Steel1943 (talk·contribs) – I am very excited to nominate Steel1943 for adminship, an editor who I have a very close working relationship with and whom I would consider my closest wiki-friend. He and I have both been regular contributors to WP:RFD for over six years now. I have gotten to know him well there, and I've always been impressed by his rational, insightful, and policy-based contributions. We do disagree from time to time, but I always find his position to be reasonable and intelligent (and sometimes even offering outside-the-box compromises). He has been by far the most proficient and helpful non-admin closer at RfD over the past several years, and also helps out with the thankless but useful clerking tasks like relisting and fixing broken nominations. The experience and disposition that Steel1943 has is exactly what is needed at RfD, a place that has always been understaffed by admins and where it would be very nice to have another mop handy.
Outside of RfD, I'm excited to see that he is willing to help out at WP:FFD, which has by far the oldest backlog of any of the XfD forums, with some discussions open for over four months now. Steel1943 was instrumental in simplifying the file namespace XfD fora several years ago, by proposing to mergeWP:NFCR and WP:PUF with WP:FFD. While I was not directly involved in this, I watched these discussions play out and saw the work that Steel1943 put in to implement these mergers, so I have full faith and confidence that Steel1943 will make a great admin there.
On the content side of things, Steel1943 has focused on a cause I personally find noble: improving the navigation and accessibility of the encyclopedia. He has created countless disambiguations and set indices and has also worked on several templates. His CSD log (which is so lengthy it had to be split into multiple pages) is full of uncontroversial maintenance, G8's, and a healthy amount of F-prefixed speedies thrown in there. I believe this is telling to predict the kind of admin he is going to be: one who epitomizes the metaphor of the mop by cleaning up exactly what needs mopping. With so many messes lying around, I hope he can get started soon, and that is why I strongly recommend him for the mop. --Tavix(talk) 17:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept, and have never edited for pay. I have a test account I use called User:Steel1943 (tester), and an old test account User:Steel1943 (test) that I requested be indefinitely blocked after I forgot its password and did not have a recovery email set up for it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan on participating in closing discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Requested moves and sometimes Wikipedia:Files for discussion. I also plan to work on edit history merging whenever the need calls for it. I will also validate speedy deletion nominations for their validity and delete them as appropriate, most likely focusing on nominations that fall under the "G", "F" or "R" criteria. ...And that's all from my original RFA that still applies. In addition, I plan to help out on WP:RFPP from time-to-time. I plan to continue working on a ongoing task I have been doing for the past few years to ensure that talk page archives are properly connected to their parent pages, a task that I've been partially tracking using one of my user space subpages found at User:Steel1943/Orphaned archives; having the ability to delete pages could potentially make this task a bit simpler when there is a page blocking a title that needs to be used for misplaced content when there is no need for any improperly titled page artifacts to be present (which I've run across before, but don't recall any specific examples at the moment.) I plan on monitoring and resolving maintenance categories that require administrators to resolve such as Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. And finally, I'd like to participate in clearing out administrative backlogs by monitoring Category:Administrative backlog rather than going to WP:AN to point out their existence when a category contains 2000+ items if I could help clear them out myself.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I find accomplishment in doing the tasks that most article writers may not understand how to do (such as template editing, verifying validity of files per fair use and free use policies, general maintenance to references and hatnotes on pages (one task I do from time to time is identifying articles with bare URLs, and depending on the task I'm currently undertaking, I will either correct the bare URLs or tag the page so that the existence of the bare URLs is known for the next editor, maintenance of redirects, ambiguous link disambiguation, archive organization, and general accessibility of Wikipedia so editors can find the pages and resources they are looking for) in order to support and enhance the articles that others create.
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 suppose my answer to Q3 in my previous RFA still applies, but since then, I have continued to do my best to react to stressful situations than I had 4+ years ago. For some part, some of the stressful situations as of late have been in regards to a procedural disagreement between another party and I, such as examples that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 61#Page move, User talk:Steel1943/Archive 15#Talk:Kiev etc and User talk:Steel1943/Archive 16#BFR (rocket) and Starship development history. Lately though, the action I tend to take in discussions to avoid further conflict is to agree to disagree, and unless there is a pressing matter in the discussion that requires my attention or I am pinged directly, I leave the discussion to prevent further elevation of any of the parties. I mean, Wikipedia is a community project, and it doesn't do the project good if I fight with others or stand my ground over something so insignificant that it leads to the discussion getting posted on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.
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.
