Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Support: TTWAAA
striking question
Line 38: Line 38:
<span style="font-size:110%">You may ask optional questions below. There is a [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor|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.</span>
<span style="font-size:110%">You may ask optional questions below. There is a [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor|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.</span>
;Optional question from [[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark]]
;Optional question from [[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark]]
:'''6.''' <question struck>
:'''6.''' How do you analyse this current [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV (2nd nomination)|AfD nomination]] and how would you handle it?
::'''A:'''
::'''A:'''
<!-- Add your question above this comment. -->
<!-- Add your question above this comment. -->

Revision as of 00:09, 5 September 2021

Blablubbs

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (114/1/0); Scheduled to end 13:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Blablubbs (talk · contribs) – Dedicated, creative, kind, and knowledgeable, Blablubbs is someone I've been pestering to RfA for months now. In addition to his solid content work (four DYKs and new GA Wolfdietrich Schnurre stand out), Blablubbs particularly excels in the maintenance and anti-abuse work that keeps our project running. In his 40,000 edits over the last 15 months, he has demonstrated a superb grasp of the letter and spirit of our policies as well as the good judgment and temperament that will make him a terrific administrator.

His need for the tools is clear. Blablubbs is one of our best and most prolific SPI clerks – his SPI record (1 2 3 4) speaks for itself, and as a CheckUser, I trust him implicitly. Blablubbs is also a core member of the WikiProject on open proxies and an avid ACC team member, and has helped lead broader anti-abuse efforts, including the recent push on residential proxies.

Finally, Blablubbs shares the same unmeasurable qualities as Wikipedia's best administrators: he communicates well (see his talk page), he listens before speaking, he's unafraid to change his mind, and he is enjoyable to work with. I'm honored to present him to the community for adminship. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

Blablubbs has crossed my path on many occasions in the past year, always in a positive way. He's been working on SPIs (and asking really useful questions), pitching in on the open proxy work, giving serious attention to undisclosed paid editing, and keeps showing up with useful comments and suggestions on phabricator tickets. It was pretty obvious to me that he'd be even more effective if he had the administrator tools, so a few months ago I asked him if there was a reason he wasn't an admin yet. This is where it gets really interesting.

Blablubbs was well aware of the expectations for administrator candidates, and was upfront that he didn't think he had done enough work yet on quality content, but that he planned to address this in the near future; then he did some very good work at Wolfdietrich Schnurre and got it up to GA. He also had taken the time to carefully review his activities to self-identify any other weaknesses. He knew that, although his account was created back in 2014, he really didn't get into editing until it occurred to him during the insanity of the global pandemic that editing Wikipedia would be something useful to do with his time. He knows he's made some faux pas on deletion discussions and requests, but has learned from his errors. He's had a few missteps on SPI, which is expected of new clerks, and has learned from these experiences as well. In other words, he's what I look for in a candidate: He knows that quality content is important. He does good work, and learns from his occasional mistakes and does not repeat them. He gets along with most people. And he has found areas where his personal interests and skills make a difference for the project as a whole. I'm happy to co-nominate Blablubbs as administrator. Risker (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words (I blushed a little!); I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay or any other reimbursement. A list of my accounts (seven Doppelgänger and a rarely used testing account) can be found here. I have never operated any other accounts, and have never, to my knowledge, edited logged out on enwiki (I made a handful of logged-out edits to dewiki about a decade ago, before my account was registered). --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Most of my contributions are already in admin-y areas, with the vast majority of my time being spent at SPI and Wikiproject on Open Proxies, and I plan to stick to those areas for the foreseeable future. My work there frequently involves asking administrators to use the relevant buttons to block socks and proxies and perform case merges or G6 deletions, which I could do myself if the community chooses to entrust me with the bit. I haven't actively patrolled recent changes in the last few months and focused on SPI work instead, but I also plan to keep an eye on WP:AIV, and I could see myself venturing into patrolling Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and Category:Requests for unblock at some point in the future. There are also some administrative areas where I feel that I lack the experience to be able to usefully contribute in an administrative capacity, like AfD and most CSD-related matters. I would only start working these areas once I have gained considerably more experience in a non-administrative capacity.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I enjoy working on content, and I'm proud of some of the articlespace work I have done, but I think my most meaningful contributions have been made behind the scenes: Working together with MarioGom to create technical fingerprints of most major VPN providers is neither particularly glamourous work for example, nor is the end result interesting or comprehensible to the average reader. But it did enable us to query and block dozens of (frequently abused) proxy ranges, and I hope that made a difference. I feel the same way about my work at SPI.
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: Certainly. No specific cases immediately come to mind, but I've been heavily involved with sockpuppetry and UPE-related issues; working in either of those areas often entails interacting with combative or distressed users, and being lied to is part of the job, which can be aggravating (my SPI helper script's log has almost 2000 revisions, and and I can count on one or two hands the number of cases I have seen where a user admitted to socking and apologised for it before being blocked). They are also areas that can sometimes trigger the frustrating thought that there is an incredible amount of abuse on this website and I will never be able to do enough. I try to stay calm and step away whenever that happens; I read the paper, go outside and take a walk, moan about it to friends, then open the laptop again and type a response. I had an extended "step away for a bit" moment with regard to UPE-related matters some time ago when I noticed that they were starting to burn me out. I didn't give up on the topic area, but I shifted my focus away from actively hunting for PR firm socks and towards bouncing ideas about potential methods for making detection and tracking of complex socking operations back and forth with awesome people like MarioGom and GeneralNotability, with some great results.
Optional question from John Cline
4. Regarding your userpage statement: "Nazism and similar beliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment and with the goals of a neutral encyclopaedia", are you suggesting that these topics should not be covered in Wikipedia, that editors contributing to or interested in these topics are inherently incompatible with our project, or something entirely different? Please elaborate. Thank you.
A: Something entirely different. I have previously written about far-right groups and the Holocaust myself, I think it's extremely important that we provide accurate coverage of these topics, and I am grateful that we have many skilled editors working on these articles. The statement is intended to convey that I don't believe that people who support genocidal ideologies should be welcomed as editors – it is essentially a similar point of view to the one that is expressed in WP:NONAZIS.
Optional question from TheresNoTime
5. Lately we've seen significant drama at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with deeply entrenched beliefs causing significant rifts in opinion, so I'm afraid I have a difficult question for you... Is it pronounced A-N-I, or annie?
A: After extended emails with my nominators where we debated weighing in on such a contentious issue, I have decided to just go ahead and say it: I'm on team Ay-Enne-Eye. All the way.

