Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daffy123

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

Daffy123

Final (38/84/10); ended 13:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC) (withdrawn by requester) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Daffy123 (talk · contribs) – Hi. I've editing Wikipedia since 2010 and I see that I've made about 2200 edits ever since joining. As you can see from my editing I mostly edit bios of politicians ranging from small typos to getting rid of vandalism. The best part about editing Wikipedia for me is uploading photos of obscure politicians from Flickr etc and try to improve pages that aren't really taken care of that often. I've participated in the 2011 Wikimania in Haifa though I readily admit I hardly socialize with users online. After almost a decade editing Wikipedia and uploading about 400 photos (a lot of which are still on the header of many politicians' bio pages) and thoroughly enjoying editing, I've decided to nominate myself. I'm open to any questions you may have. --Daffy123 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination haha. I withdraw my nomination --Daffy123 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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: Well I intend to focus on two areas 1) blocking vandals and 2) moving pages to a desired title. What I learned after a few years of editing Wikipedia is that there are so many vandals who take advantage of the open web, and that gets harder to fix for pages that people don't look after that often, which happens to be pages that I try to edit and upload images to.

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

A: I would say uploading images. I admit when I first joined Wikipedia, I had a hard time understanding copyright rules (partly because I was a high school student when I first started editing Wikipedia) and my photos got deleted often. But now that I've spent 9 years editing and uploading images here, I would say I know the nitty-gritty of what counts as copyright violation and what counts as a genuine free photo. My recent favourite would be uploading Attorney General Edward Levi's current photo. Edward Levi was the only Attorney General who had a fair use photo but luckily I've found a good PD-USGov from the Ford Library and was very happy to upload it. Some other of my proudest photos are photos of two French Prime Ministers whom I've managed to get from the French National Assembly despite not being able to speak French at all!

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 wouldn't say recently, but yes I did have some issues regarding former Congressman Joe Barton's page though I think it was more about the difference of opinions rather than vandalism and I was glad that users who were looking after that page agreed with my opinion in the Talk Page and decided to get rid of some info that I personally believed were irrelevant. Apart from that I don't really had much of an issue.

---

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

Additional question from TonyBallioni

4. Hi Daffy123, thank's for running. Your RfA has a little less experience than we'd normally expect. If you run into situations you are not familiar with as an admin, how would you react?

A: @TonyBallioni:Thanks for your question. Well I do understand I don't have as much experience as you'd normally expect from a admin. I do want to say I'm a quick learner though so if I have problems with I haven't experienced before I'll definitely look into Wikipedia admin page though I think I will probably ask other admins for advice (which I do occasionally if I have problems with uploading, file renaming etc).

Additional question from Nosebagbear

5. Hi @Daffy123: - why not request Rollback and Page Mover which would massively enhance and enable you to do the two areas you requested, without requiring the higher experience level associated with being an Admin? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A: @Nosebagbear: Well good thing is that one of the users actually granted me a permission to Rollback which I am very grateful for. Judging by the number of votes as well as my personal expectation that I wouldn't be confirmed as an admin in my first try, I'll definitely try to make use of this new authority. Thanks a lot for the advice!

Additional question from Reyk

6. What, in your opinion, is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?

A: @Reyk: I'd say based on my experience, civility would be one. As you can see from the comments below, I did not occasionally blow my cool while dealing with vandalism and I do often witness editing wars and vandalism while trying to edit even the dullest page possible. Content-wise I think following copyright rules (especially for photos) is an important policy because if you have non-free photos going around Wikipedia often, then people will start to lose belief in whether this is a free encyclopedia.

Additional question from Dolotta

7. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?

A: @Dolotta: Well I do have a relatively narrow focus as one of the comments suggest so I can't really speak for many pages but based on my experience biographies of foreign politicians (specifically Japanese and English) tends to be fairly weak. Most Japanese politicians' articles tend to be stubs and aren't updated often. I actually saw one page that said he was the incumbent--turned out he lost his last election in 2005!

Additional questions from Prometheus720

8. There is precedence for admin accounts being compromised by others, and that can be very bad for Wikipedia. Can you guarantee to the community that you follow (and/or will follow) account security practices to keep your admin tools safe? These would include (but may not be limited to) the general account security practices as well as account security for admins? Please do not feel you have to give personal information to answer this question--that would be counter-productive.

A: @Prometheus720:I can guarantee that I will follow the security practices and inquire other admins or users about those if I do not feel I have the right answer.

9. Do you plan on or foresee yourself taking on substantially different or new tasks and/or roles in the community after getting these tools?

A: Well I know this isn't really the best answer, but actually I envision myself as being a fairly standard administrator focusing on rooting out vandalism, moving pages copyright issues etc. Although judging by the numbers of votes I don't think I will be an admin anytime soon, I am still glad I was granted the power to rollback and I am more than happy about that.

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

10. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation

A: @Pharaoh of the Wizards: I have not edited for pay or any other form of compensation.

Additional question from Graeme Bartlett

11. Apart from blocking, what other administrative actions might be used to deal with vandalism?

A: @Graeme Bartlett: This is a hard question, and something I've actually thinking for some time now. I think in practice it is quite hard to distinguish between an actual vandal and person who had the best intentions but didn't do their due diligence. I did see some people who I personally thought made some innocent mistakes quite often but were nevertheless banned after make the same mistakes over and over and sometimes they even become vandals as a result. With regards to vandals who you can recognize first time, there is little point in trying to take the 5-step warning-blocking procedure so in those cases it might be just better to simplify it to a three step strategy (warning-blocking-admin) though this obviously requires more discussion within the wider Wikipedia community.

Additional question from Ivanvector

12. I see that of your 14 file uploads, 7 have been deleted. 3 of those seem to be technical deletions (file available on Commons, or otherwise), but the rest seem to have been deleted as a result of being non-free files failing the non-free content criteria. In particular I see these two discussions: [1], [2], which were discussions about files you uploaded with either inaccurate licensing information, or claiming that the files qualified for non-free use based on an incorrect reading of the relevant guideline. In one case, this resulted in Wikipedia hosting a copyright violation for nearly a decade. I realize that both of these discussions related to content you created nearly ten years ago, so I'm wondering now if you can comment on your understanding of non-free content, specifically when can it be used and when is it inappropriate?

A: @Ivanvector: Well in my defense I always had a hard time trying to grasp PD-Italy because that regulation of that copyright always seemed to be a bit haphazard to say the least (some photos are allowed in the Commons under PD-Italy while some are regulated under fair use in English Wikipedia. I do try to focus these days on photos that you can easily verify its validity easily (US government photos, Flickr etc) but honestly I will have to look more into PD-Italy and try to prevent that from happening again. Thanks for the question though.