4. Looking at your article creations, there seem to be lots of entries which were deleted. I can't see deleted content so please explain these.
A: Of the 200+ edits in the article space on the deleted list: Most of the ones listed as "deleted, recreated" seem to be the result of round-robin moves. In that list, there are also a good number of CamelCase style redirects I created back in 2013 which I later nominated for WP:G7 after the "me of today" no longer agreed with what I thought to be productive back then. There are a few that were redirects and were deleted per WP:G8 after their target page was deleted. There are also a few where they were deleted per WP:G7 almost immediately after I questioned their usefulness. Most of these deletions seems like maintenance-style deletions that are a consequence of either me typing something wrong in a redirect's title or the redirect's target no longer existing. The only exceptions I have found so far are a few emoji-style redirects that were deleted per the result of a discussion; the titles I created were color variations of the base emoji character redirect nominated for deletion, so I had created those redirects to match the existing redirect, but then they ended up being bundled in the respective RfD discussion after their target came into question in RfD.
5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: Ironically, that was something I wanted to post in the original version of my answer to Q2, but ended up removing it. One of the aspects I'm a bit weak on is certain parts of WP:GNG. It's not that I'm not interested in knowing about the general notability guidelines, but rather in most cases, my edits on Wikipedia do not involve me having to utilize the notability guideline. I don't normally write articles and do not pretend that I truly understand the notability policy enough to properly manage WP:AFD or anything similar regarding article subject notability. (I'd believe I know enough to know when blank-and-redirecting is appropriate [such as when an article is created for a duplicate subject and no information needs to be merged], but that's about it.) I've created a few articles from content I extracted from other articles (Alonzo Fields, Shantae, List of video games featuring Miis, List of Colombian musicians, Paintbrush), but other than that, the majority of pages I create in the article namespace are either redirects or disambiguation pages. (The only article I've ever created from scratch is Ken Reeves (meteorologist), and it's not much.) And in regards to article improving: At one point a few years ago, I attempted to work on Thomas Edison to get it in good enough shape for it to be considered for GA-status, but at some point many edits later, I put that task indefinitely on hold. Afterwards, I ended up going to working on aspects of Wikipedia that editors who primarily write articles may not regularly handle or be knowledgeable of how to handle such as fixing improperly formatted move request templates, updating templates to make them more user friendly and compatible for users who place them, updating templates' document when their instruction may be out-of-sync with its function, creating disambiguation pages after discovering that multiple subjects have the same name but no disambiguation page exists, and other tasks that support both content creators and our readers find what they are looking for.
6. In what way do you think your editing has most improved over the four years since your last RfA?
A: I've continued working on identifying and resolving issues in the background of Wikipedia that don't tend to get much attention. I've continued increasing my knowledge of article structure (in particular, MOS:ORDER), template construction for ease of user access (I'm hoping to start creating some modules soon since I'm learning other coding languages now), and have participated more in article updating and structure. I've continued increasing my knowledge of what makes reasonable and plausible search terms for subjects, and redirect those terms to their proper articles and/or respective non-article namespace pages. With each passing article I edit or fix, I get a better idea of what could be considered a notable subject fit for an article on Wikipedia. I recalled at some point during the past few years, I found a batch of stub or start-level song and album articles that were not notable per WP:NSONG or WP:NALBUM, so I either merged them into the most appropriate higher-level topic or blank-and-redirected them if there was nothing to merge, and afterwards, tagged them with appropriate redirect categorization templates showing they had history (((R from merge)) or ((R with history))) and are subtopics of their target article (((R from song)) or ((R from album))).
7. RfA !voters often expect admin candidates to be experienced article writers, and your response to Q5 identifying a lack of confidence when it comes to notability and article creation is likely to draw out oppose votes. What would you say to someone on the fence about supporting your adminship request for these reasons?
A: Over the existence of Wikipedia, Wikipedia has become a lot more than just article creation. Yes, article creation and the quality of articles is the foundation of Wikipedia's existence, but articles are not the only part of Wikipedia. To get to these articles, helpful search terms need to exist to get to these articles, and that's where redirects come into play, which is one of the major areas I work in on Wikipedia. Also, the files that are uploaded to Wikipedia: Each file uploaded has to be validated to ensure that if meets the legal requirements to remain on Wikipedia; since most files uploaded to Wikipedia are used in a fair-use fashion, they have to be reviewed to ensure that meet all criterion if the non-free content criteria; otherwise, Wikipedia would be infringing on someone else's intellectual property by not using it in a legally-allowed manner. Since the English Wikipedia allows files to be hosted locally (some languages of Wikipedia do not allow this), the need to validate the files' legality is very crucial. In addition, there's some areas where I participate in regularly where I am running across roadblocks to help Wikipedia and its editors without the administrative toolset. I regularly close discussions at RfD, and would like to start closing more discussions at FfD, especially considering the backlog. (CfD has been known from time-to-time to have backlogs as well.) And mentioned in my answer to Q1, there are categorized administrative backlogs that require administrative privileges in order to help resolve, and many of them require understanding of an aspect of Wikipedia not related to content creation or notability, such as files or various non-article speedy deletion candidates; those places are where I plan to use the admin toolset.