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

Optional question from Djm-leighpark
6. <question struck>
A:
Optional question from Lomrjyo
7. What are your thoughts on the possibility of getting CheckUser?
A:

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Without question - heck, I would have nominated him if he'd asked. Blablubbs has a great head on his shoulders and is both very competent and unfailingly polite when dealing with others. He has a solid use for the tools and has my trust, and will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As co-nominator. Risker (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support One of my few regrets with Blablubbs is that even though any who have known him for any time have seen that he was always going to make a good admin, by the time I raised it with him I would later find out I was at least the 7th person to do so. I've helped him with a few VRT areas and he's always been excellent there, and the noms outline both his excellent personality and broad and talented skillset. I simply cannot recommend him highly enough to the Community. I would note from how he's continued to pick up at-need and difficult areas over time, that he has the propensity to become a go-to admin for not merely the array he's currently active in, but across the toolkit. !Vote support, and have him join the mopcorps. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Without a doubt, support. Blablubbs is a trusted user who I can see putting the toolset to good use. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support - between his clerk work at SPI, account creation work, and the open proxy WikiProject, I strongly believe the project would be better off with Blablubbs having the toolkit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Risker and has been around since October 2014 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support: I'm seeing a great temperament; very strong technical skills, knowledge of Wikipedia and overall competence; and an enormous need for the tools. Thanks for running. — Bilorv (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, without reading the nomination statements (sorry guys...) or waiting to review answers to questions. I've been working with Blablubbs for a while at SPI, and always found him to be thorough, wise, eager to help, and very easy to get along with - I offered to nominate him myself a few months back. The tools will help him in work he has already shown an aptitude for. Girth Summit (blether) 14:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as nominator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support - no negatives, strong knowledge of WP guidelines and policies. Net positive. Onel5969 TT me 15:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Experienced, trusted editor already experienced with certain niche areas that are very important to the project. May he be mopped. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, I've experience of Blablubbs in several adminny areas that I frequent. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've seen Blablubbs around and they are always competent and civil and what more needs be said? Well, probably somebody will bring up the "content creation" bugaboo but simply counting article creations ignores the content defense that Blablubbs has already notably performed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, with no reservations. I'm hoping the main question is just how quickly this will fly past 200. AngryHarpy‍talk 15:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support so glad you're finally asking for the mop. It's been long due that you've needed it. Perryprog (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, no concerns. Bishonen | tålk 15:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  18. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support without reservation. Blablubbs is the kind of admin candidate we need more of - eminently helpful & polite, and also willing to work in areas of the project that are understaffed and yet critical to the well-functioning of the project and the well-being of its good-faith contributors. firefly ( t · c ) 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Absolutely. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Finally Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 15:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – an excellent candidate.— Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support With absolutely no qualms about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, definitely. Vermont (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I rarely vote at RfAs. This vote is a pleasure.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – obviously suitable candidate. Favonian (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support and no concerns based on the entirely subjective sample of activity I've seen from them around the place. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per the myriad reasons listed by other users above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per temperament, contributions, need for the tools, and benefits to the project. Easy RFA.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: I don't go to SPI often, but when I do I see Blablubbs. With a clear use for adminship and no serious issues, I think this is a great candidacy. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Heck yes. GABgab 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support tentatively, pending the answer to Q5 which will be pivotal for this nomination. Has a clue.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I rarely, if ever, take part in any RfA, and I'm going to come out with the cliché - I already thought Blablubbs was an admin! I've only had a couple of interactions with this user, in relation to SPI cases, and I couldn't get a better service, from doing the legwork to explaining the technical side of the process. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Clear need for the tools, great temperament. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Obvious choice. — The Earwig (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support – I'll echo the comments about temperament. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Eminently sensible editor who will be a fine administrator. