be the best choice as I see it now. Less Unless (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. A newly registered user edits your userpage many times. Everytime they write: You are a lovely admin, keep up your good work!. But they have received ((uw-harrass4im)) warning (after many user told them to not to edit other users userpage) and have been reported to WP:AIV. Suppose you are the first admin looking at the AIV after the request was filed, what will you do?
A. Thank you for your question. As the user is new, I would definitely reach out to explain our policies regarding userspaces and offer them help. However, at WP:AIV I would choose not to intervene as an involved person – I don’t think it would be appropriate to use my admin tools as this could be perceived as misuse. Instead, I would wait for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the case. Less Unless (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Ineffablebookkeeper
19. I hate to seemed nitpicky, but this is something I feel I have to ask. Question 15 comments on your edits over at Erica Rutherford. I'm certain these were good faith, and that you, as a potential administrator contributing to the Women In Red project, have no wish but to improve Wikipedia's diversity of outlook and content. BLPs can be difficult; though Wikipedia policy does not exist to massage the egos of those it may have articles on, it does generally abide by the wishes of an article's subject when it comes to issues such as their date of birth and pronoun choices.
Your answer to Q.15 included "I always respect the choices people make", but as I'm sure you're aware, a person doesn't get much choice over whether they're transgender or not; the choice is, instead, how they present this to the world, with pronouns being part of this presentation. (You can think of a person's presentation choices - pronouns, appearance, etc. - like a number of horses, wearing hats with 'he/him' and 'goth-femme' on them, tied to a number of posts labelled 'pronouns' and 'presentation', if it helps.)
Presentation might change, but identity typically doesn't. And, though we have a rule of best thumb - refer to someone as their current pronouns, even when writing about the time before they came out - this can also vary, as personal preferences over pronoun choices and self-referential language can be influenced by, say, the time a person grew up and came out, and, for example, the language considered acceptable at the time having changed over the years, but the language used to describe their identity having stayed the same.
So, my question is this: you're writing a BLP of an older trans person who has recently come out. They don't use neo-pronouns, but they do describe themselves with the older term "transsexual", and have openly spoken of the time before they came out using their previously-used pronouns. You consult with other editors, but ultimately, the decision on what to write and how to write it falls down to you, as everyone else is swamped under in differently articles and projects. Though you don't feel the need to lay out a precise outline before you start writing about this person, what angle do you approach it with?
At the same time, you're working on a BLP of a younger trans person, who has openly stated that they commonly use slurs they have reclaimed to describe themselves, but do not use the term 'queer', as they believe it to be an unreclaimed slur, and offensive when used in reference to them. Though they have not spoken about how long they have identified differently - no statements on "I always considered myself to be X", "I started identifying as X at Y age", or "when I look back, I can see that I never identified as Z" - they have also not stated a preference for how they should be referred to when speaking of the time in their life before they came out. Again - everyone else is swamped under writing about ducks or something, criminally vital articles they just cannot put down. Without needing to write up the Iliad on the Talk page before yuu edit, what's your approach?
A. Thank you for your question as now I have a chance to explain what I meant. I want to clarify this part: "When creating the article, I was using my logic that quit on me. I used “he” for the time in life when Erica presented as male, and “she” after transition." It was my logic when I wrote the article a year ago, it's not what I think now. I did learn back then that gender is not what you can chose but a core part of your personality.
This whole misunderstanding made me so sad as I feel we have similar priorities and could be supportive to each other. Unfortunately the word "choices" was misleading, but I never meant that being a transgender is a choice. I hope we can work together in the future and create great content.
As for the question - I would wait until someone replied because I can hardly imagine a situation where I’m the only person who could write that article if I’m a person who isn’t informed enough to do so and don’t have access to advice. Less Unless (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. My other question is what I originally came on here to ask - accessibility. Would you, in the role of administrator and through your involvement with WIR, introduce and attempt to spread word of the basic edits and policies of the accessibility manual of style that other editors could incorporate into their average daily editing - things like the ((transl)) and ((lang)) templates, the removal of false headings and the improvement of using italics and bold where single or double quotes should be? (It would be nice to have more admins where these practices are baked in, is all(!)). Thanks!
