Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji

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

Money emoji

See /Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC) - Closed as successful. Primefac (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Final (153/66/6); ended 12:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Money emoji (talk · contribs) – Money emoji is one of the most diligent and prolific participants in copyright cleanup. It's a thankless task to have to slog through hundreds, if not thousands of contributions suffering from potential plagiarism, and the backlog is horrendous. He knows exactly what to check for, and has a good idea for spotting close paraphrasing in articles, and flagging them up. He started the daunting Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, which has the unenviable task of trawling through the early contributions of a prolific editor (and my friend) for obvious copyvios and resolving them, without upsetting Blofeld in the process. It's a difficult balancing act and as he says himself, it's a long hard slog - but somebody has got to do it. It's got to the stage where I would trust his judgement of a copyvio over my own, and that in its own would be sufficient reason to recommend he gets the admin tools. But that's not all, he's got a good corpus of content under his belts, including major contributions to Pizzagate conspiracy theory, a tricky article for balance and readability, and he's recently being appointed a trainee clerk at Arbcom. He shows all the signs of being a straightforward, no-nonsense type of admin who just wants to get on with the job of maintaining the encyclopedia with the minimum of fuss. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TonyBallioni I'm very pleased to present Money emoji to the community for consideration as an administrator. Money emoji has been active since March 2018, and has been a positive presence in Wikipedia in that time. His work in copyright as a non-administrator is thankless but important, and he generally has the sense of when to ask for help when help is needed. As Ritchie has noted, he's been involved in some areas that can be controversial, both in project space and in mainspace, but in each of these areas, he's managed to thread the needle appropriately and act in a civil and dignified manner: understanding policy and working to seek common ground when needed. Ultimately, but granting Money emoji access to the administrator toolkit, we will be gaining a competent administrator who will not abuse the tools and who is willing to work in some of the most underserved areas of our project. I'm pleased to support him in this RfA, and I hope you will join me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I happily accept the nomination. I have only edited from 3 other accounts, all of which were legit socks, and also have never and will never accept payment for my edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:03, 11 February 2020 (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: Copyright areas, unsurprisingly. That means dealing with Copyright problems, working at copypatrol, and Contributor copyright investigations. Unfortunately, there simply aren't enough admins/editors dedicated to working in the copyright area, leading to large backlogs and some pretty daunting tasks (Not to discount the efforts of Diannaa, DannyS712, Justlettersandnumbers, MER-C, Sphilbrick, and Wizardman- love you all). Having the admin tools will let me see hidden revisions (which is extremely helpful for CCI), revdel, and delete pages, all of which are helpful abilities to have while removing copyvios. As a non-admin, I've help complete 43 CCIs, and I'll be able to clear others out much faster with the tools. It would also allow me to clerk at CCI and CP, since only admins and clerks can archive reports; and no new clerks have been appointed for a while, since there just aren't enough people in the area. I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance that they no longer need to worry about coming back to help out with copyright. I'll participate in other areas for sure, but copyright will be the primary one.

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

A: My work on CCI in general, fighting back against our copyright backlog and hopefully renewing the community's awareness of the area. At copypatrol, I have the 7th highest amount of reviews with 1,113. I'm particularly proud by tough CCIs I defeated by myself, like Md iet, 67.184.212.160, and 20110727 06 (Which started out as this when I first got to it, here's the history with me slowly going crazy but ultimately triumphing). Other highlights at CCI include me helping spearhead efforts to combat some of our largest/most dangerous CCIs, such as 20110727, Elisa.rolle, DrB, and The 2010 CCIs. There's also my CCI list and guide to CCI, which I have put much work and care into.

I have much to be proud of outside of copyright, as well; I helped Pizzagate conspiracy theory become a GA, and carried the torch for articles like Ahed Tamimi and John B. Magruder after the person who wrote them, TheGracefulSlick, was blocked (and for the former, someone started a review on it and was then blocked as a sock). I also did a peer review for Saving Light, an article now on it's Fifth FAC (Poor MicroPowerpoint keeps getting snubbed ☹️). I also tried fixing List of NC-17 films, the messiest article I've ever seen, and I'd say it's better than it was before I edited it. For articles I created/largely expanded, I have a few small song articles, and am trying to create an article for every song on Travis Scott's Astroworld (all of which are notable). I've only got two so far (Stargazing (Travis Scott song), Carousel (Travis Scott song)), due to my dedications to the copyright area- but I'll hopefully get them all created one day, even if it's after CCI has been completed.

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 call them conflicts, but I've had several different editors take issue with my reversion of their edits over copyright violations, and others take issue with my presumptive removals relating to CCIs. When people come to me with a complaint/question, whether they're unhappy with me or not, I try and have my responses fulfill four criteria:

• 1. Assume good faith. Most people come to me because they want help understanding; no matter how rude their tone may be or word choice, I know they want my help. They aren't trying to hurt me or tear me down; they're just confused and worried. And if they are out to hurt me and tear me down, it'll be clear that they are and I can deal with it appropriately. No reason to get unnecessarily angry, after all.
• 2. Be natural. Talk like I normally would.
• 3. Be factual. Explain exactly why I did what I did, people like when you are honest with them. And if I was wrong, oh well. Next time something similar happens, I won't be wrong.
• 4. Take my time. A rushed response will likely make things worse. A long, well thought out response is better than a short, rushed one. I'm not in of a hurry, I can afford to take my time.

---

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 MrX

4. Have you had any registered accounts on Wikipedia prior to this one? - MrX 🖋 13:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A: Long story short: no. Long story long: In 2015, the late summer specifically, a friend of mine encouraged me to edit wikipedia; they taught me about anti-vandal work, and instructed me to edit in that area. I did not register an account (I thought you had to make a donation), and edited from an ip between late summer 2015 and early 2017. I grew disinterested and stopped editing, but became interested again when my friend (who had become quite rude towards me) stopped editing and I found out that I didn't have to donate to register an account. So I rejoined in March 2018, and have been using this account since. I initially thought that I had had another account before this one because I voted in an afd as an ip, and I thought that only registered accounts could vote in afds so I must have been tricked into registering by my "friend". That's why I initially said I had just frogotten the name and password and how I knew so much about stuff like TW and GAs.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Cbl62

5. On eight occasions in the past two years, you've nominated articles for deletion where the consensus was to "keep". On several of these, you closed yourself and were critical of your own failure to find sources that were brought forward at AfD. The willingness to revisit your initial view is an admirable quality. Have you taken steps to better investigate before nominating at AfD? And do you believe your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Boat Museum were correct?

A:Because of my past failures, I try and refrain from nominating at AFD; I admit that I'm a bit nervous I'll miss something, and try taking the position of voting instead. In recent Afds, I've tried to be very analytical and I spend a long time looking for sources; See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Workmans Club, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binish Desai (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jokers' Masquerade (2nd nomination).

Both of those Afd noms were wrong. In the case of the boats afd, I should have looked for book sources; In the case of the American one, I was very sick, tired, and upset when I wrote that (I had just driven 5 hours to pick my sister up from Niagara Falls), and mistunderstood policy. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky caldron

6. You were appointed a trainee clerk on 7 January. You recused on the next available new case although your availability does not seem to have been a issue. Why did you not wish to supplement the much needed clerking effort on that case? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A:Serial Number 54129 asked me this before and I responded at the time. Basic summary: The aformentioned "friend" in Q4 feels as though they were treated unfairly by Kudpung and vocally told me this several times, and later congratulated me on my clerkship. This person had previously asked me to make certain edits for them, and I declined to do so because they were petty revenge requests against other users. So, predicting that they would ask me to do something to Kudpung, I recused to dicourage their antics.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

6A. Your signature, with it's combination of small font, dull colour, and multiple symbols reduces it's readability somewhat. Thinking of those with visual impairment using a range of equipment with various display characteristics, is this something you will consider tweaking now that it has been drawn to your attention?

A: My signature used to be 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸, but I stopped using it because it took too much space up at CCI and I felt like it attracted too much attention to me; I liked how it looked, but it looked like I was saying "LOOK AT HOW COOL MY SIG IS ITS GREEN". If people feel as though that one is better than my current one, or feel as though the current one is inadequte, I will happily replace it. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Feminist

7. In what situations should a sysop provide non-admins with revdeled content and/or copies of deleted articles?

A:The typical stuff at WP:RFU, stuff deleted under WP:G13, contested prods, requests for a redirect with the history restored for whatever appropriate reason, etc. (As long as there are no copyvios)- the usual stuff. For my specific area, articles presumptively deleted that a user wants to rewrite (and wants to see what the deleted content was for reference), or if a non-admin needs access to deleted content to help get an idea of what to do at a specific CCI; See User talk:Money emoji/Archive_4#Copyright problem for an example. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Girth Summit

8. Thanks for standing. Let me say straight away that this question is not intended to try to trip you up - to be honest, I'm inclined to support purely on the basis of our past interactions (and Diannaa's support, since you work in COPYVIO, makes that inclination stronger). I wonder though whether you'd be willing to expand a bit on your answer to Q4, the last sentence of which I find rather confusing. When did you say you had forgotten your former username and password? And, assuming that by 'TW' you mean Twinkle, how would you have come to know about that (since IPs can't use Twinkle)? I just wonder if you'd be able to clarify that, without divulging any details that you would be uncomfortable with, or which would risk disclosing your former IP address, naturally.

A: Oh gladly, the answer is strange but true. I said it when I first opened my account and claimed it afterwards for a while. I knew about TW because my "friend" told me that they reverted edits using twinkle. That person told me that I had to "install" it; I stayed away from it because I thought that meant that I would have to pay money for it. They were wrong and I believed them until I figured it out myself when I registered an account. As you can tell, my friend left me in the dark about a lot of things.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A:Like many, I have little knowledge of scripts and don't really understand them. I also wish I could be a more consistent content creator; I've had fun writing the articles that I have, but my work at copyright often intrudes on it and I'm not able to write as much as I'd like to. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Rhododendrites

10. I think I first came across your username when I was considering reviewing Pizzagate conspiracy theory for GA a while back. I hesitated, however, because it's uncommon for the nominator to have never edited the article, and looking at your userpage I saw this rather extreme retirement message. Could you talk about what was going on there? (BTW: regardless of how it started, kudos to you for your work in bringing Pizzagate to GA).

A:I'm not really sure what the hell I was going on about quite honestly; for some context, I was in a very, very rough period of my life then; I was depressed, three people I knew well had died around that time, and I failed a GA review because I had to leave for Arizona to meet my grandfather, who was dying of cancer. After he died and the review failed (no prejudice against the reviewer), I was very unhappy with the site, was disillusioned further by some ultimately meaningless nonsense I was seeing at Ani, spat that out, and left, which is why I edited less for the later part of 2018. I came back in 2019, and have improved massively since then, I've learned how to better cope with stuff in my life and I see this place in a much more positive light. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from King of Scorpions

11. What Wikipedia policy do you believe is the most important, and why? (I'm still fairly new and don't know all the acronyms, so please write the full policy name or provide a wikilink...)

A:WP:V, or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically, it boils down to a piece of information being true and readers being able to verify that it is true. Without verifiability, some of our other most important policies, like Our Biography of living persons policy and our Reliable source policy, wouldn't be what they are. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 21:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from JC

12. Hi, thanks for volunteering to contribute in this capacity. Do you have any misgivings about serving as an administrator under the identity of "Money emoji"? Or, if you like: if you knew when you registered that you would one day be blocking people and deleting their articles, would you have selected the same username?