Additional question from Narutolovehinata5

13. Some editors, including myself, have raised concerns about some of your user talk page edits: in particular, this edit where you told an IP that if they reverted you, you'd block them (this was when you didn't have the mop). In addition, the attitude expressed at User talk:Cheeriogummer is very concerning; regardless of the account being blocked indefinitely for disruption, this sounded very WP:BITEy. What were the circumstances that led to expressions left there, and as an admin, how will you address the reservations raised regarding your civility?

A: @Narutolovehinata5: I do understand that those should raise concerns and in retrospect I think I should have been forthright about this from the start. In my lousy defense I'd say I got a bit carried away especially because I personally found distasteful (both from left and right) being so happy about someone who lost an election. (background info: Ben Gummer, the subject of the article lost his seat in the British House of Commons in the 2017 election and I suspect the user was vandalizing the page because of that). All I can say is that I apologize unreservedly for that action or any action that I did with regards to vandals or any user about that. I think how I dealt with another user with regards to Joe Barton's page should act as a compass to any kind of such activity in the future (though in the case of Joe Barton's page, I don't think the user in question was a vandal but just had wrong ideas about what to put in the header).

Additional question from Non-monic

14. I noticed you applied to become an Online Ambassador way back in August 2011 which was unsuccessful without gaining any support. I also notice that you have had many user talk page edits which have been inappropriate, as pointed out above, and that despite making over 2,000 edits you have only edited 1000 pages since your first in 2010, which is barely 100 per year. Whilst I know of people who say their lack of edits is due to a slow start, you have only 12 edits in the past week, and less than one per day in the past month. Whilst I know only counting edits can be rude and direct, personally I feel like you haven't dedicated enough time/energy to Wikipedia to become an admin. I apologise for the directness, but I feel this is required to get a good answer that can change my mind, so I ask you - can you prove me wrong? I look forward to a good answer.

A: @Non-monic: Thanks for the question and no I think this is a fair question and something I would asked myself if I were in your position. I do realize I don't make a lot of edits relative to other admins or would-be admins though I guess in my defense I am still a student (I am studying at a law school trying to be qualified as a lawyer) so I mostly edit stuff before I go to sleep or right between classes etc. I know this might not be the best answer but given the number of votes I've got and didn't get (both of which I am grateful for because I think all of the criticism below are valid) I don't think I will be an admin this time but thankfully now that one of the admins gave me the rollback power I will try to contribute more and prevent vandalism and hopefully apply to be an admin later on. I also applied to be a photo review which I think could be closer to what I want to do and contribute to. Thanks for the question though, really appreciate it.

Additional questions from andrybak

15. In your answer to Reyk you described your opinion on two of the Five pillars of Wikipedia—free content and civility. What is your undertanding of motivations for the second pillar—neutral point of view?

A: @Andrybak: Neutrality is a very tricky issue because what I felt after editing in-depth biographies of politicians is that there seems to be a very thin line separating neutrality and relevance. I mentioned Former Congressman Joe Barton's case up somewhere and I think that case should illustrate my point. When I was editing that article, Barton was in a midst of a scandal for apparently sending a picture of his penis to his mistress. Now one of the editors there inserted a quote from a Democratic candidate for Attorney General in Michigan who said that voters should ask themselves "Who can you trust most not to show you their penis." The fact that she said that was fact and was properly sourced. The question was though whether it was relevant. I said that wasn't really relevant because she was neither from Texas nor the Attorney General at the time (she still isn't) and thought it shouldn't be included. It was eventually agreed that the portion be deleted but I think in retrospect that the editor who wanted to add it didn't really think highly of Barton in the first place. In the end, there is a thin line separating neutrality and relevance. Once you start adding factual yet irrelevant stuff into people's bios, you might end up with a perfectly factual, yet biased article describing only the negative aspects about the person.

16. What was the last time you saw an application of WP:IAR?

A: @Andrybak: To be honest, this is the first time I've seen this.

Additional question from Bbb23

17. Did you seek advice from any administrator or experienced editor before self-nomming? (It does no good to ping the questioners here if you don't sign your response.)

Additional questions from Masum Reza

18. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role? (Taken from another RfA) If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it.

19. Why do you want to help with WP:RM once you become an admin? It doesn't seem like you've participated much in requested move discussions up to now(in fact no page move according to xtools)?

Discussion

• Links for Daffy123: Daffy123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Daffy123 can be found here.
• Edit stats on talk page. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Support

1. Support to be honest, I see nothing here that makes me expect that they would abuse the administrative toolset. Yes, page mover can do some of what they want, but +sysop is much better, and I have no doubt that they will be able to spot basic vandals and the like. They seem like a good faith content editor who is likely to stay focused on content, who has been here a while, and where the tools could help them. This is less edit count than we expect by recent standards, but on the whole, I think giving Daffy123 the tools would likely be a net positive for Wikipedia. I'm fine supporting candidates with lower edit counts who have long term devotion to the project and who are unlikely to get into drama or abuse the tools. We need more candidates like this, so I'm willing to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

   I respect your out-of-the-box approach here in supporting a user with 2k edits, but given the amount of support you're provoking, I think this rationale needs to be seriously addressed. This candidate has literally no behind-the-scenes experience whatsoever. Nothing. No reporting or assisting in admin areas. No Wikiproject participation. No discourse on noticeboards. Nothing. You can say "oh, that's just because they're a content editor". This "content editor" has a 6% edit summary usage, and has not touched a talk page since February. Before that? 2017. This "content editor" has only had cause to go to an article talk page six different times in 9 years. This "content editor" has never touched a noticeboard, and has never seen any reason to file a report or make a request behind the scenes to aid their content editing. Admins primarily work behind the scenes, but this user has not even edited the Wikipedia space since 2013, when they participated in a single FfD. Apart from that? A single help desk question, and two requests for permissions in 2011. That's it. They have two stated "needs" for this RfA: to move pages and to block vandals. Regarding the former, this user has never moved a page. Regarding the latter, this user has never reported a vandal. Let that sink in. This user has never even warned a vandal. Unless you count this threat to directly block someone for reverting them. Or this gravedancing. This user could have 10k, or 20k, or 50k edits, and they would still not be considered "qualified" with no experience in their area of "need", much less without any experience in any admin areas overall. I think of you as a friend, Tony, and I am not one to disrespect your views lightly, and I know your intentions are good here. But upending RfA norms in order to support a candidate who is quite obviously not qualified (for even the baseline tools they supposedly specialize in) lends greater credibility to this RfA than to users who actually work hard for it and are nominally qualified, but who have some skeletons in their closet and can't pass. This level of support is an insult to those users who deserve it more and still get rejected. If one can't find anything, it's because there's nothing to vet. But, even that's unconvincing, because multiple behavioral concerns can be found in the absolute bare minimum that we have. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