A: I am highly supportive of the accessibility focused efforts and see no reason why I would oppose helping. Basically, it’s what I pretty often deal with at Clean Up. However, I would have to study the technical part of it more precisely as things like modules, scripts, functions and codes are definitely out of my comfort zone.Less Unless (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Oshwah
21. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you handle these situations when they arise, and how would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?
A: Generally, I don’t think admins, experienced, less experienced or IP users should be treated differently. It’s the guidelines that keep it all together, no one has a privilege, anyone can be blocked. But blocking should be the very last measure and should be supported by the broader community.
I personally feel like at many times blocking can have the opposite effect, as people who repeatedly violate civility guidelines have definitely been warned before and if that didn’t work, why the block will. Especially with those who have been here for a while and know the policies. Moreover, if we block experienced users without doing our best to understand them, we can just lose them. If they cared enough to spend their free time here and contribute, why can’t be spend some time to really talk to them? I believe most of the cases can be resolved by means of communication therefore I would do my best to clarify the situation and discuss it with the user trying to see their point as well. It’s all about the context and details.
At the moment I don’t have much experience in this particular field, so I before doing anything as responsible as blocking, I would need time to acquire sufficient knowledge and get grasp of details. Less Unless (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support Good editor JaiPogo0123 (Talk to me) 02:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As co-nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - any candidate of Barkeep's ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I did not recognize this username, but the record speaks for itself. Sufficient tenure. Lots of good content creation. Nothing concerning in the talk page history, and the last 500 edits look good. And the activity at Wikipedia:Cleanup justifies a "need for the tools" by itself. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A fellow Barkeepian candidate!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, this seems fine. BD2412 T 03:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Looks alright to me. Link20XX (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--- Possibly (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Keep up the good work Glennfcowan (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 04:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks like a solid contributor. As a participant in the Teresa Okure AfD cited above, I particularly appreciate her ability to change her mind when new information is presented. In my view, that willingness to accept feedback is more than sufficient to assuage any "too few edits, no GAs, too new" concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Barkeep49 TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support — They are a fine editor and a net positive to the project. I have no reason to trust them any less, unless presented with evidence contrary to that. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support respected noms, answers to questions ok so far, peeking at a few AfD discussions seemed to show no issues. No signs not to be trusted with tools. Hopefully no skeletons and in all events good luck. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Qualified candidate! Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per PMC. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 06:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per noms and PMC. No risk, net positive, etc. GirthSummit (blether) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, precious and trusted. We work on Marita Napier together, feel free to help towards GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support as clearly a good candidate who you benefit from admin privileges. Bibeyjj (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, good editor, net positive. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Nothing suspicious. --BonsMans1 𝑇𝐶 08:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Minorax (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Solid editor, good attitude to discussions, able to change their mind. Support. —Kusma (t·c) 08:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. (edit conflict) Weak support seems to be a good candidate, although there appear to be some deletionist tendencies with a number of the candidate's AFD nominations, with some recent examples being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Okure and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ture i Berg. However, the candidate has proven to be willing to admit they were wrong which is a good quality in an admin. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a real deletionist would have argued to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Miranda, so perhaps we should resist trying to categorise the candidate as inclusionist/deletionist. —Kusma (t·c) 09:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom. VV 09:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support being an admin is absolutely no big deal at all, anyone is capable of doing it and there's seldom any real risk to it. So happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support EN-Jungwon 09:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Pahunkat (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - no qualms here. Anarchyte (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support a fantastic contributer to the project (one I don't think I've seen much of before), who would be more than capable of handling the toolset. No reason to oppose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: good temperament, excellent content creation, need for the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - in my view, adminship should not be as big a deal as it is, and any quality editor who comes along, like this candidate, should be supported. Temperament is the most important thing, and this editor clearly has the right attitude to be an admin. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support not familiar with their work, but I respect and trust both nominators. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support yet another excellent candidate from the BK49/R333 franchise. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I haven't seen them around but LU seems reflective, & prepares herself before leaping into new areas. Not convinced of the need as stated but unconcerned since passing an RFA inevitably changes the focus of your attention. Cabayi (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per noms. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. SupportVery impressed by the quality of the noms, and the candidate herself seems up to the task.