A: Kinda funny, I think about this sometimes. It's a fun username, one which has no backstory (I came up with it on the spot), but it's kind of stupid. I was actually considering renaming myself "Moneytrees" a few weeks ago but it escaped me. Maybe I'll rename in the future.

13. How do you justify claiming credit for GAs like John B. Magruder, where your edits during the promotion process were essentially confined to three words and two emdashes?

A:I was wondering if this would be brought up or not. It is true; I did not edit John B. Magruder very much. User:TheGracefulSlick wrote that page, and I made sure it became a GA when they were unable to edit. By claiming credit, I'm assuming you mean the GA box and topicon on my userpage; the logic for me putting those there was the amount of time I spent looking for an appropriate license for one of the images; it took a few hours before I figured out the right one. My thought process for putting up the GA stuff was "Hey, I didn't really edit it, but I did spend all the time getting the license, so that must count for something" but I agree that it looks like I'm hogging the glory for something TGS did. I've removed the related GA stuffs from my page. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

14. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: Ah, the iconic elementery school question; I think I may have come across this exact situation? This is right in my wheelhouse...

The most obvious one would be WP:G12 as an unambiguous copyright violation (obviously I would check if it were under an appropriate license, but it probably wouldn't be), and maybe WP:G11 as unambiguously promotional. As a user, I would simply tag the article with G12; As an admin, I would probably stub the article down to a single sentence not similar to the source and revdel offending revisions.

Ones that would not apply include G1, G2, G3 (unless it was a prank school or something?), G6, G10, G14, A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, and A11.

Ones that may apply would include G4, G5, G7, G8 (if it was created in the wrong mainspace), G9, G13 (hopefully the violation would have been found before then...), A2 (this actually happened with CADENCE Ensemble), and A10. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from QEDK

15. Why would anyone not support you for adminship? Full disclosure: This question was originally asked by Atsme at my own RfA. I think she ended up not voting (due to my answer or otherwise) but it was a good question imho and if candidates can show that they understand the criticism, it helps to allay some of the concerns the opposition might have. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A: I've seen a few different reasons cited, and I find them understandable.

Lack of Content creation The major one I'm seeing. And I more than sympathize; I'm aware creating content can be very difficult, and I think admins should create content. I would not have run if I thought I didn't know much about writing the actual encyclopedia. If anything, I can actually relate to content creators more than I can to the typical "behind the scenes" admin. Like content creators, I work in an area involving the mainspace, an area that few understand well. Like content creators, I sometimes feel as though some people discount my efforts, and don't understand how much effort I put into my work. Like content creators, I put hours, days, sometimes weeks into what I'm working on. And like them, I do it for the "Free encyclopedia"- but while they work on the encyclopedia part, I work on the free part. I make sure we are what we advertise. Content creators can count on me to understand their struggles and what content is. I may have little article credits under my name, true, but my understanding of articles is very strong; I can tell the difference between something that is likely copied, and something that is close to the source but acceptable.

Lack of experience It's true. I've only been around for 4 years or so, and only on this account for a little less than 2 years. Between my ip edits and my account's edits, I only have about a little over 10,000. But I believe that, despite my somewhat low tenure, that I know enough to be trusted with the tools. It's not big deal, after all. If the community feels I have wronged, they are probably right and I will resign.

Maturity I've seen some concerns over maturity, specifically over this. I do not agree with anything I say in that retirement statement. Infact, I can't really put into words how much I disagree with it; to say it's a load of garbage is a gross understatement. I don't know what I'm talking about there, and if you had asked me what users I had been talking about, I wouldn't have an answer. I was very angry with my life then (see Q10), and decided to take it out there. I shouldn't have, and it's obviously grossly immature. If someone who was in that state of mind ran for rfa now, I would probably oppose. But I would say I have grown since then. I can talk to people who are not happy with me. I can reassure people who are worried. And I can provide advice to people. That is something the person who wrote that would be unable to do. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from AmericanAir88

16. Hello Money, I am very impressed with your work with copyrighted material. Mock Scenario: As an admin, you uncover a multiple accounts that are doing a copyright ring on various school articles in the category "Public high schools in Connecticut." They are rapidly adding copyrighted material from school websites and other unacceptable sources. What is the process you would do to stop this Copyright Ring as an admin? AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A: I've actually come across a similar situation as a non admin. Given that its several different accounts and they are editing within a specific area, it may be some ill conceived educational project similar to the aforementioned ani thread and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Indian Education Program. I would revert and revdel the edits, and maybe ask a CU to run a check. If the accounts are not related, then my hypothesis is likely correct. In that case, watching the affected articles and making a note at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard would be a good idea. If the violations continue, blocks may have to be issued, although this is unlikely since most users stop inserting copyvios after being notified/warned not to. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Tymon.r

17. Hello! The content creation requirement is often cited against some RfA candidates who have great experience in counter-vandalism activities, but have never been into writing articles. Would you support an RfA candidate who declares he will use his rights primarily to stop disruption on Wikipedia, but has written (let's assume) just 3 or 4 stubs? Why? It's technically impossible to grant an user just some rights connected with the admin status, but does such declaration change anything? Or maybe you believe some admin rights should be moved to a separate group (like e.g. blocking IPs from editing) to make them easier obtainable by the experienced officers of Wiki Police Department ;-)? Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A:Maybe. I would look for other things, such as tenure, understanding of content, and overall temperament, before voting support/oppose. I have all the respect in the world for anti-vandals (I used to be one!), although they would need to demonstrate skillfullness in their field for my to consider supporting. On the topic of unbundling the tools, I think that protections (semi 24hrs) and the ability to review deleted content could be handed to very trusted users. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Robert McClenon

18. Do you have any experience in dispute resolution in any of its various forms? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A: Not really. There's been times where I've wanted to close rfcs, but it always evades me. I am a fan of the "talk it out" approach in lieu of blocks, and I think DRN could be used more in content disputes then someone going to Ani/an. My wiki-philosophy on conflicts is "The less people that get shot, the better." 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Barkeep49

19. You express a desire to use the toolset to further CCI. That's great. However, in my experience, ArbCom clerks who gain the toolset often have an interest in using the block/unblock tools as well. Can you tell us what your short/medium term plans might be around thoe tools? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A: One of the first things I'll do after I get the tools will be ending the backlog at CP, since I will be able to revdel and deleted pages. Revdeling copyright violations found through copypatrol will be a habit of mine. I may block if someone is a repeat offender; usually after 3 of 4 cases of copying. Since I can look through deleted contribs/pages, that will make investigations like Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Pohick2 much easier, and I can attempt to finally take them down.

Thanks. This is a little less of a definitive answer that you don't plan to wade into behavioral blocks in the near term than I was hoping for but I am happy to take on good faith the implication that you see using block only as an extension of CCI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

20. The conventions of RfA mean there might be something you'd like to say but have been constrained in having a place to say it. Is there anything you've been hoping to write for which you hadn't had an opening, and if so what is it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A: The now notorious retirement message. I've seen many bring it up in their opposes, questioning the maturity of someone who wrote something like that. I agree that it is immature. That it seems like a red flag. But I've grown so much since then. I was younger when I wrote that, I was much stupider. My life had taken a brutal turn, and I felt very isolated. It seemed like things couldn't get worse, but they did, I just kept breaking through rock bottom in 2018. I became bitter, and angry with the world. And I shouldn't have. And I won't let it happen again. I'm in far more control of my life, I've overcome my struggles, and I've persevered to get where I am now. If I was the same as I was when I wrote that, I would have withdrew after 20 opposes. But now, I know where I'm going in life. I know everything will be ok. That was before I grew, and now that I've grown, I have more faith in everything; the world, this community, and myself. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Hog Farm

21. An admin area is WP:UAA. Admin interpretation of the grey areas of the username varies (for example, a few months ago I saw a situation in which an admin deemed a username including the phrase "fuck off" or something similar to be not a blatant username policy violation and the "promotional username" one has a lot of grey area). Would you interpret the username guidelines in a more conservative or expansive manner?

A: I'm slightly more liberal when it comes to user names, although I think there is a limit. I think, for example, usernames like Itchyjunk and IUpdateRottenTomatoes are acceptable, but that longer, profane user names or ones that a difficult to type out (Like a string of emojis and such) would not be acceptable. I think it also comes down to whether or not the username is disruptive or indicates a disruptive user. In some cases, with promotional user names and more obscene user names, the person should be blocked; if they are a constructive contributor, then they can simply request an unblock. For borderline cases, it would probably be best to wait to see the user edit. For example, if someone with a user name like "Pee Pee Fucktard" pops up, I would probably block, but if someone with a username like "I fell on my ass" shows up, I would wait for them to edit since it isn't as profane. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Dreamy Jazz

22. Would you be willing to be a Administrator open to recall? This was asked at my RfA

A:Sure. I'm aware that recalls are uncommon occurrences, but if the community feels as though I should no longer have the tools, I will gladly resign. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Money emoji: Money emoji (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Money emoji can be found here.
• Afd tracking cut off at a certain date; I've logged my recent ones at User:Money emoji/AFDlog

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Support A very good and worthy candidate. The bit will surely fit them. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Support 100%. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni are both nominating this candidate? You don't get much higher recommendation than that. Looks like they are not a jerk, have a clue, and have created good content, which are my three criteria, so happy to add a support. Good luck!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Reaffirming my support having followed the RFA since my above !vote, although it is probably a somewhat weaker support now. I think that like Nosebagbear I assumed the candidate's contribution to the Pizzagate GA was more than it actually was. They certainly did participate in the GA nom and the subsequent failed FA run - responding to issues raised, reverting some vandalism etc. Which is to be commended of course. But as far as I can tell the bulk of the actual content was not their original work, so per what others such as SandyGeorgia have said below, they probably narrowly don't pass my "content creation" criterion for RFA.

   That said though, I am very disappointed by the pile-on of opposes based on the candidate's brief retirement. We all know that being a Wikipedian is stressful at times, and the candidate has explained above that they were going through an incredibly tough time in their personal life then. It's not as if they directed any attacks at individual editors, or went around deliberately causing harm or disruption in article or WP space, they just posted a message on their own talk page expressing what was at the time disenchantment with the project. And I don't think we should beat them up for that.