   I get that view, but I’ll push back on the idea that this is disrespectful to those who have done more and could not pass: I have always viewed requests for permissions as a question of whether damage to the project was likely. I honestly don’t think that’s the case here. I think the difference between this candidate and others with more experience that I may oppose is the question of risk: a candidate with less experience and a narrow focus who has been here for years is going to be less likely to cause issues with the tools than a generally good editor who has issues with one or two things behaviourally. This RfA is not going to pass, but if it did I highly doubt there would have been any issues that would arise from it. From a basic risk-based approach, risk is pretty low in my view. At the same time, I do respect the view of others that this candidate doesn’t have enough experience and find that a valid reason to oppose. It’s just not how I view this particular candidacy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: Question: So you're saying that anyone who seems to pose no harm in an admin position should be given the privilege? Doesn't seem fair or right to me. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 02:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

   Fair point, I've struck that bit. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

2. I'd add two things to what Tony says. First, the candidate operates in narrow areas and infrequently. He can be expected to do the same with admin tools, making the absence of broader and deeper experience wikipolitically problematic but substantively irrelevant. Second, the candidate is clearly, on my review, not a dickhead. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

   Move to strong support. I haven't been around for a while but I take it from Swarm's recent move from "oppose" to "strong oppose" that RfA voters seem to have a "power play" that they can use to double the strength of their votes from time to time. Why Swarm used that power play to stick the boot unnecessarily into an RfA running at 38:81 (does the power play make it 38:82?) is beyond me. So I'll use one of my power plays (I've never used one before so I'm sure I have at least one) to cancel it out. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Support I'm guessing this will get many WP:NOTNOW opposes, but I think you make good edits and coming back in a half year or so, with 4000 or so more edits, will for sure get you the bit if this doesn't. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support CLCStudent (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support. We keep saying we need more admins, and finally someone steps up and says they want to do the job. Let's show that RFA doesn't have to be a bloodbath. Ticks the usual boxes, i.e. Not a dick, has a clue, has contributed content, and been around long enough. Assuming nothing comes out of the closet I'm happy to follow Tony and endorse the candidate.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. TonyBallioni and Amakuru put it well. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
7. I really don't see any reason why not. — 🦊 22:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Sure. Has a use for the tools and being an admin isn't a big deal. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Support as I see no reason why not to. They are evidently responsible enough to use the tools without breaking anything with them. I agree with TonyBallioni on this. Vermont (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Support per Amakuru. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Support per Amakuru. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
12. No apparent drama and you applied to be an online ambassador, a program I'd never heard of – so you know something about Wikipedia that I didn't. You're obviously not a hat collector, but, what the hey, why not just boldly wear your badge anyway. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
13. wbm1058, shame on you. I was an ambassador too! Support. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

    @Wbm1058 and Drmies: Please note that Daffy's ambassador application was closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

    Sorry, I thought that program went inactive, but with a little pathfinding, I eventually found its current home – So, just kidding, don't wear the badge without their approval! wbm1058 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

14. Moral support. You appear to be an excellent long term contributor, thank you. As an administrator, you should have some proven experience discussing consensus in difficult cases. As an administrator, you will be expected to act with authority in these things. I suggest that you get more experience at things like Wikipedia:Requests for comment & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Additionally, you should express your regret for this, saying what you have learned since them about responding to unexplained actions by others. It is a serious matter, it appears that you threatened Bim Afolami himself when he was attempting to correct an error in his own name. You should also work on edit summaries for mainspace edits. Can you say why they are important? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Support - agree with TonyBallioni. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Support This may not gain any traction, but my own personal seraches dont convince me we'll have an abuser or rogue on our hands, and we know where their talk page is, we cand esysop if necessary. Also Tony and Drmies are two opinions I respect and agree with. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Per Tony, and Amakuru. I passed my own RFA with less edits. SQL^{Query me!} 04:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Support net positive Kees08 (Talk) 05:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Support - Adminship must be no big deal, and that means promoting people like this candidate. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
20. mild support based on the rationales above. (i was set to oppose or neutral). Minimal likelihood of tool abuse. net positive.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Support - I see nothing that says he won't handle the tools well. schetm (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Support More moral support at this stage, but I don't see them abusing the tools and we definitely need more admins.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
23. I actually remember a time when adminship wasn't a big deal. Now it is and the number of candidates has never been so low. My support probably won't turn the tide here, but I offer it nonetheless. El_C 12:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
24. Support per Amakuru. starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
25. Support. We all learn together, so go for it. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
26. Support I do not think thatDaffy123 will abuse the tools or so, and that's the most important for me. He has been here a long time, and as long as he stays open to feedback, I am more than ok with him having the mop. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
27. Support - like those above me I don't see any good reason to object. A long-term contributor who has managed to avoid drama and desires some tools to simplify their work. Clearly rational and intelligent, no reason to suspect they'll abuse the bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
28. Support Agree with others in this column that adminship of well behaved long-term contributors should be WP:NOBIGDEAL and on-the-job learning is just fine. Let's not turn applicants away out of fear. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Support - Don't see why not. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
30. Support. Not a big deal. Need more admins. Haukur (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
31. Support. Moral support as much anything. Need more admininistrators. Rollidan (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
32. Support—Yes there are so many other Wikipedians much more qualified to be admin who are not even considered. But you know what, in the end it doesn't really matter. Sorry for sounding passive aggressive. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 04:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
33. Support We need more administrators and this candidate raises no major red flags. If this RfA does not succeed, I encourage the candidate to return in six or eight months. Thank you very much for stepping forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

    Not being able to distinguish vandalism from good faith but wrong edits and threatening to block people you're in a content dispute with aren't red flags? —Cryptic 10:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

    That's why I said major red flags. All editors make mistakes early on. I botched a copyright issue badly once. Consider my support a "Moral support" under the circumstances. I want to encourage rather than to demoralize this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