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support for meeting my minimums and no big deal. I too do not recall seeing them around but there's nothing to oppose. Ifnord (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support While I have not personally had any interaction with this user, her qualifications speak for themselves and, Lord knows, Wikipedia needs more bold, level-headed editors like her in adminship. Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per noms. AnApple47 (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Thanks for volunteering! Levivich harass/hound 14:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Experienced editor, don't see any reason why she cannot be trusted with the mop. - ZLEA T\C 15:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Candidate is a valuable contributor and I trust her with the admin tools. DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. (edit conflict) Support - looks promising. Jianhui67 T★C 15:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Another Ritchie/Barkeep wombo combo! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Looks okay to me. We need more admins. Mosesheron (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Trustworthy, good work all around eviolite (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Very efficient contributor and reviewer. Globg (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per nom. Corachow (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support enthusiastically. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support a review of their edit history and talk page gives me every confidence. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support a solid qualified wikipedian who is eager to take responsibility and do more... positive --Kemalcan (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Good answers to questions and, in Ritchie's words, "consistently polite, courteous and welcoming". No concerns. — The Earwig (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support If all it takes is a slightly panicky thread on WT:RFA to get Ritchie and Barkeep to find some strong candidates to nominate, we can do that more often ... but seriously, a well-qualified candidate who has demonstrated good judgment and is here for the right reasons. Go Phightins! 19:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Not bad! Thanks for volunteering. Deryck C. 19:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Q6 seemed nitpicky to me first, but it has resulted in an answer that made me support. Not because of the rollback thing, but because of the response to this type of criticism. That's exactly the type of criticism one will experience as administrator, and exactly the type of answer that is needed when it happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Candidate has said that she will be open to recall under that standard offer. That's really all I need to know -- saved time! After all, in the unlikely chance there's a problem, we can look at various ways of addressing that -- recall being a last resort, but necessary to have. Not only that, but in the vanishingly unlikely chance that the candidate gets too full of themself -- not totally unheard of, people change -- we can maybe make them think "uh-uh... maybe I better cool it." Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I've seen her around at WP:cleanup - competent, civil and reflecting, from what I've seen. Definitely does not shy away from janitor-type work, and could use the sysop tools to do more of such. I think she can be trusted with them. PJvanMill)talk( 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I don't think I've encountered them before but the response to Q6 is excellent. Guettarda (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Another editor I've never come across. Looks acceptable to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support clear net positive - competent and willing to reflect on her contributions. The AfD votes in the oppose don't trouble me. --Find bruce (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Content creation? Building the encyclopedia? Exactly what I look for. NYC Guru (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this person definitely drives home the point -- "Be respectful – treat others the way you want to be treated. Everyone does the best they can. We never know the reason of a person’s behavior". Someone with that attitude certainly knows what it takes to be here and will get a lot of pleasure from their wikipedia time. NYC Guru (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - no issues at all. Tolly4bolly 01:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - No concerns. I think this candidate will do a great job. -- Dane talk 04:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support an excellent candidate; I've never seen her before, but a look at contributions and linked discussions show that she is competent/trustworthy (and especially willing to accept critical feedback) and has a reasonable need for the tools. Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support a good candidate. No concerns. --Bduke (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Unlikely to delete the main page. Based on a reasonable search, it appears this editor can be trusted with the larger toolset. BusterD (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support A good candidate, no concerns. Acroterion (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support A very good candidate, though the concern brought up in opposition by Willbb234 deserves to be addressed if I am going to indicate my support. I don't think that the editor's editing in non-controversial areas would result in many talk page discussions due to disputes anyway, which would reduce the number of talk page comments significantly. While the user is newer in terms of age, the user's edits show experience and nothing appears to be concerning to me. Additionally, the significant activity at WP:CLEANUP shows that the user may have a compelling reason to be granted the admin tools. The lack of editing in controversial areas has led to fewer content disputes, and the lack of ability to see the editor's behavior in a prolonged content dispute provides some uncertainty regarding how they would handle disputes as an admin. Overall, however, the editor has shown consistent good faith, an earnest willingness and competence to improve the encyclopedia, and a compelling reason for why and how the admin tools would be particularly helpful in having this user positively contribute to our encyclopedia in new ways. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Keep up the good work.. Powerful Karma (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - endorsed by editors I trust, and based on what I've seen of her contributions, she is an excellent candidate. Atsme 💬 📧 12:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support After spending some time looking through contributions and question answers, I'm quite impressed! I think Less Unless would make a good admin. FlalfTalk 12:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. full Support. I think Less Unless will make a great sysop.