   So all other things being equal I would probably lean neutral to oppose based on the content contribution, consistent with my oppose !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/1997kB. But I think that like Steel1943 I should stay in the support column, so that the retirement message does not become the actual reason for the RFA failing. I hope that Money emoji will seriously consider the points made about content creation, and will contribute more in that area going forward even if they are promoted here, because it is very important for admins to know the reality of life at the coal face, and writing original content based on sources is the way to do that. Cheers and good luck  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

5. Support no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Money emoji is level headed, mature, and interacts well with other editors. Just the kind of person we need in the admin corps. Thanks for volunteering. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Please see below in the neutral section (in my reply to SandyGeorgia) for more details about my support !vote.— Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

7. Support I've known Money emoji for two reasons: one being the atrocious use of brackets and the second being utmost friendliness. I'm sure they will make a fine administrator, open to critique with all willingness to improve. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   QEDK, I Don't know what youre talking about 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   We (know) you do (sure you do!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   There are far too many disambiguation links in that sentence. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   I concur with BD2412. Should DPL bot patrol the project namespace? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 00:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

8. Support One of those "wait, why aren't they an admin yet" candidates. Highly recommneded. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
9. Support - no issues at all, and all the best for the mop. Tolly4bolly 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
10. Support precious "I edit here when I have nothing else to do, just for fun." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
11. As co-nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
12. Support - no concerns. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
13. Support per noms. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
14. Support - clueful, respectful, and having the bit will certainly help with their work. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
15. Weak Support - the more complicated aspects of copyright and CCI are seriously technical and a major pending risk to Wikipedia. Having another qualified admin would be a major addition. While total edit count doesn't worry me, since I'm aware a significant amount of effort can go into some copyright edits, I am significantly more concerned about his content creation, with 1 created and a couple more with major additions. So character clearly isn't an issue, nor is knowledge in the admin field. So while I would like more content creation, I don't think it's a necessity. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    Given more detail on the pizzagate GA, I think a WS is a more reasonable description for my state of mind at this point. Nosebagbear (talk)

16. Support Money emoji seems to know what they are doing, and having admin tools is extremely useful in the field of copyright cleanup; they would be even more of an asset with a mop. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
17. Support No issues here, good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
18. Support I see no issues and have seen this user around. Being a fellow trainee clerk and also dealing with copyright violations (I usually only deal with clear cut cases eligible for G12), I can attest that having the tools is both very useful (in some cases necessary) to ensure a job well done. Their answers to the questions helped me to see how they have good judgement and foresight, (see their answer to Q6). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    To add, I see them meeting my criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Support: I've seen CASSIOPIAs contributions to the Wikipedia especially coping with vandalism and being neutral and effective in solving disputes. As per co-nom by Ritchie333 ^(talk). I vote for them in support strongly believing they'll do their best being an administrator. — The Ultimate ^{Let's Talk} 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    The Ultimate, I think you put this in the wrong rfa.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    The Ultimate, I struck your comment for now, as it is obviously in he wrong RFA. Please revise accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

19. I will always support editors who work in copyright problem cleanup. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
20. You have my unreserved Support. Good luck to you! Puddleglum ^2.0 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
21. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
22. Support per answer above, which seems reasonable, and per support from trusted, experienced and respected sysops working in the same area. We need more people well-versed in copyvio, thanks for stepping up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
23. Support seems like a good fit. LanHikari64 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
24. Support Always a good sign when I am surprised by an RfA, because I'd always assumed they already are an admin. Money Emoji demonstrates a clear understanding of policy and guidelines and will do a good job helping improve the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
25. Support Very strong track record. Interstellarity (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
26. Support - Definitely. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
27. SupportHhkohh (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
28. Support Money Money 2020 -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
29. I've tried my hand at the CCI cleanup and it's hard. MoneyEmoji knows it well, and the tools will reduce the workload for other admins fulfilling their requests for revision deletion. Clear net positive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    I still believe this user will be a net positive with the tools, despite the opposes. I don't find the retirement statement as concerning as others seem to find it. The candidate would be better with time, yes, but they also seem fine now. The tools will let them do additional work cleaning up copyright violations which is a significant positive. I don't see the negatives brought up by the opposes as outweighing the positives of the candidate with the tools, so I still support. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

30. Strong support Absolutely!! I first ran into MoneyEmoji when I reviewed their Pizzagate GA, and was all around impressed. Since then I have watched as Money has comported themselves excellently and been an active Wikipedian all around. Their work at CCI is exceptional, and having the tools to work in CCI would be a great addition to Money's endeavors. I see no reason to expect abuse of the tools, and believe that Money would be exactly the kind of level-headed sysop we need more of. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
31. Support I'm impressed on how Money deals with CCI. —BeyWHEELZ • T • C
32. Support. Copyrights shall be protected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    I just want to reiterate my support for this candidate in case this RFA goes south within the next two days. My impression of the Money emoji is that they have been an invaluable contributor regarding copyright cleanup, and they have consistently shown to me that they understand what their limitations are. Additionally, I strictly follow the school that some of our best admins have not historically been content creators, and not being a content creator now does not mean that Money emoji won't become one in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

33. Support If Ritchie likes Money than so do I ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
34. Support I've seen plenty of good copyright work, and that's definitely an area where we need more admins. Hut 8.5 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    I'd like to reaffirm my support in light of the opposes. 10,000 edits over two years is IMO enough for adminship, and I don't think advanced content creation accomplishments are at all necessary. I also don't think it's fair to use something the candidate wrote 18 months ago when they were going through a very difficult time IRL. Hut 8.5 22:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

35. Support does a thankless task, but does it very well, and in an important area of the project. Demonstrates clear need for the tools. Would be happy to support, whether they stick to just copyright infringement, or if they want to branch out further. Agent00x (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
36. Support Would love to have you on the admin team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
37. Without a doubt --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
38. Support obviously. MER-C 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
39. Yes, has the temperament and the skill level. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
40. Support My experience with this user is positive and they are helpful. DBigXrayᗙ 20:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
41. Support No red flags and we need more admins working in copyvio.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
42. Support Seems to be a good candidate and their contributions are good. What more do you need in an admin? (I may be wrong as this is the first RFA I've participated in...) King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
43. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
44. Can't think of anyone more qualified in 2020 to get access to the tools, and I say that without hyperbole. Wizardman 22:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
45. Seems to be a good editor, and willing to listen to others. I don't feel it's a requirement for an administrator to have extensive content creation experience. I feel they must simply demonstrate a solid understanding of when to, and when not to, use the tools that the community is trusting them with, and the willingness to learn and listen when they might make a mistake (no one is perfect). I also feel very strongly about WP:V and respect their answer pointing that out as the most important policy. Excellent COPYVIO work. Waggie (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
46. Support - Though Money emoji has only been here for two years, it looks like he has more than proved his suitability for the admin tools, having worked in the CCI field. I think that the admin tools would help him out with the CCI backlog. And despite his username, he is not actually a money emoji, so I guess that's another plus ... shows maturity, I think epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    As said in the questions above, they have had lots of experience in the copyright area. They said there were not that many copyright admins here. I think they will be a good new addition to the admin community. --TFFfan (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

47. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
48. Candid answers to my admittedly nitpicky questions... no complaints there. As mentioned above, the candidate plays a crucial role in the mainspace regardless of what the "articles created" or "kilobytes added" stats tell us. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    Please consider this a strong support to help balance out the idea that you can't learn how a website works over the course of five years and 10,000 edits. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

49. Support. Anyone willing to tackle the hellscape that is CCI deserves the mop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
50. Support Well versed in CCI issues, clear net positive, and cordial with all they come across to boot. I wish I could clone Money emoji and have more admins like them. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
51. Support: While the editor isn't big on creating new articles, I lean WP:GNOME myself. I see a >40% mainspace contribution ratio [1], which is solid (much of the rest is in "Wikipedia:", which we'd expect for someone doing admin-ish stuff, plus lots of talk namespaces, a general indicator of collaborative and dispute-resolution behavior). Clearly an asset when it comes to copyvio patrolling, and I don't see any history of jackassery or boneheadedness. I'm not sure this candidate would exactly pass my criteria in a literal reading, but they're flexible. This editor is clearly clueful, WP:HERE, and would continue to be a net positive with the extra tools.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
52. Support good work in CCI clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
53. Support Strong copyvio work is very important for the project, and it's clearly demonstrated here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Skimpy on content work, but their mainspace edits are not frighteningly negligible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC) (Switching to oppose)

    • S - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Moving to oppose - needs more time.
54. Not as thoughtful an answer to my question as I would have liked, but OK. feminist (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
55. Support per Diannaa. Enthusiastic editor, willing to work in a tough area. Miniapolis 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
56. Support solid work in copyvio area, where we need more admins to handle G12 and revdel. I don't think it's necessary for admins to be content creators. buidhe 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
57. Support. While I cannot recall any particular interaction I have had with this user, I am impressed with their Wikipedia "resume" and can only expect this candidate to be a net positive to the project. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
58. Support, almost exactly along the lines just expressed by Utopes. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
59. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
60. Support Everybody likes this. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
61. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
62. Support – Some people got to have it, hey-ey-ey! Some people really need it - ahh, listen to me y'all! Kurtis ^(talk) 10:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
63. Support Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 13:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
64. Support - Normally, I would be reluctant to promote an editor with so little content creation, but the need to effectively tackle the CCI backlog outweighs my slight reservation. Other than a WP:PERSONALATTACK edit summary, I see no reason not to support. - MrX 🖋 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    MrX, I was making fun of myself for not realising that a site was a mirror.... unless you knew that already. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Yeah I know; I was injecting some humor. It was funnier in my own head. - MrX 🖋 15:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

65. Support CCI area will benefit from having more people with the tools. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
66. Support Shaking my head at voters demanding 10000 edits from admin candidates. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Also shaking my head at voters demanding admin candidates participate in areas other than the ones which interest them. I don't know why it's so hard to grasp the pointlessness of making such demands of people who edit Wikipedia without pay and ask to perform admin duties, also without pay. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

67. Support - Say the right things, does the right things. Makes mistakes, learns from them. Rosser Gruffydd 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
68. Support with pleasure; qualified and helpful in a very underserved area. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
69. Support Will be a large benefit to the project with the tools, has my trust. Spencer^T•C 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
70. Support. I'm very pleased to see this nomination. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
71. support seen 'm around. per nom statement. per other supports.-- Deepfriedokra 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
72. Support per nomination. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
73. Support The tax accountant in me was won over with the user name. In all seriousness, the candidate appears to be well qualified and has my trust. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
74. Support per Diannaa and Hut 8.5, with thanks to the candidate for their hard work in a difficult area. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
75. Support - no concerns, and nothing valid in opposes. GiantSnowman 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
76. Support, seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
77. Support Mkdw ^talk 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
78. Strong support: no behavioural issues and a passion for copyright issues are more than enough reason for support. Giving the mop to an editor working in CCI is the least we can do to help them out. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    Back here to strengthen my support. I think some of the opposes are really beyond the pale in lack of empathy. Temperament is my biggest concern at RfA and I am happy to endorse Money emoji. I am sorry about the personal issues they have disclosed above. I understand that the editor has made mistakes but we've all said and done stupid things so let's not act holier-than-thou when there were clearly mitigating factors to their mistakes and they have spoken openly about how they have grown since then. — Bilorv (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

79. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
80. I have no concerns about Money except that I would normally look for more content experience in an RfA candidate, and so to that extent the oppose !votes gave me pause, but Money's enthusiastic dedication to copyvio work makes up for it. In the end, I'm pretty sure they won't delete the main page (unless it's a copyvio). – Levivich 04:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    Having read the opposes, I'm still in support of this candidate. The "FU goodbye" retirement notice doesn't give me any concerns. We all feel that way sometimes. There isn't an editor reading this who hasn't at some point lost their cool and published a regrettable edit. And 18 months is a long time ago. I've said a lot worse things a lot more frequently than that, and so have plenty of admin who I think are great admin. Money agreeing to be open for recall also a plus for me. – Levivich 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