34. Support Seems to be a generally upstanding user; maybe they won't get a ton of use out of the tools but I see no reason to think they'd misuse them. --IagoQnsi (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
35. Support:   Thanks for making yourself available! I have no doubt you would make a fine admin. Do NOT let this process discourage you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
36. Moral support largely per Amakuru. I appreciate your enthusiasm, thank you for stepping forward. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
37. Support - While he is getting some understandable flak for not participating a lot in the administrator boards already, I actually think that is a positive. Some users spend too much time bickering on the behind-the-scenes pages and not enough time contributing constructive content to the Wikipedia. While that experience is valuable and I don't denigrate users who spend a lot of time there, I think it is key to also have the perspective of hardcore content editors among the ranks of the admins of the site. Based on my review of his contributions so far, this user has done an outstanding job as a Wikipedia contributor and will be an asset to the other admins and to the site as a whole if granted the admin tools. Michepman (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
38. Support while I understand the concerns raised by others, the bit shouldn't be a big deal, and I haven't seen any recent signs that this user would misuse their rights. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    Might I ask what you actually reviewed to come to the conclusion that this user wouldn't would misuse their rights? I actually reviewed this user, and I found no relevant experience to vet. Not on noticeboards. Not on talk pages. Not in administrative areas. The absolute bare minimum that I was able to review brought up gravedancing and a fabricated threat to block a user for reverting them. What is it that, in spite of the problems, has you so convinced that this user would exercise good judgment as an admin? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, I don't think you've got the experience. 2,281 edits is low for a potential admin and you don't seem to have much experience of the types of activities admins usually do. For example you say you're interested in countervandalism work, but you've never reported anybody to WP:AIV and you don't seem to have given any vandals any warnings, ever. Someone active in countervandalism would have a substantial record in both. Countervandalism is one of the easiest admin jobs but there don't seem to be any others you've had significant experience with either. Hut 8.5 21:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose You said that countervandalism would be one of your main focuses, but the last time I can find you reverting "vandalism" is July 1, 2017 on Bim Afolami, where you revert, and then without any prior warning, leave this bitey comment, threatening to block the IP. That was a year and a half ago, granted, but I can't find any more recent diffs of you actually reverting and warning correctly. aboideau^talk 21:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose a good user, but more experience with the policy processes should be required in my opinion. Recommend reapply in 6 months after an increase in activity, with some focus on deletion, vandal fighting, or policy areas. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose quite simply ridiculous. Eric Corbett 21:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose The lack of Wikipedia-space contributions is certainly a negative. I'd expect some edits to AIV or the like for someone interested in "blocking vandals". However, I can't look past the lack of edit-summaries on mainspace edits. I'd expect higher than 15% edit summaries (and less than 25% in recent months). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
6. I'm sorry to be here. I firmly believe in NOBIGDEAL, but there just isn't enough experience here, even when only considering the areas the candidate wishes to work in. I wish the candidate all the best, and I hope to see them run again. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

   I came back here to consider indenting my !vote, as being rather too harsh; but having read through the answers, I stand by it. I don't think Daffy123 would abuse the tools; but the answers I read above suggest that if this user was given the bit, other admins would have to spend a lot of time having to clean up after them. My criteria at RFA are quite simple; the candidate needs to have the ability to use the tools productively in one or more areas, and the judgement and self-reflexivity to learn from their mistakes. I'm fairly certain Daffy123 meets the second criterion, and therefore would make a good admin at some point in the future; but I don't think they meet the first, yet. I hope they take the feedback they have received here in the spirit it is intended. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

7. Oppose Even I have made over 1000 edits to Wikipedia in the past two weeks alone (I am brand new), but that's irrelevant, because most were on talk pages and I was just debating things with people. Edit count may not mean that much about the person, but that low of an edit count is definitely not a good sign for a potential administrator. Bill Williams (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Insufficient experience and awareness. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Vanamonde93, Aboideau, and Hut 8.5. Supporters are in no way convincing. Jusdafax (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose Edit count is too low and I don't think the candidate has enough experience either. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose I don't understand the supporters saying adminship is "no big deal". If that's the case, why not give every account the same tools? No, it requires experience and knowledge. I agree with the other comments that this user can apply for the page mover and other tools, which would bolster a future admin application. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

    Well, it isn't: most of the technical aspects of it can easily be undone and aren't particularly sensitive. The real question is if the individual would harm the community, and if anything a sane editor with 2200 contributions over a decade who focuses mainly on mainspace and hasn't expressed any desire to get involved with the high drama areas is a pretty low-risk editor to give the tools too. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

12. Oppose I'm really sorry, but with no participation in AIV, UAA, RFPP, AFD, with no evidence of patrolling or giving user's appropriate warnings, etc.... You're a good and steady if infrequent content editor, and that's greatly appreciated, but there's nothing in your history to help me judge how you'd use the tools, whether you have an understanding of when to do so, how your interactions with other users would go. You've used a user's talk page only 5 times since 2018, and article talk only 7 times. You essentially don't interact with other editors in the main. The lack of edit notes and the talk page message Aboideau found from 2017 (But still within the user's last 10-15 user talk messages...) are also red flags. -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

    With so few user talk posts, I looked a little more, what's with this grave dancing? -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

13. Oppose per power~enwiki - I'm fairly indifferent as to edit count, but the lack of summaries demonstrates something I don't like about the candidate's communication skills. Even if it's behind-the-scenes anti-vandal work, warnings should still be left and summaries should still be used. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose This is actually a weak oppose. I think the candidate looks fine, however, a greater track record than ~2200 edits, no AfD !votes, and no B-classed or better articles would be helpful in making the most thorough evaluation. None of these things prove an editor would make a good admin, they just allow a broad range of touchpoints to evaluate their approach to WP. If the candidate returned in another 6-9 months and could just slightly improve on these three areas I would be likely to support. I hope s/he does! Chetsford (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Whilst we are indeed low on RFA candidates lately I certainly don't support handing out the tools to any Tom, Dick and Harry who comes along...., Like everyone above's said all's you need is Rollback and Pagemover, Given they've done absolutely nothing in terms of adminny work here I'm struggling to understand why they need the tools (IMHO reverting vandals and moving pages isn't really a reason). –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose - To be clear, I don't by any means think that the nom is a bad editor who's not to be trusted, but 500 edits in the last 13 months and 2k edits total isn't a lot of experience. The user's contributions show that they very rarely add edit summaries, and when they do, they tend to be very short. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't trust someone as inexperienced as myself with a mop, so I definitely have a hard time giving the mop to someone with less than half the experience that I have. I wish you the best of luck in getting the tools you need (such as rollback and pagemover/filemover) to contribute to the best of your ability, and I look forward to seeing you further develop your editing history, but I don't think it's the best decision to give you adminship at this time. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Oppose per above. Concerns with limited experience -FASTILY 00:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Oppose due to insufficient edits and an unpersuasive demonstration of a "need" for the tools. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

    Also, now that responses to community questions have been posted, I would add that while the answer to Q16 is concerning (other editors go into that below), the answer to Q11 is even more troubling and would seem to betray a lack of knowledge as to what admins even do, in a field of work that Daffy has specifically said they want to work in with the tools. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

    Rosguill, I assume you mean at least page protection (of different levels)? —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

    Andrybak, yeah, at a minimum, although the editor who originally posed that question wrote a longer list of examples in the discussion section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