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, looks good. SVcode(Talk) 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support looks like an excellent candidate. She is endorsed by Barkeep, she is consistently polite and courteous, she has done great work at Women in Red project, and she has answered all of the questions satisfactorily. Impressive candidate. SunDawn (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Certainly. —-Jack Frost (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Qualified candidate, here for the right reasons and has a good grasp on our principles. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support I trust the noms; no concerns that I could find.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Looks like this user would be a good admin.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support based mainly on support by people whose opinions I have come to trust, and what a fairly superficial check can show. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support --- an excellent candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support --- No concerns. Keresluna (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - A net positive candidate nominated by 2 trusted users JW 1961 Talk 20:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. I see nothing to oppose here. Candidate seems unlikely to run with scissors, and I particularly liked "Don’t take it personally – it’s not about you. It’s not a place to nurture your ego, but a community of like-minded people with a bigger purpose. Act with regard to the purpose." – Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I have been impressed by the nuance and depth to the answers by Less Unless, and I echo Athaenara's words – it's certainly something worth keeping in mind as we build the encyclopedia. Mixing up significance and notability was a slight concern looking through the archives, but the way Less handled that (not to mention it was six months ago) showed she is willing to learn from her mistakes; a trait all Wikipedians (but especially administrators) need. I wish Less the best in her adminship. – Sdrqaz (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - exactly the right attitude, and a good mix of contributions (perhaps a little more Keep in AfD, intervening to rescue, for example, would be even better). Also nominated by experienced trusted figures. I note the well-articulated “need for more experience” point below, but think this can be over-stressed. More hands on the toolset are needed and this looks like a safe pair. Good luck! SeoR (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  99. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support for a qualified candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 02:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. I don't see any issues. — Ched (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support them being an admin here would be a clear net-positive for the project. User has common sense and can justify their thoughts reasonably, and has a decent wiki-philosophy. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Handful of encounters I've had with the candidate are positive, I see support from several users whose judgment I trust, and no obvious red flags. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - good work at AFD in addition to content creation work, I am happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Would improve wikipedia TigerScientist Chat > contribs 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - After research, I've found that this candidate has a clue and a positive attitude toward the project. Having this candidate become an admin would be a clear net-positive for the project. I'm happy to pile on my support! - tucoxn\talk 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support My default position for any RfA co-nom by Barkeep49 and Ritchie333 is to support, and I see no reason to make an exception with Less Unless. Seems well qualified to wield the mop.  JGHowes  talk 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - Seems fine. Why not? ♟♙ (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - seems to be a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Experience and range of expertise is light. Admin role needs to be bifurcated and this would be for basic admin work, staying out of the heavy and behavior-related stuff for several years.North8000 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, seems perfectly qualified and uncontroversial, I do not see anything to indicate she would be anything other than entirely responsible with the tools. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  115. No concerns. --JBL (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Seems sound on policies. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support based on excellent nominator and candidate appears to have clue. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support -- the wub "?!" 10:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support I don't remember seeing this editor previously, but the excellent responses to the questions above (especially the willingness to acknowledge and reflect on minor mistakes) and solid contribution history indicate that she will be a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support who engages in clean up and likes tag free articles... go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support -- No reason for me to oppose. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - Good editor, net positive. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Competent and will be a great boon to the project. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - Their thoughtful answers to the questions, combined with a good temperment, and content creation skills would make for an great administrator. Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Seems sufficiently chill and trustworthy to me. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support What's not to like?--agr (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Because I love piling on. Also, she does good work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Excellent to see qualified people being nominated! Daniel (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - yes, no problem, we need more admins, especially women. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 08:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support per nominators and the quality of her edits. Wario-Man talk 09:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support—Eminently qualified. Kurtis (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support – seems totally alright, good luck --Vacant0 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  134. No problemo! Objections below are respected; however, they seem insufficient to hold back the tools, especially when good admins are needed for the project. This is an obvious no-brainer, and this candidate is a high-quality choice. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. No issues. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Thanks for volunteering and good luck. Vexations (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Very happy with her answers and contributions. Uses x (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Well-rounded editor; will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 03:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Top-notch editor with the skills and aptitude to become a great admin. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Per her user talk archives; no concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Thumbs up icon --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - 1.5 years of consistent high quality editing is sufficient tenure, if on lean side. Trusted by Ritchie333 and Barkeep49. Shows CLUE, takes advice, seeks to learn, interacts well with others. About what I look for in an admin candidate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Looks good. Best of luck in your new role! – Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support per nom Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support per nom. Also, Mausebru (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support community has shown they support and nothing leads me to oppose. Preemptive congrats for gaining the tools. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Looks fine, and the candidate has agreed to be open to recall. Tim Smith (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Sounds good, good quality edits Erik Sergeant
  151. Support. Great editing at Women in Red and reading her replies to questions above shows a thoughtful, considered, reflective contributions. We need admins like Less_Unless. Yes please. Victuallers (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support good candidate. JavaHurricane 09:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Definitely. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Thumbs up. LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 13:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support per noms and above. Welcome to the corp! --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  156. not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Good answers and the support of these noms gives me confidence you'll do great. Best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  158. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Kirbopher2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support I am happy to support because no significant problems have been identified. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose AfD participation is very much underwhelming. Despite approximately 200 AfDs participated in, remarkable for the time period, they seem to nearly always be single line agreements with other !votes ([1], [2], [3], [4], to list a handful of some of the recent AfDs in which they have participated). They have nominated a few AfDs, the most recent of which resulted in a speedy keep ([5]). Their talk page participation is also underwhelming, with only approximately 500 edits to both user talk and article talk pages. For me, this demonstrates that this user has not as much user-to-user discussion and involvement as I would expect from an admin. The user has only been at Wikipedia for a little over 18 months which, while being consistently active throughout, strikes me as barely enough. As Barkeep says, she just goes about competently building the encyclopedia. Whilst this is certainly a trait which I would look for in a candidate, a user needs more than this to become an admin, more specifically, to have an ability to understand different situations which require different thoughts and approaches, something which I don't believe this use has demonstrated. The user has also only had the NPP right for less than eight months and two other rights for less than six. I don't believe this is sufficient experience to be granted the admin tools to be helping out in the areas stated in answer 1. I will mention that I have seen this user performing solid work in chess-related articles and a look at their other contributions shows they really are doing great work to build the encylopedia. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the usual issues with arguments that somehow Wikipedia is so hard to edit that users need years of experience, I'm curious what you think the user should've voted with on those AfDs (maybe you can give some examples of what you'd expect)? As you may know, most AfDs are obvious keep or delete cases and do not require paragraph arguments, especially when we're talking about the absence of sourcing (i.e. blatant GNG failures). I'd like to know how one makes a High Quality Contribution (TM) when Googling the subject just gives no results except IMDb & FB/Insta/Linkedin[6]. ProcSock (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcSock: to be fair to Willbb, I don't think it's really the "single line answers" that are their main issue - you're right that in many cases, more isn't needed. However, for someone indicating interest in AfD activity as an admin, you do want to see evidence of new thought - good 1st responders and nominations are traditional, but being the first to disagree with those above, even if it puts you in the minority, so long as they're well reasoned, that's what I like to see. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ProcSock, I haven't looked into this particular case, but surely one goes beyond a Google Web search when assessing notability? Nosebagbear makes a very good point here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick Google is the requirement per WP:BEFORE. And for a modern-day actor in an English-speaking country, I'd be surprised if they were notable but nothing but PR stuff popped up on Google. But my point is more that IME these kinds of AfDs lend themselves to short responses (whereas the POVFORK/BLP variety of AfDs require longer ones). In many cases the editor comments early on and seems to be doing their checks.[7][8][9] Fundamentally, I don't really see how those AfDs could be replied to differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know if you mean to be implying that a normal Google search only is the full requirement of WP:BEFORE, but it is actually a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search (other search engines are available). Almost everyone reading this also has The Wikipedia Library access and I hope you're all doing ProQuest searches in there and using any specialist search that you know is subject-relevant. BEFORE is only required for the nominator, but participants should be doing it too (at least until it's clear someone else has). — Bilorv (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the point of my question wasn't Google (I don't know what LU's review process is anyway), it was what exactly is expected on clear GNG failures (which is a large bulk of what hits AfD), for which (for that specific person's AfD) I used no results on Google as an example. I would personally see it as a waste of time to try to write a paragraph argument in such an AfD (if even possible) when it can be summarised in two sentences. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Is having good AfD stats and uncontroversial content creation our only requirement for adminship? I hate this obsession with AfD stats at RfA as all it really does is measure how good someone is at agreeing with others and dogpiling onto easy keeps/deletes. I'd prefer to see productive involvement in disputes given that admins are often called upon to resolve such. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Until recall is a binding procedure, and pledges to be open to recall are binding, the first and only step to recalling an admin is convincing them to resign, which is the first and only step to removing an admin in any circumstance except for RFAR. As such, all admins are equally open, and not open to recall. Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, is the substance of your vote that you oppose any candidate who indicates that they are open to recall? --JBL (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There are ways it can be written that make it clear the "pledgor" realizes the "pledge" is toothless. Hipocrite (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For everyone else: having looked through Hipocrite's past participation at RfA, I see that this is at least the fourth time they've offered a variation on this oppose ([10] [11] [12], and of course the currently-running [13]), it leads to a long pointless discussion every time, and I'm sorry I started that already so please let's not. --JBL (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreeing with JayBeeEll to an extent on this as it should quickly be treated as an extended discussion and clerked to the talk page is where it belongs. I'd simply AGF for any candidate and reckon only if either myself or maybe Hipocrite might answer no to the question if we ran for RFA.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Agree with Hipocrite that the glib acceptance of recalls without the proper leg-work to make a genuine process is concerning; I am particularly skeptical of any candidate who agrees to it without previously being involved in the effort to create a recall process, since it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are simply bowing to pressure. No one who would do so to pass an RFA should be an administrator. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. This is probably closer to a support than to an oppose, but I find the Erica Rutherford business a bit troubling, and the candidate's response to it in Q15 not all together satisfactory. The candidate—acting in what I have zero doubt was good faith, and as part of a noble effort to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia—misgendered an article subject for a good portion of the article. While accepting that she erred, the candidate's response refers to using male pronouns for "the time in life when Erica was male", which largely replicates her initial error and suggests a failure to learn from it. I'm also a little bit unsettled by her reference to "respect[ing] the choices people make", which is further evidence tending to suggest that her misunderstanding of trans issues persists. You might fairly ask what a proper understanding of trans issues has to do with being an administrator, to which I would respond that it's not completely irrelevant, but perhaps more troubling is that after making a mistake in good faith and being called on it, the candidate superficially accepted responsibility, without really taking the effort to understand what her mistake was. I don't think all of that adds up to a reason to oppose an otherwise good candidate, but I can't quite get myself to support. Steve Smith (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve Smith: so that the candidate can actually see a bit more explicitly what the problem is, do you think the following is a fair representation of your issues?
    • Many/most transgender people don't consider themselves to have "used to be male/female", in the same way most gay people don't think that they "were straight and are now gay"—it's like they were always that gender or always gay, but just didn't realise that about themselves or go public with it for a while. (Particularly older generations of trans people sometimes do think in terms of "I used to be a man and now I'm a woman", but some people find that idea very disrespectful.)
    • Many/most transgender people find it to trigger gender dysphoria when they are referred to by pronouns other than their currently-identifying set(s).
    • Like how being gay isn't "a lifestyle choice", neither is being trans, so though there is still some sense in which a person is choosing to be themselves, there's also some way in which it isn't a choice at all—it's just the way they are.
    • In terms of policy, MOS:IDENTITY says: Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources. (In this case, use "she/her" not "he/him" throughout the given article.)
    — Bilorv (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that about captures it; thanks. Steve Smith (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Not voting nay because I want to see more editors stepping up if they are interested in the mop, and I reject admin qualification inflation on general principles. But that said, there are some potential issues with the candidate and the high acceptance pct. that has developed surprises me. This is a very new editor by our usual standards with under two years experience in the community. There are some other things that make me concerned about judgment and maturity like typos on their user page, and TWA badges, when that page can be expected to be scrutinized. Kind of generic replies to question 3, and selection of the generic recall mechanism, are uninspiring – are we seeing an unwillingness to grapple? Others have pointed out non-nuanced AfD arguments where ideally we would see, again, more grappling with issues demonstrating potential admin mindset. I agree with Chess on this, but not strongly enough for an outright "nay". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What, you can't have a TWA badge on your userpage now if you want to become an admin? Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have hard and fast rules like that, rather would prefer to evaluate the whole package of candidate characteristics as an ensemble. Some characteristics suggest naiveté and a cautious response, that’s all. A candidate should be self aware enough to know what message they are sending out with their userpage during an RfA. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, though could change based on what the candidate may later state; I originally jumped on here to ask a question about the candidate's approach to accessibility vis a vis templates and the promotion of understanding, but what Steve Smith brings up here, though potentially a "minor" issue to some, does, as a trans person who's seen this kind of thing before, lead me to wonder. Being transgender is something to be respected, as an immutable part of a person's identity - not a "choice".