81. Support - No concerns. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
82. Support Grudgingly. Because the candidate fails my criteria of being the perfect candidate. Because I distrust both the nominators. Because the RfA fails my criteria of having at least 3 nominators. Because AfD !votes of the candidate should have been exactly 50% keep and 50% delete. Because I only normally support candidates with zero opposing editors.... And hopefully, in case of a crat chat, my well-explained support !vote would get the importance it deserves. That it. Lourdes 10:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
83. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
84. Support per my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 13:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
85. Support no issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
86. Support No pressing concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
87. Support Nominated by editors with good judgment, good answers to questions, an editing record that makes sense for what they would use adminship for. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
88. Support Truly amazing work at CCI. I'm astonished they're not already admin; they're friendly, helpful, and extremely knowledgeable. Tamwin (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    Since this seems likely to go to a 'crat chat, I'll add a bit. While I wasn't expecting to see something like that retirement message, I still think the candidate would be decidedly a net positive. It's been two years, and people mature over time. From what I've seen of them these days, they're extremely helpful and have grown a lot since then; I don't think they'd act like that now, even on a bad day. If that weren't enough, their work at CCI is truly incredible, which produces benefits that offset any small risk of trouble. Accordingly, I still support. Tamwin (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

89. Support Per their answer to King of Scorpions. It is very reassuring to see a potential sysop with that attitude about WP:V. It truly is the most important policy on Wikipedia. Various editors have !voted oppose due to a perceived lack in total contributions, but I question the validity of that argument. None of the added privileges of sysops directly involve content contributions. It's all about maintenance, and this editor has proven to be a friendly person that is willing to help out and make the encyclopedia better. Good enough for me. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    ​I didn't realize my question would be so RFA-affecting... King of Scorpions (my talk) 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

90. Support. Strong record in an understaffed area; good demeanour. No concerns. AGK ■ 20:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)'
91. Support as I really appreciate the user’s work on an area that has a high backlog and the ability to rectify decision such as the AfD nominations mentioned in the questions. GoodCrossing (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
92. Support I APPROVE :) Flalf (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
93. Sure. — 🦊 03:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
94. Support, anyone willing and able to deal with CCI deserves the mop. Renata (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
95. Support due to nothing but positive interactions at CCI. Content production isn't as much of an issue for me where an admin declares an intent to focus on a particular technical area for which the admin toolset is a major help. Gricehead (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
96. Support per AGK. Dekimasuよ! 10:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
97. Support When an editor is unfailingly civil and helpful, knows what they don't know, and can admit mistakes, I'm not too concerned about lack of content creation. This editor is working in a much-needed area and needs these tools. I see no reason to think they'd use them to cause problems for content creators. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    The regrettable retirement statement is no worse than things I've thought many times, and anything that vague can't be considered a personal attack. It's just a statement of frustration, the kind of frustration most of us who've made thousands of edits have experienced. I'm sure ME will take this criticism on board and never do that again lol. --valereee (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

98. Support --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
99. Support, everyone makes mistakes. BEANS X3 (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
100. Support. Copyright cleanup is really important, and hard. If he's willing to do it, let 'im. And if he worked on the Blofeld swamp, that a good indication that he will. Content creation, enh; it's a data point, but not a huge one. Lots of good managers were shitty catchers with 49 lifetime at bats. What I'm much more looking for is of the guy's editing contributions were bad, or if they guy's a jerk. If you're not a jerk, we can work with you as you learn and grow. And none of the oppose votes indicated that he's a jerk or makes bad edits. They're all about Well he hasn't done enough writing, which just doesn't bother me. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
101. Support: Well-trusted user. ToThAc (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
102. Support I've known Money pretty much since we both started anti-vandalism work in April 2018, and I think he can be trusted to use the admin tools without abusing them. Copyright cleanup is a very important area, and another admin specializing in CCI will be very helpful to Wikipedia. I know he doesn't have a whole lot of content creation, but we have content creators, we have admins, and we have some that do both. As long as Money does not intend to take part in those content disputes that wind up at ANI, and uses his admin tools in copyright issues and areas he is comfortable with, I think he won't screw up. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

     Since this seems to be headed towards a 'crat chat, I would like to add some more. Despite this retirement message cited by many as their reason for opposing, I feel that Money has definitely matured since then. He has a lot of experience in counter-vandalism, UAA, and noticeboards in general. I feel they've done far enough work in CCI to justify them having the tools, all of them. As for article creation, meh, other users can do that. It is only important if the user intends in taking part in complicated content disputes, which I sincerely hope Money Emoji will not. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

103. Support - I see no problems with this user that would make them a bad admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
104. Support Not a jerk, has a clue. I wish we stop looking for perfect admins, since we will end up short. The candidate has demonstrated the willingness, need, and sufficient competency to take up an understaffed job at CCI, and should be given the tool. No such user (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
105. Support - Sounds like a good guy. I don't really care about content creation as much as some others do. Personality is king. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

     Support: no concerns, the administrator tools are not for creating content. The retirement message, while over the top, took place under extreme circumstances unlikely to be repeated. – Teratix ₵ 00:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Moved to neutral.

106. Support - I trust the nominators and see no reason to oppose. --Bduke (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
107. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
108. Support - demonstrated need for the tools. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
109. Support for copyright work, despite the reasonable issues raised by opposers. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
110. Support for needed work in the rather thankless frontier of copyvio cleanup. We need all kinds of specialists to build an encyclopedia for the world. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
111. Strong support can be trusted, clear use case --DannyS712 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
112. Support - Competent and trusted editor, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 10:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
113. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
114. Support Copyright and laws are complicated. All edits submitted to Wikipeia is meant to be copyright free. This person seems to have a lot of experience with doing so. Not that good at content creation, but you also need some cleanup person on wikipedia too. THis person is perfect for just that on the subject on copyright. Can I Log In (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
115. Support Dede2008 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
116. Support Smart, successful organizations recruit and retain senior staff who possess diverse skill sets.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
117. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
118. Support: As one who's very mature, but no fun, I appreciate the levity in Money emoji's work. Copyright is no joke and we need people who take it seriously and can wade into it and figure things out. Having the admin bit will help him in his work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
119. Support Demonstrated need for the tools, works in a necessary area that is woefully under-patrolled, and shows a good appreciation of policies and standards. The oppose arguments concerning maturity seems to be making mountains out of run-of-the-wiki editing frustrations, which the nominee has accepted the need to keep in check if they get the bit. The content creation argument is just plain inapplicable to the highly-necessary gnoming that is the nominee's forte. This is one of those times that "fails my criteria" arguments say more about the person making them than the person they're being made about. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
120. Support - The nomination statements encourage me and the opposes failed to sway me. Killiondude (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
121. Support. (Moved from "Oppose".) I'm moving my vote here to counteract ThatMontrealIP's "oppose" vote. Please see my comments in the "Oppose" section for further details; counteracting that vote supersedes any concerns that I have with the candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
122. Support in spite of the oppose camps using criteria that is possibly not completely reliable. ミラP 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
123. Support Per work at CCI, where we are certainly not overflowing with volunteers. I've perlustrated the history of the candidate and didn't find anything worrisome. I've seen the concerns about content creation, activity and retirement message but the former is not a dealbreaker and the other two are too long ago to be dealbreakers IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
124. Support, just about, and I've mulled over the !vote direction for some days and admins are needed. Nominated by two who are generally not jerks. Seems to show elements of immaturity which may be a concern, but has shown some eloquence and willingness to work through the mistakes that they will make. In my personal opinion should lose the CCI sortbit from the signature for admin work.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
125. Weak support - The user hasn't created many mainspace articles, but their work with copyright cleanup is very plausible. Jacob Indoreil (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
126. Support. With two good noms and plenty of awesome support above, how can this candidate not make a good admin? No brainer! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
127. Support. Working with copyright problems and being supported by Diannaa is a combination that's hard to beat. I'll also mention I find some of the opposes surprising — not going to name names, people can oppose over whatever they like afaic — but I hope people coming here take the trouble to follow these links, which are being complained of, because I have no idea what's meant to be wrong with them. On the contrary, the remark about Drmies here is pretty witty IMO. Useful? I guess not. Funny? Definitely. Might there be some misunderstanding? I mean, that's a compliment to Drmies. The now famous ragequit is unimpressive, yes, but it's from 2018, so I don't care. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC).
128. Happy to support. Will make a fine addition.El_C 16:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
129. Support. I see where the opposers are coming from, but I also think criteria have become inflexible over time. Here we have a candidate wanting to work in a very important area, and they seem to have picked up quite some experience there. Not really concerned about maturity---if it is still lacking someone will certainly remind them. --Pgallert (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
130. Support Given emojis apparent age I am willing to extend a lot of forgiveness for the retirement message which is the biggest red flag I see (as a general concern for maturity with the toolset). There's a defined need for the tools and in that area I see them being a large net positive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
131. Support. Solid work on copyright, and admin tools will allow them to do a lot more. There's some valid concerns raised in the oppose section, but not enough to convince me this wouldn't be a net positive. the wub "?!" 22:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
132. Support For the work at CCI. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
133. Support as we need more gnomish admins. schetm (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
134. Support Will do a fine job. Not concerned about Rhododendron's diff - we have all had bad days, which were immensely frustrating and accompanied hyperbolic outbursts, which would seem silly in the long run. ∯WBG^converse 05:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
135. Support - I don't see any issues of current concern that would move me to oppose. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
136. Support – More article creation would be great, but that certainly is not the be all and end all. Impressed with their copyright work, and good to see somewhat of a presence on AIV (hope that continues). Good luck Money emoji! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
137. Support -- user definately a plus for the project. I was tempted to be neutral based on some of the inexpereince arguments, which shows up in some of the answers like to Q11 where a naive use of "truth" is used and could potentially get the user in trouble in some topics. I also think failing a RfA can teach more in the long run. But when I catch myself considering raising the bar so high, I come to my senses and "no big deal" prevails. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
138. Support" @ Jason Quinn: Well said! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
139. We need more editors with copyright experience. Those opposing for supposed lack of content creation seems to be looking at numbers and percentages and not delving deeper into Money emoji's contributions. Being able to resolve copyright issues is evidence in itself that he cares for article content and is knowledgeable enough about it to confidently fix said copyright issues. Other opposition seems to be trivial or consist of personal attacks against Money emoji, such as those that imply he has narcissistic tendencies. It sucks that a qualified person wanting to volunteer to become an administrator on a website is held to a higher standard than the far-right "leaders" who currently rule the West. Acalamari 15:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

     Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Donald Trump might make a good Signpost comic piece, but I think we all know how it would end. No content-building experierience, & seems never to have read WP:CIVIL. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

     I'm amazed that isn't a deleted page after an April Fool's Day joke or something! Acalamari 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

     @Acalamari: Maybe this April 1? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