8. You're pretty active at RfA. Could you summarise what your criteria for supporting a candidate are? In particular, what areas of experience would you consider essential?
9. You seem to have a tendency to frequently change your position when opining on RfAs (e.g. Money emoji, Red Phoenix 2). Some editors have commented below that this behaviour suggests an underlying impulsivity. Is this a fair assessment, or is there an alternative explanation?
The concerns raised in the oppose section are fair, but I trust that Steel will not be using admin tools outside of the area where he had expressed interest (and has quite a bit of expertise). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - we always need more :-) - TNT✨ 18:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support; I've noticed many of the positive aspects Tavix mentions in the nomination for myself, and have been very impressed particularly at RfD. Steel1943 is a very dedicated, sensible and thoughtful contributor to several rather understaffed maintenance areas of the encyclopedia, and honestly would make a significant impact on reducing some of the backlogs. Definitely one of the stronger examples of an editor where I've repeatedly wondered why they aren't an admin yet. ~ mazcatalk 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – will definitely help with the RfD backlog, and I trust him to stay away from areas which he doesn't know much about. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since your last RfA I think you've matured in your view of adminship, and have a legitimate use for the tools. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like Steel1943. I think he has a tendency to jump the gun a little at times, but he seems much less rash than he did in 2016, so I don't think it's a very big deal. He seems well-versed in the areas he wants to work in and I look forward to seeing him with the tools. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, extensive mainspace work or content creation is not necessary for adminship. Instead, I look for general cluefulness and demonstrated proficiency in admin-adjacent areas, along with a clear need for the tools. I have seen this editor around at RfD and other places and am confident that they know what they are doing. (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen Steel1943's work at RfD over the years. That's a competent and diligent editor, who knows what they're doing, and who definitely has a use for the tools. I'm not at all worried about the lack of content creation: yes, I myself generally prefer admins to have meaningful experience with content, mostly because this tends to cultivate care and appreciation of nuance. But I've already seen first-hand that Steel1943 has these qualities, and their work doesn't directly involve content anyway. I definitely trust that they will use the tools wisely. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - basically what Tavix said. I've drifted somewhat away from RfD in recent years but in the past have interacted with Steel1943 very frequently. Their comments and arguments are always logical and backed by evidence, yet they are also eager to hear contrary arguments and revise their opinion based on new information. RfD is usually a pretty low-drama venue but it's had its moments, and while Steel1943 doesn't shy away from conflict they are level-headed and rational in how they handle it. I could write a book here but let's keep it to the point: Steel1943 is one of our most competent administrators already, even without the tools. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My experiences are similar to Ivanvector's. My concerns about content creation were resolved by A7, and if anything I appreciate their candor in A5. — Wug·a·po·des 21:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support based on my interactions with him at RfD and elsewhere. The answer to Q5 may have prioritized honesty and humility over nomination-clinching strategy; I think that Steel1943 will be judicious about using admin tools appropriately. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
support should be a good addition to the admin team or whatever they call themselves. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Considering the amount of administrative work the editor has done in many areas, is impressive. It does bother me that the article didn't have references, particularly at the time it was created. It should have, but the other work more than makes up for it. I suspect the industrious editor will be a net asset to Admin Corps, providing a lot of time for administrative work. scope_creepTalk 23:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The candidate has good activity levels, and based on the answer to questions also has a good sense of what he wants to do as an admin. The candidate seems to acknowledge weakness in some areas (such as WP:GNG), which I think is a good thing, rather than bad; they did not express intent in working with areas that require that knowledge. Best of luck, Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 23:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This user should be awarded the m o p. Alot of the above is true. Arsonxists (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Steel1943 has always been very helpful at RfD and I honestly thought he was already an admin. It's a yes from me. :) CycloneYoristalk! 03:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Steel1943 specializes in maintenance areas that would benefit from the candidate becoming an administrator. As a page mover, Steel1943 has made strong contributions to and sound closures of numerous move requests. In the event that Steel1943 wishes to enter an unfamiliar area, I trust them to exercise caution (e.g. by establishing a good track record in AfD participation before starting to close AfD discussions). — Newslingertalk 05:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. This candidate is one of my Wikipedia mentors, and I have learned a lot from Steel1943. I have noted the concerns in the Oppose section, and I do have my own concerns along those lines; however, I see nothing there that would lead me away from supporting this highly trusted and experienced editor in this bid for the mop. An extraordinary person!