19. oppose per all of the above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose No need for the tools. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose at this time. I know edit count isn't everything, but considering your lack of contributions to outside mainspace, I just don't see why you need the admin tools at this time. Right now, what I'd suggest to you if you really want to be an admin, is to help out in areas that don't require the mop but where non-mop permissions (such as rollback) are helpful, such as anti-vandalism efforts and new page patrol. Once you gain enough experience in that and build a name for yourself, then perhaps then you can come back to RfA. In addition, while I personally don't think rarely using edit summaries is by itself problematic, the lack of doing so doesn't help build confidence for someone who wants to be an admin, so I'd suggest you use edit summaries whenever possible. Finally, I have some concerns about some of your previous user talk page comments, particularly this one where you warned an IP that you would block them despite not being an admin. Please explain what happened here if you wish to allay the concerns raised by other editors. (Disclosure: I was referred to this discussion on Discord) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Oppose nominee doesn't seem to like leaving edit summaries (94% of the time, as in about 123 summaries for 2000+ edits). Edit sumarries are, even if short and curt, a core aspect of basic editing. I'd suggest leaving edit summaries from here on in, raking up a few thousand more edits, taking some of the good advice above, and then reapplying in a few years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
23. Oppose I oppose because I oppose. Oppose pretty much per Sportsfan. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
24. I can find no evidence that this spot-on advice was followed, either in the specific or general case, and it's directly related to the stated reason for wanting admin tools. —Cryptic 02:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
25. Oppose Sachinthonakkara (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
26. Oppose 2200 edits is too low for RfA back in 2006-2008, let alone now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
27. Oppose per all. Sorry, man, but maybe try about six months from now with more experience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
28. Oppose as per above. Not enough experience. User has no need for admin tools at this time. Contribute a little more to helping with countervandalism and some more edits in a couple months! QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Your low edit count doesn't bother me and I don't think RfAs should fail on that. However, lack of AfD votes, as well as no apparent experience in working to solve disputes, report vandals, etc. tips me into the oppose column. I do hope you receive the rollback and filemover rights. Hydromania (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
30. Weak Oppose. I agree that there is a lack of mop & bucket experience, thought I would love to see you apply for more advanced tools and continue your good work on the project. Sasquatch t|c 06:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
31. Insufficient experience. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
32. Oppose - My primary concern is that our admins have a close understanding of what it is to be an editor, especially a content-contributing one, so that when situations come up, they can make judgments with that understanding in mind. While I agree with Tony that I see nothing that tells me this candidiate would abuse the tools, I also see nothing in their background which points to a specific understanding of the problems of a contributing editor. For that reason, I would agree with the suggestion that the candidate withdraw this RFA, request the rollbacker and page mover rights, contribute more to articlespace, then come back to RfA in six months or so with a higher edit count and better distribution, and - hopefully - an feeling for what editors sometimes go through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
33. Oppose - too inexperienced, sorry. GiantSnowman 07:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
34. Oppose - sorry, but that number of edits in nine years of editing is really low and doesn't suggest an all-round appreciation of admin duties. I'd be glad to reconsider when you've got another 10,000 edits under your belt. Deb (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
35. Oppose — candidate should spend some significant time with lesser tools first to show their competence. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
36. Oppose - Looking through the edits, I feel like 2200 is too low and hasn't really had the time to focus on Wikipedia when you also have law school. I would probably suggest to go a little bit in the other side of it before going again. HawkAussie (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
37. Oppose; not on experience (or otherwise), but communication is fundamental, and when one has a very low talk-page count and a number of them demonstrate body or grave dancing behaviour and combined with a tenure of a decade and the most recent examples of said behaviour are only ~twelve months back...niet.
    @Daffy123:, I suggest withdrawing this, applying for other permissions and demonstrating your skills with them over the next year. I do once do not doubt your good intentions or your technical ability, so another year of good editing and...shall we say, a more nuanced approach to how you interact with noobs, will find me firmly in the "support" column. ——SerialNumber54129 08:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
38. Oppose – Edit count and summaries don't really bother me that much, but having never moved a page, never reported anyone at AIV, and with little evidence I can see of experience identifying, reverting, and warning vandals, I have to say NOTYET. Based on this, candidate may or may not need tools at all until they get their feet a little wetter, but I'll echo the advice that rollbacker might be a better place to start off. Hope to support the next time around! —Rutebega (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
39. Oppose - Little to no experience, plus concerns about childish gravedancing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

    Move to Strong Oppose - the candidate's running of this obviously-unqualified RfA is a CIR issue to begin with. However, the refusal to withdraw in spite of overwhelming opposition is even more of a CIR issue. I can't abide this insanity. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