140. Support. Thoughtful and good answers to all of the questions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
141. Support. Reasonably impressive user with an appreciably good grasp of copyright cleanup. I don't see the comments about content creation as particularly important enough to sway my opinion. Hiàn (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
142. Support Decent candidate who could use the tools. Likely net positive. Pichpich (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
143. Support I was on the fence for a while on this one; like many of the opposers, I have concerns about Money emoji's maturity, and immature admins reflect poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. That being said, he's a productive editor in an area of the project that definitely needs the help, and he has legitimate use for the tools. The maturity concerns aren't terribly recent, and if this RfA fails he's the sort of editor I'd expect to continue improving and editing productively for a year or two and ultimately pass a second RfA with considerable support. I'm willing to take the chance and make him an admin now rather than later. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
144. Support Is he inexperienced as an editor? Yes. Do his answers and "retirement" raise concerns about his maturity? Sure. But, will his access to the mop in a much-needed area make Wikipedia better overall? Certainly. userdude 00:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
145. Support per TheCatalyst3 (except as to maturity concerns). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
146. Support Good on copyright issues, which is needed for our community. My thought is if I can support in a year, I should be willing to support now. --Enos733 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
147. Support Great answers for the questions and is nominated by two very respected users. A very dedicated and passionate user who will be a positive asset in refining wikipedia. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
148. Strong Support And from what I can see, the majority of opposes are stemming from the arbitrary retirement statement made by Money. I just don't see how we can judge from a single statement that was made under duress by them is indicative or predictive of their character or future actions. I also don't think experience is determined solely by an edit count either. A somewhat valid point I saw brought up was the AfD that he requested, but from his own statement, it seems as if it was a simple misjudgement of speedy deletion criteria. His responses to Q5, Q7 and Q14 reaffirm my belief that he has understood the criteria. Admins are far from perfect, and that has been proven time and time again, but I'm just failing to let one single misjudgement overshadow the excellent judgement this candidate has maintained in a variety of situations. The quality of work done by the candidate is excellent, and I am more than happy to support. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
149. Support Why not. Conlinp (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
150. Support Willing to work in an area (copyright) that many of us find headache-incuding. User page rant was long ago and we can't hold it against him forever. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
151. Support Finally here. We need admins who are specialists in their fields. I am against citing "content creation requirement" when it comes to RfA. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 10:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
152. Support They no doubt have significant experience with copyright and are very competent in the area. If they are willing to do work in this area and that work is improved by the admins tools they will be a net positive. While there are real concerns I do not find them convincing, more content creation would be nice, but not essential and the retirement incident is old enough for me to disregard it with them clearly realizing the problem. If you become an admin I would also encourage you to review your account security and consider enabling 2FA since an admin account getting compromised can have very serious consequences. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
153. Support. Can edit. Mature and knowledgeable. Most AfD !votes are to delete, but the match with results is good. Points made in opposition are not killers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No content creation to speak of: one article. My belief is that an administrator needs to protect content and content creators - we are an encyclopedia. Experience creating content is important IMO. The candidate also has an 82% delete !voting record at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Just curious; do expansions from redirect count towards your articles created metric? 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Yeah, I suppose those can count. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Oppose, reluctantly, for failing my criteria - which is a really low bar, IMHO. On the discussion of content, I do not believe every administrator needs to be a scribe as we need techies and people willing to do tedious tasks. Delete vote % is generally meaningless to me, I assume good faith on the part of the majority of the nominations at AfD. But, while an edit count above 10K doesn't move me, I would like to see at least that. Maybe just a little too soon? Ifnord (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   Although you did say that it will not move you, I have now hit 10k edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Insufficient content contributions; a few stubs on songs expanded from redirects is not enough to judge, and I feel the nomination has overegged the editor's experience in this area. Some of the recent archived talk-page discussions also make it clear that even in the area of copyright the editor is not yet 100%; eg the discussion on close paraphrasing in S. H. Ervin; where precisely to draw the close-paraphrasing line is an area that it helps to have experience from the article-creation side, in my opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) ETA: As this RfA progresses, I'm also increasingly concerned about judgement and maturity issues. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

   Just wondering, what should I have done differently in the S. H. Ervin case? Archive for reference. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

5. Oppose Nominating just barely a month after they have been named an ArbCom clerk is too soon. He should have been working longer to get more of a track record. The account has been registered for less than two years (I think the answers to Q4 & Q8 are a bit shoddy, but I will assume good faith, and the rules say you have to reveal your past accounts only to the ArbCom). Most edits have few bytes in them. There is the burnout episode referenced in Q10, which shouldn't be held against you because it happens to the best of us, but it makes the short-ish Wikipedia career somewhat volatile. Money emoji seems like a laid-back person, which I would be more than happy to see in an admin, but this is premature. --Pudeo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose lack of article creation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Pudeo and the numerous comments to opposers. Nihlus 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose – Sorry, but this has to improve and only time can help in that cause. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose – Sorry, but I've never supported anyone with so few edits and such a short time on the project. Another year and I would consider it. Deb (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   Deb, don't mind me but you passed RfA in the yesteryears via a mailing list where the expectations from a candidate would not have the edits or tenure of one "Money emoji", let alone more than one. Even if we let that be with a "it's a different place now", is it really fair to assess them on parameters such as edit count and tenure which mostly have literally no impact on administrator's output, let alone on parameters that you yourself would have not expected from yourself in 2003? I totally stand by your criteria but I believe for adminship, all candidates need to be looked at from a wide-ranging perspective and not only a narrow set of ir/relevant parameters. Feel free to clarify further. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   You're correct in thinking that Wikipedia is a different place now - a very different place. Being an admin was relatively simple in 2003 (just as I was then relatively experienced; in the early days, a large proportion of my contributions were new articles created from scratch) and I've had to learn as I went along, not to mention re-learning almost everything two or three times. Yes, the criteria are different now, but I certainly don't agree that "parameters such as edit count and tenure ... have literally no impact on administrator's output". I think those things are quite critical. Deb (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   I understand completely, I'd just rather see you give them a fair hearing where you assess them on more parameters. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   You're implying that I'm being unfair and I resent that. I very rarely oppose RfAs. Deb (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   No worries, you're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine. Just tried to change your mind, and it's alright if you don't want to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

   He's not implying anything, he's calling you out, and he's right. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

10. Oppose Seems like a good editor, but comes off as too green for RfA. I'm not a big fan of how recent that immature retirement outburst was, especially when coupled with the user's already rather scanty tenure. That, when combined with the sloppy representation of content creation during this RfA, gives me enough pause that I can't support this nomination. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Nohomersryan: Hi. Can you kindly provide link to the retirement incident? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    [2] Nohomersryan (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    It's mentioned in Q10 with an explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    Haha, green.. like money. *giggles* –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

11. Regretfully, after consideration I find myself in the oppose column. I think the candidate does a lot of good work, and I can definitely see myself supporting in the future, but I think it's too soon. "Too soon" not because I have some particular standard about content creation or edit count or account age that they will someday meet but because I think they're on a positive trajectory such that the ratio of [evidence of positive contributions and a strong grasp of policies and guidelines] to [concerns] will continue to grow. I came to this with a concern, which I asked about in Q10, relating to submitting an article for GA without having editing it and, far more importantly, a retirement message citing the obnoxious/pretentious/passive-aggressive/arrogant/cringey/annoying/asshole-for-the-hell-of-it personas the mass majority of users on this website. I'm sympathetic to the extent to which real life events can color one's involvement with other hobbies/activities, but we need evidence that admins can manage difficult interactions/users and know how to pull back from stressful situations before telling off "the mass majority of users". IMO give it another 6-12 months (of course, I say that, but this looks likely to pass at this point). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Seems immature and has an inadequate record of accomplishments. Smallchief (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
13. Regretful oppose I agree with Smallchief that the responses to the questions here, as well as Money Emoji's talk page interactions, give an impression of immaturity that do not give me confidence in their ability to be an effective administrator. In addition, while I don't have a specific list of RfA criteria like some other !voters, only ~2000 non-automated edits in mainspace seems a bit low to me. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 23:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

    I'm afraid I haven't seen any evidence of that myself - do you have some examples? The example mentioned earlier in this section - User talk:Money emoji/Archive 6#S. H. Ervin and copyright, ME's reply was brief and possibly terse, but certainly nothing out of the ordinary compared to a typical editor. I tend to have a low tolerance of admins or admin candidates who behave like children. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    I guess I was initially put off by the answer to Q4, which came across as petulant (especially bringing up that their friend had become "quite rude"), the retirement statement was recent enough that it caused me worry, the constant blaming of a "friend" for everything from the recusal to the blanking of the arbcom case requests page, and blaming a bad AfD nom on being "sick, tired, and upset" all give an impression of someone not mature enough to own up to their mistakes. I'm not going to go through their edit history again, but I came across several talk page posts that, while by themselves weren't all that bad, in aggregate gave me pause (such as this unhelpful response and this first interaction with EEng). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

14. Oppose Not much content creation.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
15. Oppose -- I am not comfortable with such little content creation. EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose for full adminship, due to temperament, lack of content creation and lack of experience. If the tools were unbundled, then I would absolutely support. Unfortunately, you are requesting the only possible option: the full toolset. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Bison X: I find this oppose very strange, it reads like an objection to how adminship is structured in general, perhaps it would be more clear if you explained which tools you would trust them with, and which you would not, and why? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Beeblebrox: I oppose the general promotion based on the 3 reasons I gave. I would not be opposed to them having and using the access they mention in Q1: Having the admin tools will let me see hidden revisions (which is extremely helpful for CCI), revdel, and delete pages, all of which are helpful abilities to have while removing copyvios. This is not meant to be a protest vote; I was expanding on my overall oppose so the candidate would know I trust their CCI judgment but it should not be used as a wedge to obtain the whole toolset. Seems like there was another RfA a few years back where a candidate wanted to specialize and said they would not use the tools they were not interested in, and I believe that one failed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for your reply, that's much clearer. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