    The choice is to come out, I suppose, but coming out is a relatively new concept, and transgender people have existed for far longer than 'coming out' has. Though odd to some, it is the respectful, and I would say editorially correct decision, to refer to someone within their BLP with the correct, present-day pronouns, unless the article subject in question has openly stated no opposition to being referred to differently when writing of the time before they came out.
    There's also, as Steve Smith has pointed out, the oddity of referring to someone before having come out as "the time of so-and-so's life when they were male". Cisgender editors may struggle to grasp, having never faced gender dysphoria, the fact that for a trans person, there is often no time in their life when they consider themselves to have been the gender they were born as; certainly it's the case for myself, and having been out for 5 years, I've seen few identifying differently, and those themselves typically older members of the trans community.
    Obviously, learning about minority issues is never an open-and-shut, yes-or-no thing; it's a continual process. However, I would like to see these concerns wrapped up before casting a vote, as this will affect how the candidate may go on to treat certain articles in future, should their application for adminship be successful. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Though I admire Less Unless's awareness and willing to learn from experienced admins when granted the tools, the noted laissez-faire attitude to diversity issues is uninspiring, especially with Wikipedia seeing many edit wars (and civil edit conflicts) on the subject. However, relating to diversity issues, I see Less's positive and frequent WiR contributions. So, I find myself neutral here. Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]

Vote for him— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs)

Comment: To avoid propagation of this gender identity here I would note nom. seems to identify the gender of the candidate as she in the introduction. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, For the record, we asked Less Unless what preferred gender should be used in the nomination, and were unambiguously told “she”. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My question (Q6) was described above as "criticism" but it was not intended as such and I apologize if it came across that way. As I indicated above, I thought Less Unless's nuanced answer was fantastic and I hope it will strengthen this RfA even more. DanCherek (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I count two questions about her. Obviously, the extent to which they're relevant will be decided by the participants in this RFA. Speaking only for myself, my concern was less the initial mistake--as you say, a lot of us cis-types have some history with misgendering/deadnaming/etc. trans people--and more the fact that the candidate's response to the error (both at the time, and in this RFA a year later), while accepting that she did err, did not demonstrate that she had educated herself on what she did wrong. Indeed, they suggested that she hadn't. That's not a great trait in an admin. It wasn't enough for me to oppose. It hasn't been enough for anyone else to oppose, either. But I don't agree that it's irrelevant. Steve Smith (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair. I wasn't so against your question - it seemed reasonable to ask - as I was by Ineffablebookkeeper's, which felt a bit excessive. (I think if we asked all of the current admins to answer it, with the same "locked in a room alone" criteria, 90% would probably get it "wrong") (also, not particularly cis-type myself, though that isn't really relevant) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know how I can avoid making any mistakes editing about trans people. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count Q19 as one which seems to insist that, having made a mistake over a year ago, Less Unless in order to gain support for getting a few extra tools now needs to prove she understands the finest details and points of how to refer to any trans person in any situation. IneffableBookkeeper, unless you actually believe no one who understands those points at that level of detail should be an admin, you probably should just go to Less Unless's user talk and drop a link to something she can use to improve their understanding next time they write an article about a trans person. The question itself is asking her to provide an answer without being able to do what she clearly has said she would do, and that's consult with other editors. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, @Ineffablebookkeeper —valereee (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee - it's a valid question, and I'm not in any way disparaging that Less Unless made a mistake - which I pointedly note as being in good faith, as I hold no opinion that she would be unpleasant on purpose - for which she later apologised.
You state that "unless you actually believe no one who understands those points at that level of detail should be an admin" - when that isn't the case, and is not something I stated. I did literally say that learning about minority issues is a "continual process", and not a "black-and-white" issue.