40. Too soon. I'd suggest following Serial Number 54129's advice given above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
41. Oppose As said above, user has not proven need for admin tools, should request rollback and advanced move functions, and participate in areas of supposed interest.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
42. Weak Oppose I'd prefer to see the user demonstrate some experience with some of the advanced tools (including the one just granted) and interactions with other users before supporting. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
43. Oppose – Bitey warnings, low edit count, low edit summary usage; there's just too much going against them for me to have full confidence in their choices and abilities. Googol30 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
44. Oppose per WP:Not quite yet. Thank you for stepping up, but you need a bit more experience under your belt. See also my criteria for RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
45. Regretful oppose You've expressed interest in blocking vandals and moving pages, but I don't see any demonstration yet of experience and sound judgement in those areas. Apply for rollbacker, install WP:TWINKLE and/or WP:AWB, and get some experience with reporting vandalism. Apply for pagemover and get some experience responding to move requests at WP:RM/TR. Being an admin here is part janitor and part customer service, and once you've demonstrated your sound judgement in both, the community would be much more willing to make you an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 13:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
46. Oppose I am not wholly concerned about the low edit count as such, but I am concerned at the virtually complete lack of any edits in areas relating to admin activities. If we achieve the tools we achieve all of the tools, and I would be more comfortable with some evidence that you were at least familiar with criteria for deletion, blocking, etc, even if you at present do not plan on operating in these areas.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
47. Oppose fails My RFA criteria, I'm all for more users self-nominating, and don't care about edit counts when it comes to giving out admin tools, but no page moves at all despite their answer to Q1, among other things, means that I can't possibly support this time. Iffy★Chat -- 16:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
48. Regretful oppose You seem like a good person. A few thousand edits, a long tenure as an editor, and a will to do the right thing and to improve this wonderful resource we call Wikipedia. That, to me, describes the kind of editors who are the backbone of Wikipedia in terms of content creation. However, I think that you should exhaust your other options for doing what you want to do before becoming an admin. You should apply for the other perms you need, and if those aren't enough, then come back when you can show that you have run into a wall somewhere. You should be proud of your content editing. I don't see that you are in need of the mop, or that Wikipedia would be better served by you working as an admin rather than focusing on what you have shown yourself to be very good at--working with pictures and Byzantine copyright law. Consider if you can aid Wikipedia more by focusing in on those skills you have honed already, or by broadening your horizons. Thank you for your work so far, Daffy123. (Disclaimer:I discussed this RfA on Discord) Prometheus720 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
49. Oppose I love that you're interested in stepping up into an often thankless role, but I don't see your experience as being ready for the mop, at this time. Sorry. Strikerforce^Talk 17:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
50. Oppose Just not ready. I appreciate that you want to help out, but you need more experience. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
51. Oppose - I appreciate the comments that we shouldn't set the admin bar too high, and respect the opinions of many of the supporters here, but I think Daffy123 needs a bit more experience before being granted admin status. Answers such as "I'll definitely look into Wikipedia admin page" are vague (which admin page?) and demonstrate that they need to do a bit more research before running again, once they've gained a little more sustained experience. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
52. Oppose Edit count way to low. Spend some time on WP:AFD and other areas then come back. Good luck.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
53. Oppose; major issue for me is the low edit count. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
54. Oppose - Low amounts of edits.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
55. Oppose While I don't think low amount of edits is an issue, still they seems to have very low experience (or zero) in areas they intend to take part in. Also no experience in admin areas (as a non-administrator). Also to the editors who have expressed their support, Being an admin is a big deal, lack of experience causes admin tools to be abused. Sincerely, Masum Reza^📞 00:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
56. Oppose Not experienced. Props for putting yourself out there, but that's really all I can say. The supports are disappointing, though. Nihlus 00:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
57. Oppose Very little experience in dealing with vandalism, for that being something you want to take part in as an admin. Also lack of communication, as your edit summaries are often blank. But otherwise I think you'd be a good candidate if you improve these areas first. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
58. Oppose Basically per Prometheus720. While I welcome a diverse range of editors standing for RfAs, I'm afraid that this editor's contributions are both too narrow and too few to have prepared them to use the admin tools well. I am particularly concerned that they have not been very active in their intended areas of focus as an admin. Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
59. Oppose No red flags....and also no experience. We sure need more admins, but we also need admins that know what they are doing. There are plenty of more experienced editors who should run and be encouraged to run for the mop. Daffy could be an admin someday, but they need a lot, lot more experience. As is, we can hardly judge how they woud respond in any sort of content dispute, or contentious issue...like say an issue similar to the Fram debacle. How would Daffy handle something like that? We just have no real clue based on past conduct because there is almost nothing to go on. Try again next year Daffy. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
60. Oppose per concerns raised by ferret. Shellwood (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
61. Oppose Since you don't need to be an admin to do good work, I would like to see demonstrated commitment in the areas Daffy123 wishes to help in before handing the mop over to them. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
62. Oppose(previously neutral) Leaning oppose per ferret, but I don't want to be in the oppose camp just yet. I'd rather see this as precedent for more users to run and appreciate Daffy putting themselves out there! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

    I'm changing my position here. It wasn't the low edit count nor anything else that some others have cited. While the gravedancing is concerning, I was content to stay neutral in spite of it. The reason I'm switching is because of the (thankfully honest-- which is appreciated btw) answer to question 16. To not know about WP:IAR means Daffy likely has not read... idk.. certainly a good amount of our policies and guidelines if he's unaware of a key component of the Five pillars.
    At first what I thought I was seeing here was a grassroots move to finally begin reaffirming WP:NOBIGDEAL, but instead I really am seeing this for what it truly is: the tendency for this community to prioritize editors who keep their heads low, don't get involved in helping alleviate contentious conduct disputes, and never take controversial actions. Having "no history of drama" is a bad thing in my view. It means that an editor has yet to truly stand up for what they think to be right. I don't support that.
    Thank you again Daffy for putting yourself out there when you had no reason to believe that you'd get this much support. I really hope you aren't disheartened by this process like many prospective admins have been and hope to see you make more awesome contributions in the future! (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

63. Oppose: I was very ready to support, until i read Q16 and its answer; i am not a huge fan of IAR and some of the ways it is applied, but it is so basic to our community that i just can't support a candidate who's not heard of it before opening an RfA. Like some others above, however, i am happy to see a candidate putting themselves up, and i urge Daffy123 to take heart from many of the comments and return when they are a little more prepared. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
64. Oppose: While I have a lower requirement for edits than most, Daffy's is low enough to make me lean oppose. The grave-dancing isn't too egregious and wouldn't change my opinions too much. The IAR lack of knowledge and lack of full page-mover experience is a concern too far however. I do suggest the acquiring of File Mover (not page mover as I advised above). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
65. Oppose -- I am not sure if Daffy is ready. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
66. Oppose per Swarm's reply to TonyBallioni's Support. Yintan  13:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
67. (edit conflict) Oppose I wasn't going to pile on until I saw Swarm's response to Tony Ballioni's bizarre out-of-the-gate support. This place is getting weirder by the day. Miniapolis 13:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
68. Oppose -- I might as well register an official "vote". I am strongly opposed to some of the rationale offered by a majority of the support votes as I indicated in the general comments below. This candidate doesn't meet any sort of basic criteria that a reasonable community body might have come up with. 2000 edits is less than what many dedicated editors accomplish in a month. From experience, I can say with absolute certainty that that count isn't enough to familiarise oneself enough with wikipedia on encounter basis, to be trusted with admin tools. It would however be enough to determine whether they'd use the tools properly but the fact that they don't interact with other users even via edit summaries precludes that possibility. I would expect such a reclusive editor who limits themself to limited areas to at least skim through relevant guidelines before self-noming at least, if they were committed to due diligence. There is no reason to expect they'll exercise due diligence on how they use the tools if they can't be bothered to read up on even the most basic policy guidelines before applying for adminship. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
69. Oppose A little more experience is needed before I can seriously consider this candidate. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
70. Strong oppose, I'm afraid. I have one firm criterion for supporting adminship and that's good communication, particularly towards new users. The lack of edit summaries and discussion on talk pages is a big red flag. Usually I wouldn't be bothered about incidents from 2017 but the user hasn't had many more recent similar editor interactions, and their behaviour in the block threat and gravedancing edits is very nasty. I urge them to be a lot more careful in the future, and treat WP:AGF and WP:BITE much more seriously, whatever rights they do or do not hold. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
71. Oppose - The edit count is just not enough. Even the most problematic editors could appear optimistic and have a clear track record with contributions that less.—NØ 16:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
72. Oppose - User has a lower edit count. I wait until you get at least 10,000 edits and get more experience before reapplying. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
73. Oppose Candidate lacks experience in almost every field. The Banner talk 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
74. Oppose. This candidate seems not to understand what most (or all) of the tools are and is not prepared or qualified for using them. I don't understand why the candidate hasn't withdrawn. – Athaenara ✉ 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