17. Oppose actual content creation is very weak. Anyone who is going to take actions against content creators needs to understand what it is like to build the encyclopaedia, and this nom doesn't meet my expectation of at least one GA they have made a major contribution to, including steering it through GAN. Claiming the Pizzagate article is massive overreach, 24 edits with 200 bytes added? I recommend doing some actual content creation and coming back in six months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
18. Oppose The candidate seems immature, over-influenced by a mysterious friend, overly-impressed by his own efforts, and over-ambitious as to what he may be able to achieve at CCI. He mentions that one of his best contributions was trying to improve List of NC-17 rated films. Although he has done some useful work on finding references, he did not complete the task and the article is still tagged as having multiple issues. His retirement statement was way over the top. Altogether, I cannot bring myself to support this candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
19. Oppose Content creation is fairly weak, and pointing to some fairly poor efforts as evidence of strong content creation only makes that more of a concern for me. Answers to Q4 and 8 (and, to a lesser extent 6) honestly really bother me; I just can't shake the feeling there's something not quite right there. I'm not sure about temperament and maturity overall, but the retirement statement is a bit of a red flag and it wasn't all that long ago. Hug^syrup 12:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
20. Oppose - the link provided by Rhododendrites is a red flag substantiated by this link. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
21. Oppose: Though I echo the opposition of Cwmhiraeth, my main concern also centers around the lack of content creation, which is, sadly, disqualifying in my view. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
22. Oppose, per Rhododendrites. If this RfA fails, please take the rejection gracefully. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions#Clerks lists only one active non-admin clerk. I'd suggest running for clerk and coming back to RfA with some successful clerking experience under your belt. With regard to the Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, note that many of Blofeld's article creations were done by bot or semi-automated edits pulling content from online databases. These can be evaluated as a group rather than individually; either they are all copyright violations, or none of them are. Evaluating similar automated creations as a package should save you some time. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    Hmmm. In your answer to Q1 above "It would also allow me to clerk at CCI and CP, since only admins and clerks can archive reports; and no new clerks have been appointed for a while"... your response, posted 3 mins. after my oppose !vote. wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    I'll elaborate. CCI was essentially dead before I started helping out. After I finished some investigations, I asked about 4 different times to be appointed a clerk; 1 2 3 4; None of the requests received much response, except from Diannaa, who said "activity at CCI is very low, almost negligible, so the need for clerks is correspondingly low. That's prolly why no one has replied." Since she's essentially the authority when it comes to copyright, and no one else really responded, that basically makes non-admin clerks at CCI completely obsolete. As for my "response" of sorts; I'm trying to not directly respond to opposes in order to not come off as rude; I'm trying to respond more indirectly, as I did here. Your oppose put me in quite the pickle, since it's currently impossible to clerk at CCI. So I thought the best response would be marking the clerk area as historical, since no applications are accepted. But that also comes off as somewhat rude and shady, so I guess I have no choice but to respond. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    "Since there's been no response to your inquiry, I've gone ahead and archived the 4 completed cases for you. Wizardman used to look after the clerking, but he's now retired or semi-retired from Wikipedia." Diannaa 16:21, 25 May 2019 Wizardman is currently active at CCI. Is/was Wizardman the only gatekeeper for deciding who gets to clerk there? wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    Wbm1058, No? I'm honestly not too sure about the process either. Moonriddengirl, MLauba, Psychonaut, and Mkativerata all seem to be the driving force behind appointing people, per Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive 2#Clerk volunteer, Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive 1#Meta talk: Clerking?, Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive 1#CCI Clerkship?, and Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive 2#CCI clerk. But none of them edit in the copyright area anymore, and they're all not very active in general. It just seems like the concept of clerking at CCI died out. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Money emoji: Good investigation, thank you for the links. So, the last clerk appointment was Iazyges, 3 years ago, on 26 February 2017, by one of the three clerks who've gone inactive, leaving Iazyges, who opposed this RfA due to "lack of article creation", the only remaining CCI clerk. At least their oppose is not based on your CCI work, and given that several others active in copyvio work are enthusiastically supporting you here (presumably they would also support your promotion to clerk), I think your bold {{historical}} tagging was premature, and shouldn't have been done without first starting a discussion on the talk page. Please revert that, and follow the instructions: "Users interested in becoming clerks should notify the project at the talk page of CCI for consensus." If there is no longer support for having CCI clerks, then (get consensus to) change the instructions, rather than mark part of them {{historical}}. That template is intended for placement at the top of pages; i.e. use it only to mark the entire contributor copyright investigations project as historical, if the entire project goes inactive. wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    Wbm1058, Removed. I could've sworn I've seen pages with with specific sections labeled historical. I'm not sure how much of a consensus I'll get, given whats left of those who are active at CCI, but I'll try after this rfa ends. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Money emoji: The last time you requested it happened during a time of my inactivity I believe; will comment that I do believe you deserve clerk status, due to your work and experience there; I don't view article creation as being necessary for clerking "privileges" because it doesn't have the associated ability to delete pages like admins can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

    Oppose (Moved from "Neutral".) After reviewing the comments made thus far in the RFA, this looks like a WP:NOTYET/WP:NOTQUITEYET situation. My primary concern at this point (besides the low edit count and the age of the account) is that the nominee seems to have a breadth of experience in one specific aspect of Wikipedia, and needs to branch out more and participate in more of the various functions of Wikipedia. I really think I am more on the "WP:NOTQUITEYET" team rather than "WP:NOTYET"; I could see myself supporting this candidate in 6 months if they start branching out from the tunnel vision-like small batch of fields they have participated in thus far. With all that being said, if this nomination fails and the nominee chooses not to branch out from their current stomping grounds, since it does seem like they are doing fairly well with what they are doing now, I hope that they stick around and continue to do what they are doing in a non-admin capacity since it seems like for the most part, the community is happy with the participation the nominee has done in the place(s) they have. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    (Moved to "support".) Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

23. Oppose per Pudeo and Q4. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
24. Oppose on several grounds: (1) maturity issues raised by several others above relating, among other things, to over-the-top retirement statement; (2) reluctance to give full tool set to an editor lacking substantive content creation; and (3) concerns about AfD nominations, including 8 of their last 24 ending in "keep" decisions. I inquired about the third issue at Q5 and was not very satisfied with the response re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War (nominated just eight months ago) admitting they were "very sick, tired, and upset when I wrote that (I had just driven 5 hours to pick my sister up from Niagara Falls), and mistunderstood [sic] policy." I do appreciate the honesty, but question the judgment of making ill-advised AfDs when "sick, tired, and upset." This reinforces concerns about maturity raised by others. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
25. Oppose per the diff cited by Rhododendrites, which is still recent enough to be concerning. Lepricavark (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
26. Oppose because of the message cited by Rhododendrites. Administrators should have restraint, and that message demonstrate that this user fails at this fundamental requirement. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
27. Oppose Content creation? BLP writing? AfD? Zero for three, though working on copyrights is good, I find it insufficient for full Admin desires. Collect (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
28. Oppose, purely due to it being too soon. I have nothing negative to say and believe that I will support this candidate at the next nomination, given that it comes after another year or so of productive editing. Jacona (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
29. Sorry. Per Pudeo & Rhododendrites. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
30. Oppose I do appreciate the editor's editing efforts. That said, an editor can certainly leave retirement messages like this old one on ME's user page: "I will happily leave this dying site filled with assholes". Everyone feels that way at some point, but it is the opposite of the kind of demeanour required of an admin. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    ...Sorry, but even though I'm in the "Oppose" column myself, I cannot even fathom why a retirement message that was posted almost 2 years ago should affect any judgement for the nominee to become an administrator. If anything, this just shows that the nominee managed to recompose themselves, get back to Wikipedia, and either initiate or resume contributions. In fact, after seeing a retirement message like that and then seeing the nominee becoming an active Wikipedia editor again, props to them ... in fact, so much props that I'm considering moving my vote to the "support" column just to counteract this bogus oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    ...You know, I'm going to go ahead and move my "oppose" vote to "support" now. I mean, YOLO. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    Live dangerously once in a while!  — Amakuru (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    By my count seven other opposes above mentioned the same talk page diff. Anyway, I respect everyone's right to move their !votes around as they see fit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    If so, fair enough. This was the first one I noticed. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

31. Oppose per my criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
32. Oppose Lack of content creation. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
33. Oppose I really prefer to be supportive of candidates, but the obnoxious insults in that link Rhododendrites shared was difficult to ignore. I recognize that some people on this site don't always play well with others, but the bad apples on the site don't define it. That type of post is not the way to solve problems. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
34. Oppose This is a close one for me and it's hard to find myself on this side, but I share some of the maturity and experience concerns raised above. I think some more substantive time on the site and a re-run in 6-12 months time would make it much easier to support. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
35. oppose I had watchlisted them when they were new. I have also seen them elsewhere on enwiki. I am not sure when did I remove them from the watchlist. But wnen I removed them, my opinion about them still was "cildish/immature". Their response to their own request at SPI clerk special:diff/865232388, and subsequent conversation with Bbb33 was sort of odd. It was not a long a time ago either. My guess? They were thinking of it as a staircase to RfA. After that they went with the copyright, and now clerkship at arbcom. Looking at most of the supports, one can say it worked. But thats just an opinion/guess/doubt that I have. Anyways, I am basing my oppose similar to the opposes above: the candidate doesnt have much content creation. Like Puedo said above, there are tenure issues. The account age is not much, minus the retirement/inactivity. There are many other issues raised by other opposers which make me uncomfortable to support, and they are many to list in my vote, so I am going to say: also per other oppose votes. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
36. Oppose - very little content creation. In fact I found it quite weird to see how little the candidate's statement "... and carried the torch for articles like Ahed Tamimi and John B. Magruder ..." lived up to reality of those articles.--Staberinde (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
37. Oppose "The unessecary arbcom/ani scuffles are pathetic and cringey, and the fact that waste so much time is embarrassing to all involved." While this is largely true, it's somewhat ironic coming from an arbcom clerk who primarily sticks to drama boards [3]. This is also a concern. Calidum 12:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
38. Oppose at this time. We need admins, especially those experienced in copyright, so I hoped to support. But ultimately in admin candidates I look for temperament, wisdom, and maturity. Content creation and humbleness help. (Relevant adminny experience also beneficial, but less important that the previous items.) Not enough evidence of all that yet, especially given a couple cringe-worthy, though isolated, episodes of the contrary as noted by others. Sorry. Martinp (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
39. Oppose, relucantly, in part, per @Espresso Addict and Pudeo:'s comments, but mainly because I've never had any interactions with the editor. I can overlook the edit diff identified by Rhododendrites, but it just seems wrong, to me to promote this editor after CASSIOPEIA withdrew her nomination. The editor will probably win support, but I'm adding this a procedural oppose to leave it to the 'crats as a second set of eyes. The editor seems to do very good work, particularly in the area of copyright investigations, and I do hope the editor continues to do that work, but I'm going with my gut here that it doesn't feel right, not yet, particularly in light of some of the candidate's less-than-satisfactory and forthcoming responses. Doug Mehus T·C 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    You are opposing because you have not interacted with them and because somebody else withdrew their RfA? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    No, not because of the former, per se. As I said, this is a procedural oppose to send it to the 'crats to review when the level of support is said to be between 65-75%. Doug Mehus T·C 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    Every vote at RfA should be dependent on the assessment of the candidate, not because crats should assess it, not because someone else's vote was terrible, not because the circus is in town. You judge the candidate and candidate alone, the rest is immaterial. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    I've seen a lot of outrageous oppose votes in my day, but this is absurd. Just absolutely mental. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

    Juliancolton, QEDK, and Foxnpichu, you're right, part of my remarks were a poor rationale, so I've struck that portion. I've amended my rationale. I do think that it can still be beneficial to have the bureaucrats deliberate and give the candidate a greater detail of scrutiny, particularly in light of the number, and weight, of the opposing arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 21:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

40. Oppose per Cwmhiraeth's and Ahecht comments; lacks self awareness. Drmab (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

    @Drmab: you sure? I think we dont want someone self aware again. Especially not after this special:diff/83573345 (the edit summary). —usernamekiran (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