My concern, my only concern, is that a response detailing "respecting everyone's choices" can be read two completely valid ways, as I have seen both countless, witheringly countless times: a), the respondent isn't too clued up on trans issues. B), the respondent thinks being trans is a "choice", and is hedging any potential transphobia behind a veil of deniability. I live in the UK; we're stupidly transphobic here, and everyone's favourite pasttime seems to be dunking on transgender people on Twitter. It is not a stretch of the imagination. Maybe you think it is; it isn't, it really, really unfortunately isn't.
Clearly, Less Unless' response was not in bad faith, but as I said in my Neutral vote, it's best to clear these things up before going either way. It's a minor point to cleanup, but cleaned up I merely wanted it to be. I'm not "insisting" anything. I'm just asking for a potential administrator to consider a situation wherein they may have to go down to a level of detail they might not elsewhere, as part of what I see as the candidates' clear and beneficial contributions towards diversity on Wikipedia through their involvement in the Women In Red project.
I get it, and I do not in any way think it's a stretch that tons of people do believe being trans is the choice here (rather than how one presents.) And here in the US we are also transphobic; I don't know how Caitlyn Jenner thinks there's any possibility of getting elected as a Republican for god's sake. Trans Allies for Trump could hold their meetings in a phone booth. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, yes, transphobia is sadly common. However, I know that for a while, my solution to "how do I manage to not screw anything up" was "don't talk about/write about/be friends with" trans people - and that's, in my opinion, far worse than occasionally getting it wrong. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I held off for weeks on moving to article space White gaze, which while I believed was a crucial missing article, I as a white person felt very uncomfortable creating. I finally decided it was worse to have it missing and created, hoping others would improve. Was it a mistake? Did I do it wrong? I don't really know. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I felt similarly when recently creating Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars. I'd love to be doing a GAN review for a trans person who wrote the bulk of it, but such a person doesn't exist, so here I am submitting it to GA myself. The standard I set myself is: is this better than nothing? A non-trivial bar to cross—it needs to have a high degree of factual accuracy and wording sensitivity and be worth someone clicking on instead of whatever else would turn up on Google. But at the end of the day, I write it or no-one does. I'd rather get shouted at for a failure, like at Talk:Pickle Rick#Problematic racism so typical of Rick and Morty, than not try. At least that gives me some feedback and way to improve. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I felt similarly when rescuing Ika Hügel-Marshall and Annie Yellowe Palma from deletion. In both cases, I thought, "These are black women with a story to tell, we've absolutely got to keep the articles here at all cost", (realising completely that's not an argument that you can use at AfD) but also, "Am I, a straight[dubious – discuss] white middle-age middle-class male, the most appropriate person to write this story?" Was I over-doing it? Was this just glorified mansplaining? Still, as Bilorv says, I'd rather at least know I had a go at doing it, instead of sitting back and thinking systemic bias is somebody else's problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv and @Ritchie333, thank you both. I finally came around to the idea that writing is hard, but editing is easy. If I put something out there, it makes it easier for all those non-creators out there to look at it and say, "That's not correct! I can fix that!" —valereee (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elli - I wouldn't propose all admins answer it; I'm not the Transgender Inquisition, I don't have the outfit. My question was honestly just to clear up a few uncertainties, as my Neutral vote shows. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineffablebookkeeper: fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineffablebookkeeper, generally questions at RfA should be ones you think need to be answered before you can support or oppose, and you're currently neutral, so yes, you're sort of insisting here. LU has said she'd need to consult with other editors. Your question is using as a given that she doesn't yet know what those other editors would say and can't simply not make those edits, and it's asking her to make her best guess as to what someone familiar with the situation would advise. How is that a reasonable question? And I'm not even sure what "What is your approach" means or how I'd even go about starting to answer that...are you looking for something like "I'd call them what they currently call themselves unless it's generally considered offensive, like transsexual, or unencyclopedic, like queer." or are you looking for something else? And do we need an RfC on whether queer is no longer unencyclopedic or offensive? It's just...it's a huge question, actually TWO huge questions since you're asking about two different and very specific situations to research on, think about, and compose answers to. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried that only 4% of her edits are on talk pages. Administrators should be very familiar with consensus and related things. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) Note: I will be taking a vacation in July and August. I won't edit during my vacation. 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee (courtesy ping) StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) Note: I will be taking a vacation in July and August. I won't edit during my vacation. 22:19, 22 May 2021 (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.
Category