    Athaenara, Well, to be fair there's nothing in policy that says that he has to withdraw instead of letting the RFA play out, right? At worst, he will get some valuable feedback as to why his RFA was declined and can then decide whether to reapply in the distant future and, if so, what he can do differently to improve his chances of gaining community consensus. Withdrawing now isn't necessarily required, and I don't think he would lose anything by letting this run for a few more hours. Michepman (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

75. Oppose, on the basis of uncivil attitude towards users on talk pages. If there were supportive, recent comments to go off of as a contrast, it would be easier to overlook it. I remember being an early user, and how difficult learning everything was. Admins should be role models for the community. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
76. Oppose per Swarm. Also, it would probably be wise to withdraw at this point as the candidate has already received ample good advice. Lepricavark (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
77. Oppose WP:NOTNOW   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
78. Oppose Not enough experience and this with a (non-admin) threat to block an IP is a deal breaker. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
79. Oppose. Kudos for Wikipedia for failing your RfA. Cheerios to you. --IHTS (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    Stop making fun of them. This type of comment discourages user from ever running on RfA again. What would you think if you were them? Think about others' feelings for once. Masum Reza^📞 05:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    You don't get it. [3] Go away. Quit badgering. And FYI, I've been mocked, abused, lied about, ridiculed, attacked, bullied, insulted, and unfairly unjustly trashed on this site plenty, so don't even think of lecturing or schooling me. --IHTS (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

80. Oppose User has not had enough experience over the different areas of Wikipedia. Willbb234 (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
81. Oppose As per Andy Dingley. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
82. Oppose per Athaenara.  White Whirlwind  咨  08:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
83. (edit conflict × 2) Oppose - There is a lack of significant editing history for me to go off of. Of what I do have to go off of, this and this are unacceptable. I would not be against supporting a future RfA run if you take the advice others give above to heart and strive to always communicate with other editors respectfully, even if they are being disrespectful to you. Don't drag yourself down to their level. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 08:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
84. Oppose. Aside from the valid issues raised by others, I'm concerned about the answer to Question 16. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. It looks to me like you're actually looking for 'rollback' and 'filemover' user rights, both of which you likely qualify for (certainly for rollback). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

   I think you mean 'pagemover', not 'filemover'. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 13:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

2. I'd lean to oppose, as I don't feel like they would use the tools, and page mover and rollbacker would be better places to start. However, as a community, we can't simply ask for more admins and turn down those that do apply simply because they don't have the exact features we want. The fact the editor doesn't edit much actually suggests that they wouldn't need to know too much policy, as it seems they wouldn't get too involved with that. Does feel a little too immature for the toolset, but clearly a nice person. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
3. This RfA reminded me Pvmoutside's RfA. I do not want to oppose you, but I couldnt find anything to base my support on either. Yes, it is obvious you are good person and a good editor acting in good faith, yes you might have a clue; maybe you are not a dick. But WP:V aka verifiability is the bedrock policy/guideline of wikipedia. And there is not much to see how you would communicate with other editors under different circumstances.
   Even though it was an year ago, your "bitey comment" is sort of off putting (diff in oppose #2). You are editing since a decade, and you have 40-ish edits on user-talk pages. Given you want to primarily work against vandalism, i dont really need to see experience in other areas or contributions to AIV. But an admin who wants to work in anti-vandal field should have patience, and good communication skills among few other things. If you are blocking a lot of vandals/accounts, then you would also see a few requests for unblock. I have almost nothing to gauge your would be communication.
   Your tenure is a huge plus side. And the support votes are also very affirming. Like the neutral #1, and some oppose above; should this RfA fail, I suggest you should get "rollback", and "file mover" permissions, do some anti-vandalism work with giving warnings to user, lurk a little around WP:TEAHOUSE, and once in a week scroll through WP:ANI; this will increase your experience a lot (activity not required at these venues, but simply keep an eye there). After doing that for 6-7 months, you may run for the RfA again. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral. Leaning oppose per ferret, but I don't want to be in the oppose camp just yet. I'd rather see this as precedent for more users to run and appreciate Daffy putting themselves out there! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