41. Oppose with regret because I believe the nominee is doing generally good work for the encyclopedia, and I encourage them to continue. The weakness in creation of mainspace article content is a significant concern for me, as is the relatively short tenure by current standards. Perhaps I could overlook those things. But the most significant issues for me are the bizarre retirement statement of 19 month ago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War less than eight months ago. For me, these incidents plus the other lesser factors raise such serious concerns about the nominee's qualifications and good judgment on an ongoing basis that I cannot support at this time. I am sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
42. Oppose. Major concerns about immaturity, inexperience, dearth of content creation, bizarrely dramatic and extremely hostile and aggressive "retirement", and overall lack of need for the toolkit. This RFA could appear to be hat-collecting and.or self-aggrandizement. The retirement message full of hostility demonstrates that the candidate lacks the temperament to be an administrator. We don't give out the tools piecemeal (if we did, we could give him the copyright tools), so this is a no-go for me. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
43. Oppose I'd be willing to overlook the retirement message as being a thing of the past, but comments made in this RfA suggest that there are still judgment issues. That having been said, the candidate's copyright work is excellent, and I would implore him to stick around. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
44. Oppose per Softlavender. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
45. Switching to oppose given the retirement message and my own further thoughts on content creation. Contrary to what some of the others might say, it's no longer a done deal that this RfA will pass, so let's wait and see what the 'crats say, and cast our !votes from our own judgments and not with regards to that of others. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
46. Oppose – The lack of content creation is my main concern, however I also find the total lack of participation at the Media copyright questions Noticeboard (aside from one post with a question) troubling, especially for a candidate running on their record of copyright work. Step up the participation there, and the content creation, and I would likely support next time. Mojoworker (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
47. Oppose – The candidate looked really interesting for his contributions on a very narrow field and his number of edits on a very short time untill I looked at [[4]]. Usually I see a persons growth over time looking at their edit history. I know the policy but the user forgot his old username? I mean he forgot all the pages he edited? Now I'm all skeptical and not even sure if it's one person. I would wait until I see a genuine person. Sorry.Anu Raj (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
48. Oppose – Per much of the above Just a general feeling of unease. Nigej (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
49. Oppose per Cullen and others above. Just not enough content creation and the attempts to fluff up what is there are concerning. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
50. Oppose – Per Nigej. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
51. I agree with Softlavender. Money emoji, I'm sorry, but I don't think you're ready for the mop yet. Salvio 20:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
52. Oppose Lack of content creation, that hostile retirement message along with a lack of judgement at AfDs ([5], [6]).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
53. Oppose retirement message. Unnacceptable. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
54. Oppose per the retirement message; I've been there (both having the loss and the frustrations over WP), having an adminship will not be good for either Money_emoji or Wikipedia considering the stress of the position. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
55. As well as the concerns about lack of content creation and temperament, which I share, I also haven't seen any evidence of this user's ability to evaluate the consensus in a discussion. Which means I don't have any basis to trust them to make the calls at XFD, RFC or AN/I; and that means I'm not content with them having access to the block and delete tools. As always, the fact that the community promotes sysops but can't demote them forces me to be ultraconservative about this.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
56. Oppose. The retirement tirade was a couple of years ago now, and people change. However I have a feeling of unease about him, and although he's capable, I would prefer he come back in maybe a year's time.Moriori (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
57. Oppose per concerns raised by Rhododendrites, Softlavender et al. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
58. Oppose - his experience (good as it is as far as it goes) is too narrow and I share above concerns about temperament and maturity.Ingratis (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
59. Weak Oppose Sorry. per concerns raised by Rhodoendrites. As well as not much CSD work. I thought and thought about this. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
60. Oppose per Cullen, Softlavender and others above. Felida97 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
61. OpposeI share Ahecht's concern and particularly about the lack of non-automated edits. I would probably consider supporting in 6-12 months.Praxidicae (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
62. Oppose Calidum's comment (oppose #37) mirrors my thoughts exactly. Also, no offense, but adminship isn't for new users. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
63. Reluctantly oppose. I'll probably support you in a year's time if you remind me. DS (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
64. Oppose Editing for less than two years isn't much of a track record to lay claim to be an administrator, and this user hasn't done much other than pursue copyright from the beginning. This is sterling work, but he's already demonstrated the ability to make a valuable contribution here without needing the wider range of tools available to an admin. Having run into an admin recently who fell short on maturity and civility, I fear that accepting someone without full confidence in their record of interactions can have long run repercussions on other users; once an admin, people can behave as they like. I'm concerned by some of this user's earlier talk page contributions and the incidence of vandalism that he blamed on a friend supposedly jumping on his PC whilst he was out of the room. Everyone makes mistakes, but this nomination comes too early as per Calidum and others MapReader (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
65. Oppose. Sorry, I can't support this either. It has not been made sufficiently clear precisely how the copyright crew would benefit greatly from this specific user having administrator rights and tools, and the overly extravagant signature and relatively brief editing history combine to create a strong impression of immaturity with more emphasis on appearance than substance (however unfair that might or might not be). Other editors have explored additional reasons, several of which are substantive, but these two were enough to keep me in the NO column. – Athaenara ✉ 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
66. Oppose. Limited content creation.--Catlemur (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Normally I would strenuously oppose an editor at RFA with this content contribution profile (they actually had only 24 edits and 0.7% authorship at the GA Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so there is actually very negligible content creation here, in contrast to the nomination statement, to an extent that I find alarming at RFA). Nonetheless, for those with demonstrated work in the under-staffed area of copyvio, I'm willing to adjust my usual stance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Well, here we are in discretionary territory, so I will update my position to help the 'crat discussion.

   Had I come to this discussion three days ago for the first time, and encountered all of the maturity concerns, I would have been an oppose. I don't agree that the retirement is a problem, because it was long ago and it's not something out of the ordinary for the stressful place that Wikipedia can be. I do agree that we don't have good evidence supporting maturity to have the tools, and share the concerns expressed by Ealdgyth and others (that clerkship and CCI could be viewed as a shortcut to adminship without having put in the necessary time on content creation). Are we setting a precedent for CCI to be a route to adminship even if all other typical-for-RFA standards are not met?

   But the real reason I would be an Oppose today has to do with mulling over this GA business as positioned by the nominators. At first, it bothered me (a lot) that the nominators did not do their homework, and I felt it unfair to penalize the nominee for their mistake. But the longer I think about this, the more it raises a character/integrity issue for me. We are !voting on whether we trust the candidate. That this candidate accepted a nomination, over a false statement, may speak only to awareness or maturity, rather than honesty, but it speaks to something that I find very troubling. The candidate accepted the nomination days after the nominators made the inaccurate representations of GA, and then specifically mentioned the PizzaGate GA in answers to the earliest questions. My honesty/integrity/character/maturity red flags are going off over this, and although I hope nominators will take greater care in the future, this one really rests on Money emoji more than the nominators.

   The one thing keeping me in the neutral column is Diannaa's support, as she does the heavy lifting at CCI; I would feel much better if her support gave more detailed reasoning, and she could really assure that she knows this candidate well enough to help me and others overcome these concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

   Hi Sandy, In my interactions with the candidate I've seen a lot of maturity and an ability to defuse potentially volatile situations when dealing with other editors. He seems to have a pretty good grip on the copyright rules, is open to learning more stuff, and is quick to admit it when he makes a mistake. The lack of content creation is not a deal-breaker for me (I even to this day have only myself created about 5 articles from scratch, the five on this template, if you're curious, so that's never going to be a deal-breaker for me). I think one of the things that got Money Emoji thinking about RFA was the lack of clerks at CCI that could help with archiving the cases he was completing there. The page was practically ready to be marked as historical until he showed up and started clearing the backlog. (Activity there has since picked up, with a couple admins helping out with both examining the cases and archiving the completed tasks.) Later, he was quick to offer to help out at Copypatrol when I was concerned about the scant number of participants and what would happen if I couldn't edit Wikipedia any more. (Here's where we spoke about it). Setting up the Blofeld copyright cleanup drive was his idea, and all his documentation and interactions there have been completely neutrally worded and even upbeat, in what could have turned into a volatile drama fest. I am not concerned about his comments and behaviour at the retirement-time; when people are ill or depressed they often say and do things they wouldn't otherwise. Hopefully next time he's experiencing similar issues he will stay away from Wikipedia until he is able to comport himself in a more professional manner.

   On the negative side, while he did help get the GA promotion and worked on the FA candidacy, his contributions to the Pizzagate article were not major. The nominator should not have said that, and the nominee could have/should have corrected him. And the business of saying there was an account before this one and later saying there wasn't – I was confused and disappointed by that, as it seems evasive somehow. It's not enough for me to change my vote.— Diannaa (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks so much, Diannaa; this detailed feedback helps me feel better about staying neutral, rather than switching to Oppose, which is where I would normally tend per my views on significant content creation and concerns about the GA issue. Thanks again, staying neutral, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

   I looked at the user's contribs, and they seem good, but I'm not going to lean one direction or the other in case there's something I don't know about... King of Scorpions 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Changed my mind. Re-reviewed contribs and decided to support. King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   Voting neutral is not a waiting ground, it is for people who have performed a careful assessment and cannot lean either way. And in case there's something you think you don't know yet, assume good faith. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

2. Good point from Sandy. I wouldn't blame a candidate because their nominator erred, but, really, @Ritchie333: do you stand by your suggestion that authoring 0.7% of an article is a major contribution. ——SN54129 08:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   Edits like this are not major heavy lifting, granted, but as the edit summary says, it was a good-faith attempt to improve the article to FAC, even though it was premature. Anyway, that wasn't really the point I was going to make, which was rather that Money emoji isn't simply a one trick pony who can do copyright investigations and nothing else. I would focus on the CCI cleanup work he has done, Dr Blofeld's is one such example, and the conversation that started me thinking "might be a good admin candidate" was this one regarding a cleanup of Elisa Rolle's work. Like TheGracefulSlick, the community seems to be divided on Elisa, but they did good content work and we should try and keep hold of that while managing the other difficulties they fell into, for the good of the project. And like Sandy, I am prepared to trade-off a track record of GAs / FAs against a specialist skill that not many admins have; in this case, copyright cleanup. I tried to have a go at Elisa's and flippin' heck, it was tedious. But somebody has to do it - as the message says at the top of the edit window, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I understand the candidate and nominators' case for needing the tools ("revdel ... while removing copyvios" is definitely a sentence that shows the candidate knows what he's asking for) but "I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance" worries me that the candidate will burn himself out before he begins... Deryck C. 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   Don't know too much about this editor, but now I'm concerned that they are going to respond to almost all votes in the "Oppose" section. I'll just park it here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   (Moved to "Oppose".) Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

   (...and now, moved to "Support".) Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

4. I'm not overly impressed by some of the answers, particularly #4. On the other hand, I am not bothered in the slightest by the "resignation statement", and - more importantly - fighting copyvios is important work which is made easier if the admin tools are available. As I find myself with no strong conviction towards either supporting or opposing I declare myself neutral. --kingboyk (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
5. Neutral.This is probably one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make in well over 400 RfA votes. Wikipedia desperately needs people to work at CCI, (COIN is also a very important area and one often leads to the other), but single purpose RfA don't generally go down too well with the community and the tools are probably not going to be further unbundled any time soon. I don't often vote 'oppose' and probably I'm even less frequently in the 'neutral' section, but I'm really on the edge here. With the greatest respect for the nominators (who are also friends, but I'm not letting that cloud my judgment), some things can come to light during the course of an RfA that they did not weigh significantly or may not even have been aware of; the George Ruban RfA was such an example - one which I nominated but lost. The outburst referred to by Rhododendrites is something many of us, including me, may have wished to have said at some time or another, but if you make a statement like that while you are an admin, you'll be at Arbcom before you wake up the next day in your time zone, for making a PA at an albeit vague and non-identifiable group of people (although according to Jehochman A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity.) So fairly recent statements like that do not instill confidence that it won't happen again, particularly if you are an admin who chooses to work in the trenches where such people will come out of the woodwork at any opportunity to attack you to the point you loose your cool or burn out. In addition to the above, my criteria - often referred to as my laundry list is in fact one of the least demanding sets of conditions, but they are not met. Many highly experienced users, including admins, have voiced their opposition to this RfA and made legitimate rationales. I can't vote either way. If the bid for the bit fails, I hope ME will not be too disappointed and accuse the community of an unjust consensus. If it passes, his work will be invaluable in the areas he wants to be active, and I hope he will take on board the comments of the oposers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