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Not only he does invaluable work at SPI and anti-abuse areas, he's also eager to collaborate with others and mentor (see User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI). Also, I trust him to make good judgement calls. MarioGom (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support a fellow SPI clerk, I strongly support the mop being handed to this user. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. RfA needs more editors like Blablubbs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Easiest decision I've made in weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. per the strong endorsement of the SPI team. My first reaction was "I thought they were an admin" and my second reaction was "I thought they had been around longer than 15 months". There is less "content creation work" than I would like to see, but there is enough that I'm not going to bother asking a "talk about editing article space" question. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support I have run across their work in various spaces and places around here and I frankly thought Blablubbs was already an admin. I never comment here, but in this case, I am glad to make an exception to support this worthy candidate. Cheers! Geoff | Who, me? 16:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No brainer. Clog Wolf Howl 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support When this editor doesn't know something, they seek clarification from more knowledgable editors. Knowing your limitations, and asking for help, is the most important trait that an admin can have. This editor has that. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support without reservations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support No brainer, without reservations, whatever else you'd like me to add. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - clearly knows what they are doing. Should be dandy with the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Big Support: The majority of my RfA !votes are simple applications of "has clue, not a jerk". Blablubbs certainly has an abundance of clue (and a refreshing deficit of jerk), but to leave it at that would not be doing him the justice he deserves. He is the rare mix of a calm, collected and thoughtful chap with technical smarts and a true desire to build and protect the project. In other RfA !votes I often throw in a casual "ask why not?", but today reader, I have given you a solid why. Please join me in supporting a very worthy candidate ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support You'll make a fine admin. Good luck! Sro23 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, good one. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I have just had the pleasure of reading Wolfdietrich Schnurre. This is a very well qualified candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, excellent candidate. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, trusted user, legitimate use for the tools. Good luck! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Adumbrativus (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Well qualified, no concerns from me. DanCherek (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Will use sysop well. This page has been on my watchlist for a while. Pahunkat (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Seen them active on SPI where they do are doing a stellar job. No worries, quite the contrary.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I wholeheartedly support this candidacy. I've been impressed by what I've seen of Blablubbs' work, especially at SPI and on the VRT team. I'm particularly struck by his exceptional sensitivity and communication skills, things that are a great asset for adminship and that more technical contributors are often criticized for lacking (whether fairly or not) - see for example [1] and [2] (sorry, VRT members only). I'm sure he'll make good use of the tools. Spicy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. MER-C 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Apart from my personal anguish at not knowing Blablubbs was on the RfA table/cutting board and my deeply hurt mental stature with respect to the same, I support. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support – very qualified candidate. Thanks to the nominators for bringing this forward. – bradv🍁 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Let's goooooo. — 🦊 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Easily Eddie891 Talk Work 18:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support; it's about time! stwalkerster (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong support; "it's about time!", indeed. Also the answer to Q5...I've also on the pirate team. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Princess of Ara 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. [Was gonna try to camp out #100, but I'm impatient.] Even if I didn't know Blablubbs as a mentor in the field of countering abuse; one of my SPI clerk trainers; and a kind, caring friend, this vote of strong support would still be a no-brainer. He is ubiquitous at SPI, keeping afloat a beleaguered critical part of our anti-abuse infrastructure. He already probably does more admin-level work than most admins. I think the perfect administrator is one who has both grit and empathy, and he surely has both in spades. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Net positive, support this user becoming an admin. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Happily. Always had good experiences, even when we disagree. Vexations (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong support Blablubbs has been my go-to resource for anything relating to SPI or proxies for some time now and has been unfailingly patient and helpful. No question whatsoever that he will use the tools well. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, good work at SPI--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Will clearly do well with the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I believe Blablubbs would be a good addition to enwiki's admin team. All my interactions with Blablubbs were without any issues. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Not a jerk, knows what they're doing. A little surprised they aren't already an admin. Pronounces ANI correctly. — GhostRiver 19:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Obviously; it's about time! — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I've already come across some of their contributions and kinda thought they were an admin already – which I think is a good sign. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Absolutely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Has the right temperment, is trustworthy, and has done stellar work re: SPI and COI/UPE. Would make an excellent admin. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - excellent SPI clerk and fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support- No issues at all as far as I'm concerned. Good Luck.-   Aloha27  talk  20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support – here's a mop as a thank you for your work at SPI and WPOP ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Blabb is another "why aren't you an admin?" editor, and I'm glad he's finally gone and run. Best of luck, my friend, and prepare to be miserable for the next six days. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Of course. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Absolutely, seen you around in the past, hope to continue seeing you around as a sysop! Leijurv (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support A fine candidate, good luck JW 1961 Talk 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  92. per comments in Neutral section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, one of those people who I thought was an admin already :) --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Glrx (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Great candidate, trusted noms, clear need for tools. Speaks native German, Swiss German and French level 2? Party, Bonus! Welcome to the wild, wild world of mops. BusterD (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Absolutely in the category of Surely They Are Already?! Fantastically conscientious and useful editor who will be a great admin. DBaK (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, yeah per the many "are you really not yet?" comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Clear need, clearly trustworthy, clearly has the right disposition. Excited to be able to offer this support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Yes please. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Great work at SPI; I genuinely thought he was already an admin. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Kirbopher2004 support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Very pleased to see this pop up on my watchlist. What took you so long?! Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Superbly qualified, greatly enthused by their work at SPI. Great chap in general! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Finally! S0091 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Great work at SPI! NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong support – I could write about how he'd be a fantastic admin, but I'd be wikt:preaching to the choir. Short version: somebody give this guy a mop. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  108. I've checked a random sample of this user's contributions and I didn't find anything of concern.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support: To quote George, MOP ON and CU JIMMIE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Great interactions with this user. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Excellent candidate. scope_creepTalk 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Has done good work, should do more work. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support I've had very coridal and professional interactions with Blabubbs at SPI, where they do great work. Seeing the other things they do here, how could one say no? Additionally, I thoguht they were already an admin. --- Possibly ☎ 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Absolutely NO for a deletionist.--RZuo (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only significant interactions I can find between these two users is c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lusccasdeutsch. Is cleaning Commons of softcore pornography really "deletionism"? And does it have anything to do with this RfA? – bradv🍁 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. where are the "penises and porn" in File:Gloria Sol beautiful model with red skirt on Bir Hakeim bridge for my photoshoot in Paris by night.webm and File:The beautiful model Gloria Sol on the Bir Hakeim Bridge in Paris by night for my photoshoot.webm nominated by this user?
    2. why did this user vote to delete a lecture from Yale, an interview of Bwalya Sørensen and an interview of Ilhan Omar?
    does a careless deletionist only behave like that on a specific project? RZuo (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay, so just on Commons for a second there I was worried it was on a project where he was running for admin! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse my badgering, but what a daft oppose vote rationale - this appears to be something which has zero standing on Blablubbs's English Wikipedia contributions. Commons could do with a damn good scrub ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    His AfD stats suggest that despite having a lot more !delete rationalities than !keep, they are almost always in keeping with the community at large... Which is usually a good example of a trusted user Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the exceptions prove the rule: all three are votes to delete but articles were kept. -- RZuo (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've known Blabb for a little while and I would not describe him as a Deletionist. I would, in fact, describe him as a user interested in the quality of this Project, and this oppose as baseless. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vami IV, er, the last five words seem to be unnecessarily personalising the discussion. Your point is as well, or better, made without them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a gentle reminder that it's currently 95-1-0. Those who think this is baseless can probably afford to ignore it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
General comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blablubbs&oldid=1042432424"