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. RfD could use a skilled admin like Steel1943. they have the relevant background for it (and a good track record at that). Steel1943 has given all indication they will be playing to their strengths rather than judging AfDs, so I don't find lack of content creation a persuasive argument against granting sysop in this case. It just isn't experience Steel1943 needs to be the type of admin they have said they will try to be. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 07:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Clear rationale for wanting admin powers; conflict averse and responsible. Pace the oppose votes, I find the humility in admitting not to understand GNG appealing. In my opinion, to believe the GNG is crystal clear in its application is a sign of dogmatism. — Charles Stewart(talk) 07:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Fully. The candidate has done great work around the sometimes underappreciated and undervalued (as evident by some weak opposes below citing largely a lack of article creation) function of redirection (and likely elsewhere). I am confident that they will use the mop to a quite positive effect in that area and in general. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, the candidate's admitted lack of experience with AfD and article creation is completely irrelevant, since they have stated they do not plan to work in those areas. The areas that they do work in might not be as flashy as article creation, but they are equally as important. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, experienced hand at RFD, will be even more useful with extra buttons. —Kusma (t·c) 12:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I looked at one of their recentish disputes and they handed himself well, keeping their cool is the essential quality of an admin.--Salix alba (talk): 12:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Pretty sure I have came across you several times before. and I can definitely say you are a fine contributor and a worthy admin. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - While I agree that the GNG is very important, I don't see any reason to believe this candidate is incapable of understanding it going forward or would abuse power related to the GNG. An encyclopedia is more than just a collection of knowledge - it's an organized collection of knowledge. Lack of content creation is not a dealbreaker for me. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very experienced and an obvious need for the tools. I'm surprised to see an RfA candidate admit they don't really understand the GNG, but I'm confident that Steel1943 would not wade into closing AfDs until they had got themselves up to speed. And yes, I have been amused to see how frequently they change their positions in RfAs, but I don't think it will impact how they behave as an admin in any way. Overall I think they would be a net positive.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Based on lack of knowledge related to AfDs (candidates admission question 5) and article creation - and deleted pages -(looks like the candidate has created Mostly lists and disambig pages). My belief has always been that an administrator's duties are to protect content and content creators. In order to be competent in those areas I believe a candidate should have more experience in both. I am not seeing a need for the administrator tools at this time. Lightburst (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My greatest apologies, but per Lightburst the GNG is fairly important for a prospective admin to at least know the gist of, even without any plans to create or delete content. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Since Steel1943 plans to do admin work in XfD, I regretfully can't support the candidate due to their answer to question 5. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair they specifically said RfD and FfD, areas where the GNG is unlikely to be important. P-K3 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Thanks to the candidate for all the good work they have done. However, this is a project to write and improve an encyclopedia, and I expect that any candidate for administrator will have some solid, decent content creation in their edit history. So, I looked for an article that the candidate had started and noticed Paintbrush, a topic I know a fair amount about as an occasional amateur artist from a family of artists. Steel1943 spent two weeks writing that article on and off in 2015, and the prose was pretty decent at the end of that time. But the article did not have a single reference to a reliable source when Steel1943 moved on to other things, leaving the article failing our core content policy Verifiablity. Five years later, the article is tagged for lack of citations and has a single "reference" to an Australian commercial website that sells paintbrushes. And this is a topic where a very large number of highly reliable sources are readily available. I am sorry but I cannot support a candidate who produces such mediocre work in the main space of the encyclopedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Steel1943 is a valued Wikipedian, and does good work at RfD and elsewhere. However, a proficiency in solid article content creation and citing needs to be demonstrated before adminship should be considered, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate Steel1943 might not want to work in areas in which an understanding of GNG is required, and I'm not one who wants GA and FA work from admin candidates. But given that notability is key to Wikipedia content, and Wikipedia content is the only reason we're here, understanding notability is one of the key things I see as essential for an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Cullen. With the greatest respect to the candidate, whom I have seen around the Wiki, they do good work, and I have no specific complaints about, content creation prior to RFA has always been a red line for me, as with others. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to write articles. And of course I understand that some people prefer to spend most of their time in administrative work, that's fine. But unless you've worked at the coal face and demonstrated that you understand the essential aspects of what makes good content, then I don't think you're in a position to make the key judgements required for adminship. My advice in these situations is always the same. Go away, find an article on a topic that interests you, locate the sources, and write it up. It doesn't have to be promoting something to GA level (although that's always a bonus!) - a couple of destubbings would do the job. Then come back here in six months and show us that work, and I'll be more than happy to support. All the best — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't write articles; and therefore shouldn't be sitting in judgment over those who do.—S MarshallT/C 11:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lack of knowledge about a core content policy like WP:GNG signals an inability to evaluate what significant coverage is and what reliable sources are; this goes beyond AfD, and a lack of knowledge in this area could have implications when dealing with fast-moving content disputes, or when closing discussions. I would expect any admin to be able to deal with those areas, even if they would normally choose not to. I've seen the candidate about, and otherwise can see no issues with them. Zindor (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Cullen328 and Amakuru. In my view, Steel1943 spends too much time zipping around the admin areas and not enough time paying attention to writing the encyclopedia. There's no way I could trust them with the delete or block buttons. Sorry. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moral support. I think Steel1943 is a fine editor and an asset to the encyclopedia. However, their experience, while extensive and commendable, doesn't in my view fit the profile of an administrator. I am a little worried that the candidate is a bit impulsive. More importantly, the Steel1943's own description of their aptitude (on this RfA before being replaced) does not give me confidence that adminship is appropriate right now – while RfA candidates shouldn't have to be experts in every aspect of the encyclopedia (I certainly wasn't), "I don't normally write articles and cannot even pretend that I truly understand the notability policy enough to properly manage WP:AFD or anything similar" makes it difficult to support here. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 18:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really sure where to fall on this one. I’m less concerned about the GNG/notability concerns above as the notability guidelines flow from community consensus at AfD and not vice versa—that is to say if you start off by closing the easy ones and then build up to the less obvious ones you’ll get a pretty good feel of how the community interprets these guidelines (not policies) just by doing the work.I am a bit concerned though about what I’ve noticed in their behaviour in RfAs. They’re usually quick to support, then move to oppose, then might move back to support or neutral (I’ll diff when I get back to my laptop if people want, but I think this is a fair observation and not one they’d contest.) It makes me skeptical that they’ll think things through before acting. We want admins who are willing to change their mind and admit that they made mistakes, but we also generally would be better if things were thought through first. I’m not really going to oppose on this as I think they’re sensible and I’ve had nothing but good interactions, but I’m also not really at support. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find myself in this section as well. In general, I'm persuaded by the nominator that Steel1943's participation in RfD and FfD has been beneficial, and one part of me feels that he will simply be a net positive in those areas where he already does proficient work (and where it seems additional administrators are needed). The other part of me is sympathetic to L235's concern with respect to understanding a core content guideline like notability and its relationship to the delete tool. Additionally, I have the same impression that TonyBallioni has above with respect to the candidate's behavior in RfAs. Recently, I noticed them making a judgment about a candidate based solely on spidey sense while also stating there was 0% chance of moving to a different position [1] (Steel1943 did eventually move to a different position [2]). Overall, I can see both sides of the coin here. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We now have three people who have commented "why not?" in the support section. I find that rather dismissive of the concerns expressed by those in the oppose and neutral sections, all of whom appear to have given considerable thought to their comments. – bradv🍁 03:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, there are always many WP:NOTVOTEs. I just hope bureaucrats take that into consideration when closing the discussion. Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 06:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eh, it's always been the case and this has just begun, so there's plenty of time for folks to return and change or expand if moved to do so. Without pestering folks individually, it's generally accepted that the concise support rationales are intentionally so. I've certainly done it, most of us have. Maybe they're trying to dismiss the concerns! ~ Amory(u • t • c) 10:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they said something roughly equally vague ("clearly suitable" or "would make a good admin"), I'd be fine with it. I do somewhat share Bradv's concern that "why not" does seem to imply that there are no substantive oppose reasons (as opposed to just thinking they have no merit at all). Not that I'd suggest discounting them (Crats can view specific weight at appropriate), more a request for editors to provide meaning where appropriate. It's worth noting that in tight-fought RfAs, a significant portion of Support voters DO come back, including to expand on their support reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.