   To give credit where due, that quotation attributed to me is a paraphrase of something Bishonen said, probably more than once. There’s a difference between a personal attack, and an untargeted expression of frustration such a cursing. I suppose there’s also something halfway such as an attack on a group (eg, “all you administrators are wingnuts”). Although these other things aren’t personal attacks, they could be detrimental depending on circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

6. I reviewed this RfA to affirm my support, but found I could not. SandyGeorgia's comments regarding the candidate's claim of Pizzagate as a GA are particularly persuasive; in fact, the candidate's authorship percentage is lower than Monkbot. Particularly given the candidate's noted weakness in content creation, this feels less than honest. However, it's a bit harsh on the candidate to switch completely so late in the proceedings, so I will go here. – Teratix ₵ 09:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• I hate to nitpick, but the candidate says they started in March 2018, and Tony says it was March 2019 —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fat-finger :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• If this is the best example of content creation Richie, best not to big it up. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• I want to address some of the complaints about "lack of content creation". From a quick search, I can see that Money emoji is the significant contributor to, amongst others, Guinness World Record: The Videogame, Carousel (Travis Scott song), EOE: Eve of Extinction, Stargazing (Travis Scott song) and Zuu. Anyway, "content creation" as a term in itself is somewhat misleading - after all, a paid editor writing hedge fund spam is "creating content" but we waste no time in dragging them up by their boots and telling them not to hit the door on the way out. Part of the problem with searching through ME's stats is, as you might expect, the majority of mainspace edits are removing copyvios. Content removal is still content work if it makes the article better and more in alignment with our core policies. Significantly, I see comments such as this one on Catherine Sulem; "Feel guilty about butchering this womans bio, but copyvio from: https://cms.math.ca/Prix/citations/kn1998.pdf". Yes, it's not nice to have to gut a biography of a woman when there's a core grass roots project trying to not do this in order to readdress systemic bias, but as long as we are "the FREE encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this course of action is correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Removing copyright infringing or unverifiable claims is indeed content work. However, I don't think it's quite content creation. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing my experience but I find it much easier to remove/merge/edit content than to sit down and write new content which requires me to find good sources, read them, figure out what's important, and then paraphrase that. To me the links you provided to those four pages are indeed content creation in a way Sulem is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Very few editors want to tackle Dr. Blofeld's copyvio backlog. Money emoji has done a good job of trying to close it down while emphasising that Blofeld is one of our most prolific editors. Similarly, when I went through a phase of improving a lot of Led Zeppelin articles to GA a while back, I had to start Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Edelmand because he had plagiarised many of the Zep articles from books I owned and I noticed exact matches . For example : this edit on Led Zeppelin IV, or User_talk:Fram/Archive_36#Edelmand and copyright violations where I cited this edit on Led Zeppelin III that had sat in a plagiarised stated for almost a decade. Plagiarism and copyright violations are serious issues, as they make a mockery of our "free encyclopedia tag". Then we have Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles, which has been ongoing for almost ten years. We badly need editors who want to work in this area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We certainly do need more editors who like emoji work in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 FWIW I find it much easier to create from scratch than to edit someone else's work. We each have our own strengths. I'm not disagreeing with you about what's easiest for you, just saying maybe we should allow each contributor to contribute in the areas they're best at and most interested in. IMO the reason for requiring content creation is to ensure an admin understands content creation and its challenges well enough to be helpful to content creators. If a person is civil and helpful and useful in at least one important area, do they really need to be content creators too? --valereee (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely not on team "need content creation in order to be a sysop" but am respectful of those who are. My bigger qualm, such that there is one, is that removing copyvio material is content creation which I think is different than editing others work - which I agree poses its own challenges. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't see how anyone can deal with close paraphrasing issues without having tried to create properly fleshed-out articles within the rules. All content creation is on a tightrope between copyvio/close paraphrasing on the one side & original research/unverified material on the other; until one has tried to walk that tightrope – particularly to develop higher-quality articles – one can't understand how the close paraphrasing rule works in practice. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, I hope I don't seem argumentative, but I guess I don't follow. Those seem like two completely different skills to me. I totally can see how someone could be great at checking copyvio but terrible at creating content from scratch in English. Maybe that's because I find creation fun and easy, and I find copyvio-checking the opposite of fun, to the point I know I could never become good at it? Please understand I'm totally willing to accept that other people have a different opinion on the importance of content creation from my own, and I respect those opinions. It's not that I don't consider content creation important, I'm primarily a content creator myself. --valereee (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: See what you think of the content removed at S. H. Ervin versus this source. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, well, to me it looks like an editor made a not-ideal correction, another editor questioned it at the first editor's talk, and the first editor agreed it was an overcorrection and added the info back in a way that was less of a close paraphrase. I think what you're saying is that someone who was a more experienced content creator would have seen from the start that the problematic content needed rewriting rather than correcting the close paraphrase by removing any of the bits of information, all of which were important? (This discussion is becoming quite long, should it move to the talk?) --valereee (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• For those of you who believe administrators must have significant content creation experience, do you also believe that administrators should have significant copyvio experience? ¶ [Added 18 minutes after my initial post]: I ask this question not to be "confrontational" or the like, but because I don't know much about administrators' work and want to better understand priorities for nominees (in terms of their background and experience).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• First, I'm not sure I agree with how the question is phrased, since we may all have differences around the word "significant". In my case, I will support someone who has "way beyond the normal amount" of content creation even if they haven't worked the typical areas of AFD, CFD, etc, while I won't usually support any editor at RFA who hasn't demonstrated enough content creation to understand the basics. There is almost NO content creation here, which is becoming more of a concern to me as more issues arise, but I still believe we need all the help we can get in the Copyvio realm, and I hope that Money's nominators and supporters intend to keep a close on eye on their work as they gain experience, and I hope that MoneyEmoji will take these concerns on board and hope to not see them weighing in on content issues at ANI or using the tools outside of copyvio until they gain more experience. To your question on copyvio experience, I've been editing 15 years, and still can't wrap my head around the complicated instructions at COPYVIO, so again, I can't answer your question as phrased. I would just say I'm glad for all the help we can get in that area, and I think the answer to your question in my case is "no". But building significant content helps one understand the difficulties in paraphrasing correctly; I learned a new trick from Diannaa just this month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Adding that I feel a specific problem in this particular nomination (regarding the GA representation made by the nominators) should be separately addressed at Talk:RFA once this nom closes. One would expect experienced RFA nominators to take greater care in vetting candidates, but we are where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Markworthen, my view would be that creating content requires a significant understanding of the copyright/close paraphrasing policy, without necessitating work specifically on copyright violations. At least some of the admin tasks relating to copyright appear fairly straightforward though I admit I don't do a lot of that work. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'll note that, while I would like admins to have done just a bit of copyright work, it is not essential and I would not oppose them if they had not done any. It can be quite the difficult area. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

With reference to the oppose by Bison X, I think it's about time we knocked on the head opposes because of concerns about being granted "the whole toolset". It's an untenable argument because admins gain the ability to edit fully-protected templates and modules, and yet not 1 in 10 admin candidates demonstrates any ability in that area. If we took notice of the "whole toolset" oppose argument, we'd hardly ever have anyone pass RfA. We don't grant adminship to editors because they have demonstrated expertise in every part of the toolset, but because we trust them to use the tools they are granted wisely and cautiously. That's what RfA should be assessing, and anything else is superfluous. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The purpose of RFA is primarily to sshow that the editor has a level head and knows the ropes. Nobody knows every single aspect of adminship inside out, but the hope is that people start gradually branching out into other areas than those they're familiar with, to fill voids left as veteran admins depart. And with a successful RFA under their belt, we've said we trust them to do that sensibly and for the good of the Wiki and the community. That's why I'm also quite sceptical of unbundling in general. Giving people only a few tools means that they never get to try out and learn any of the others.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a trust issue, but imo it is perfectly reasonable to state that while, based on evidence available, one trusts Editor A to perform task B, enough evidence to trust them with tasks C–Z has yet to be provided. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a known fact that 10 admins out of 10 had no experience editing the MediaWiki namespace on this site before being granted the toolset. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not true! I have edits in the MediaWiki namespace without being an admin. Just check my contributions! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I oppose based on temperament and lack of content creation. Almost as an afterthought, I added that if they were only requesting viewing deleted revisions, etc., I would support. So why exactly do you wish to "knock [me] on the head"? That comment seems unbecoming and very thoughtless. Please explain. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, he did explain and in fact made it a general point about concerns about being granted the whole toolset, not just your oppose. This is no doubt why he wrote in general comments rather than in reply to your oppose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, thank you Barkeep. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, I came off a bit snippier in that reply than I'd intended. Thanks for taking my comment in good faith. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bison X: Indeed, I really have no problem with you or anyone else opposing based on temperament or lack of content creation; in fact, I share those concerns. But when you use an unsupportable argument like "the whole toolset", you must expect to see that commented on. Nevertheless, I strongly deny that I was knocking you on the head – had I wished to, I would have done that as a response to your oppose. As it is, you have needlessly and unhelpfully personalised my criticism of a general argument. It's not all about you, and you need to realise that. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Lightburst Iazyges Harshil169 EllenCT Bison X Peacemaker67 Javert2113 Cbl62 Collect Sportsfan 1234 Staberinde Just wanted to state my opinion, that I see no reason to demand article creation from an admin. Some people are by nature more creators, other improvers. Both have ample experience with writing articles when they have made enough edits on Wikipedia. The posistion that such editors can not become admins, means we would miss out on the specific skill sets of those improvers, much to the detriment of this project. We need both creators and improvers. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've said this privately but I don't think there's any issue repeating it here : I'd love every RfA candidate I put forward to have as many GAs as I have (139 at the last count), but the reality is that the sort of people with that amount of content work generally don't want to be admins and refuse offers of RfA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I wanted to state that I am rather shocked at how much the %Support has plummeted in the last couple days. That's all from me. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

True dat. That's why I doubt that this will go to a crat chat. Of course, I'd like to be wrong; but there's a tool somewhere that show's an RfA's trajectory as a chart—I can never find it!—but I thikn that's the thing that indicates the support in real terms. Not the closing numbers, but where those numbers are going. And in this case, I think it's fair to say that they're heading the wrong direction for Money emoji. ——SN54129 11:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It is here [7]. Can be found in the summary of current candidateships table on the main WP:RFA page. It's certainly an interesting way to look at whether support at the time of closing is trending downwards, upwards, or is fairly steady, although how good a substitute that is for 'consensus' I don't know. Hug^syrup 11:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the crats will consider the trajectory in their discussions, but it shouldn't play a major part in the decision making. The RFA is explicitly set at 7 days, everyone knows that, and if people !voted support early and haven't revised their opinion, then it should be assumed that they still support. A 70% that is trending upwards should not be treated significantly differently from one that is trending downwards IMHO. It's the rationales of the opposes in play, and how the crats weight them, that matters. I can see them calling this either way, to be honest, it's definitely a knife-edge one.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The trajectory is significant not because it shows what would happen in ahypothetical furture but because it demonstrates a burgeoning consensus. But I agree that A 70% that is trending upwards should not be treated significantly differently from one that is trending downwards; indeed, none have argued otherwise. ——SN54129 12:10, 18 February 2020 (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.