4. Eh. Fails my RfA criteria, but I got to commend this editor for shamelessly putting themselves out there. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral, moved from oppose. I'll be the first to admit that today's RfA standards are ridiculous, and I wanted to support this, but the diffs brought up by Aboideau and Cryptic and lack of more recent vandal-fighting activity to compare them with raise concern that the candidate might not understand how we properly deal with vandals here on en.wiki. I would request rollback, as others have suggested, and get some more experience. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral - kudos to Daffy123 for possessing the bravery to subject themselves to an RFA - that alone, in my view, speaks volumes about their dedication to the project, as does their lengthy tenure. The main reason I am neutral on this RFA is that, as Reaper Eternal alluded to, Daffy123 can achieve their stated aims without the need of the mop. I am not one for strict edit count evaluations on RFAs, but with the acquisition and appropriate use of the aforementioned tools, and then additional experience in admin areas as Usernamekiran suggested, I would fully be willing to support this candidate in the future as an admin - I am somewhat leaning support anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Neutral. No issues with edit count or tenure but the edit summary usage needs to increase before I can support. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral - whilst I believe that the editor would not purposefully misuse the admin permissions, they seem to inexperienced to me to be granted adminship. Applying for rollback as well as pagemover would be a better step for now. --MrClog (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Neutral - while the RfA seems likely to fail, I see no reason to oppose & would be happy to support Daffy123 after 6 months of contributing to anti-vandal & page moving work. Find bruce (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Neutral - There is nothing I could do to influence the outcome of this RfA by voting in either section. So I'm really just registering my participation. That said however, this looks like a classic example of a candidate who either did not read the advice pages or who chose to ignore the councel in them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• Suggest we close this Rfa per WP:SNOW. We are currently well below 50%, and highly unlikely to hit that mark. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  While I agree that it seems to be unlikely that the RfA will pass, I suggest not closing this until Daffy has been given the chance to respond to the questions asked by the editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  All the questions have now been answered, but I think we should at least give 24 hours from the nomination's start. starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a WP:SNOW case. Enough people have supported. Let it run. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's a possible snow case - I suggest giving it another 13 hours (midnight UTC) and deciding then Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• I first interpreted Daffy's answer to Q16 to be a spectacularly depressing piece of ironic commentary on the bureaucratic state of Wikipedia - I think I've been reading our policy pages too much. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: While IAR gets evoked pretty often, count me in as well - as an avid reader of policies, and guidelines.
  Always good to know that you are (one is) not alone. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Not specific to this RfA but: Why do I keep encountering supports from long-time admins in AfC's with sole justifications of "Adminship is no big deal", "We need more admins", "Admins don't do much harm, they can be easily stopped", etc.? Could it be that these admins need a refresher on what it's like to be a new/regular user on wikipedia? If I were a new user and ran into an admin with any behaviour less than perfection, I'd immediately run out the door. I was looking at the Fram(was it?) case today, and it only confirms what scares regular users about non-perfect admins. There is no place (no one's told me at least) to secretly report an admin and even if you did, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the admin (not to mention the fact that other admins won't touch with a 30-foot pole what another admin is already involved in; I have seen userpages after pages of Admins saying they won't engage in any kind of conflict with another admin). Does anyone else see a problem here? Usedtobecool ^TALK 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  People, new to enwp and otherwise, often confuse authoritative editors with administrators. I for instance have been mistaken for an admin on multiple occasions. I think the problem you are describing is one of hostile long-term editors, not a problem with administrators per se. Whether we grant admin tools to long-term editors or not is orthogonal to whether we tolerate bad behavior. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  You know that Bri has been on wikipedia too long when they use the word "orthogonal". :p --Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Bbb23 or a polemicist who majored in STEM. Usedtobecool ^TALK 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Bri forgive me if it's obtuse but I get an acute feeling that the stated orthogonality is orthogonal to the issue I was raising. A tool is differentiable from a weapon only in its usage. It's a lot different to be threatened with a ban by an authoritative editor than by an authoritative editor with the ability to carry out the threat. And when it's a minor issue, as almost always they are, no one is going to bother exchanging words with a mad man with a finger on the trigger. We can discuss spheres in vacuums all we like but a bad editor with admin rights is going to bring down the standards of every article they are involved in. That's why adminship shouldn't be taken lightly. Especially, considering that, ironically, even though the admins say adminship is no big deal, they put an implicit trust in that badge so much so that admin actions go unchecked and unchallenged for as long as possible, possibly eternity. As for the confusion (unrelated to the confusion u mentioned), if the admins don't want to be confused as what admin means in popular conception, then perhaps we need a better hierarchy of rights, and better naming conventions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Because we remember fondly the days when adminship wasn't a big deal and admins were seen as janitors, rather than "authority figures". And we do need more admins, cos they're all leaving... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  You probably need to advertise forced de-adminships more, then. As it stands, adminship looks like a tenureship. The difficulty of an adminship trial is always going to be proportional to the difficulty of getting an admin stripped of it. I am sure if admins would be sanctioned/stripped more often for misdeeds, people would more easily buy into the "adminship is just a mop" which can be given to anyone who can tell a person's face from a building floor argument. For now, it looks like the adminship not being a big deal back in the day is probably the reason why we might possibly have incompetent admins who can't be touched because they are a "long standing community member in high standing". Everyone knows each other, trusts each other, is ready to give the benefit of the doubt even when they are accused of gross misconduct, the same benefit that wouldn't be afforded someone who's not long or high standing. That's a recipe for disaster. Usedtobecool ^TALK 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  The narrative that "adminship is no big deal" is simply not true, people used to say that but I argue it was never correct. Bad or incompetent admins are highly problematic and potentially toxic to the culture here, especially to n00bs, as has been proven again and again. And there's currently no process to desysop or recall admins. RFC/U was marked "historical" and that was the only sort of process. Otherwise it's up to ArbCom. And people who complain about admins at AN/I are typically boomeranged and or gaslighted and/or victim blamed, whether deserved or not. We don't "need more admins" we need more GOOD admins. ♟♙ (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think we have responded adequately to the concerns expressed by Usedtobecool and EnPassant. They are legitimate concerns. Whether adminship is a "big deal" or not - that's not the question. The question, beyond all technical capabilities and breadth of experience, is: what kind of admin will this person be? The issue that we need to be paying more attention to at RfA is the attitudes and interactions by the candidate - the indications whether they will be the kind of admin who is helpful and polite and keeps cool under pressure, or the kind who scares away editors by hostility or gruffness or dismissiveness. The shorthand for this is the person's temperament, and we need to at least look at that before we shrug and support because "after all we need more admins." (I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with Daffy's temperament; I haven't looked because I don't intend to !vote at this RfA. I'm speaking in generalities, because I want Usedtobecool's and EnPassant's issue to be affirmed and emphasized. I hear you, and you are right.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• I was previously against SNOW closing this, but with almost twice as many opposes as supports (and how it can be argued that most of the neutrals are actually opposes), there just doesn't seem to be much chance that this will pass now. Add to the fact that Daffy has now responded to questions and has been given his chance.

Sorry if it will have to end this way, but Daffy I suggest you learn from this experience, read the comments from both sides, reflect on the advice given here, and use that to become a better editor. Maybe now isn't your time, but if you take the comments here to heart and gain more experience, then perhaps in the future you'll have more success here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Note to Daffy123: In relation to my question 11, I was actually asking about vandalism rather than just concentrating on procedures to do with vandals. I was really looking for admin actions like deletion, revision/edit summary hiding, Page protection, use of blacklists eg Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, MediaWiki talk:Bad image list, and granting rollback to vandalism fighters, (possibly edit filters, and bots). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, I concur that the candidate appeared to have completely missed the object of your question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, he doesn't appear to know the difference between "ban" and "block". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Support votes here show that how many inexperienced users vote in RfA without even realizing why they are voting. Masum Reza^📞 01:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • At current count: 12 admins and a steward are supporting as well as a global sysop. Of the 12 admins, 4 are functionaries. Most of the other supporters are also very experienced users. The opposes have more inexperienced users than the supports currently. Not that it matters, but if the point was raised, it’s worth pointing out. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    • • I meant inexperienced in RfA discussions. Support votes clearly show that voters did not review candidate's contributions. Masum Reza^📞 16:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Masumrezarock100: Just because you disagree with the support votes doesn't mean that the supporters don't know what they're doing. You've already oppposed and there's no reason for this thread to continue. Please drop it. @Eric Corbett: Your comment here appears to violate your RfA topic ban. It would be better to withdraw it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
          • • User:Eric Corbett, it's always nice to see you. I plead guilty to voting for this candidate whose nomination will never pass. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Reza, you could also make the argument that [many of] those in opposition also aren't reviewing Daffy123's contributions as evidenced by so many "not enough edits" rationales. Please don't generalize people just because they don't agree with you. Acalamari 00:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Yeah you're right. But I didn't generalize people just because they didn't agree with me. To be honest I didn't look at the oppose comments. This makes me wonder why do they even vote in RfA when there's clear notice that one should review the candidate's contributions before voting? Masum Reza^📞 00:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
            • @Masumrezarock100 Um, isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticise those supporting if you're not gonna look at the comments of the people who voted in the same category as you? Foxnpichu (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• In case you missed it, the nominee has withdrawn their self-nomination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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.