Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wugapodes

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

Wugapodes

Final (158/1/2); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 05:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Wugapodes (talk · contribs) – fellow editors, it is a pleasure to present Wugapodes as a candidate for adminship. Wugapodes has been since 2015. He has done excellent content work on several articles related to linguistics, such as Black American Sign Language, which is now a featured article: he has one other FA and three GAs. He has also found the time to do some useful maintenance work at DYK, partly through the use of his bot account. He has also performed some careful GA reviews, as may be seen at Talk:Herman Melville/GA1. Don't let his edit-count fool you; Wugapodes is an efficient editor, having taken only 59 edits to go from draft to FA on the article I highlight above. Finally, the comments he has made on talk pages and (occasionally) at admin noticeboards demonstrate precisely the temperament we should look for in admins; civil, clueful, and firm in his convictions, while willing to listen to those who may disagree with him. Having seen him become steadily active some months ago, I suggested he request a mop, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Xeno

I initially asked Wugapodes to run as a non-administrator candidate in the most recent arbitration committee elections, as they have shown themselves to be soundly in touch with the project's goals and ideals through their contributions to policy/guideline, dispute resolution, and other community discussions. Well their name didn't go on the ballot, and this RfA is the consolation. While evaluating Wugapodes' non-project space work, I was impressed with the depth of their contributions, and surprised to see over 40% of their edits occurred in the mainspace. I have no doubt that Wugapodes will be a highly effective administrator both in the article space and the project spaces. I know it's somewhat of a cliché, but I don't feel offside in saying that Wugapodes is already an administrator, we simply need to flip on the switch so they can access the extra buttons. Since we need more adminapodes let's add a Wug to the mix. –xeno^talk 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept the nomination; thank you both for the kind words! I have never edited for pay nor engaged in quid pro quo editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:36, 18 January 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: I would work in the areas I already take part in, but with some extra buttons I could fulfill a few more tasks. I close requested moves every so often, and being able to move protected pages or move over history would simplify that work. I comment at redirects for discussion somewhat regularly and being able to delete pages would mean I could close more discussions. The people who build and promote hooks at did you know are much more skilled than me, but I could serve as the B-team when some of the regulars take a break.

Some of the more niche privileges would also be useful to me. I maintain WugBot and the Capricorn user script. If the community were to need a bot to perform tasks involving editing the main page or full protected pages, I would need to have +sysop rights to volunteer WugBot for the job, and if I ever wanted to help maintain gadgets or convert Capricorn into one, I would need +sysop to request the interface administrator user group. I do outreach work as WugapodesOutreach and being able to grant other facilitators event coordinator rights, or place my own geonotices would help with those events.

It would also be helpful as I go about my usual editing. Every so often I run into copyvios, and it would be faster to delete the revisions myself. Sometimes users make good article review pages by accident that need deleted, and it would be easier for me to delete them when I see them. I try to lend a hand where I can, and I would use the admin tools to help where I currently cannot.

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

A: I've been working on Phonetics as a longer term project starting about a year ago, and though it's not recognized like some of my other writings, I think it's some of my best. It's a vital article on a technical topic. Whereas some of my more polished and recognized contributions like Electromagnetic articulography or Heffernan v. City of Paterson are useful overviews and summaries of the topic, phonetics is becoming a good reference work. I find myself going back to it to look up theoretical information and relevant references, and sometimes point my students and colleagues to it when relevant. It's a nice change of pace in that regard; a lot of my other contributions are end points while phonetics is a starting point for learning more information. It's nice to see that Phonetics is broadly useful, and I think that makes it my best contribution whether or not it's featured content.

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: There's no secret strategy to dealing with conflict in cyber space. Just like in meat space I deal with people as people; the only difference is that it's actually easier to take my time and calm down before responding. My general strategy to deal with conflict and stress is to be be boring. If I find that my editing gets me agitated or that I'm focused on winning, usually that's a sign that I'm doing something wrong and need to step back and reevaluate. No one's perfect, and sometimes dealing with conflict just means apologizing. After I made a rather abrasive comment on a village pump proposal an editor made, I left this apology on their talk page. I remained firm in my convictions, but also tried to depersonalize my disagreement.

---

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 John M Wolfson

4. 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: G12 would apply unless the school's website specifically states the material is released under a compatible license. Most other G# criteria would not apply, and even for the niche cases (the author is a sock, it had previously been deleted by discussion) the main issue is the copyright situation. A7 seems like it would apply, but it does not; that CSD specifically states it does not apply to schools. Since it's copied from a website, it could not have been made by the content translation tool, so X2 would not apply. The other criteria would not apply since I'm assuming "article" means a page in mainspace, and they only apply to pages outside of mainspace. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Amorymeltzer

5. You've not expressed an interest in CSD or XfD work, which seems to jive with your current level of activity in those areas. That's totally fine! You do also say Sometimes users make good article review pages by accident that need deleted, and it would be easier for me to delete them when I see them. I'm not sure how common that is, but it sounds like you're saying it's a WP:G6. Could you explain how/when G6 should be used and when it shouldn't? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A: GA review pages created in error aren't very common, but they happen. Usually it would fall under G7 because the editor who created the page realizes first and asks, but G6 could apply if it's an obvious error like the nominator creates the review page. To your actual question, G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance tasks. It's meant to prevent XfD from getting flooded with "I need to do X but Y is preventing me, so delete Y" nominations. It should almost never be used on pages with viable content (temporary deletion to fix copy-paste moves being an important exception), and it should not be used if the deletion could reasonably be expected to get pushback. G6 isn't carte blanche to boldly delete pages; the deleted page should have been preventing improvement of the project. Empty maintenance categories from the past clutter tracking categories, making it more difficult to identify what work still needs to be done. Pages with little to no content which block a page move delay renames. Pages created in error would clutter the project with useless pages making it harder to find pages we do care about. These are all situations where unnecessary pages are preventing editors from doing their work effectively, and G6 allows administrators to mop them up. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

6. You have also expressed an interest in revision deletion as pertains to copyright. Could you expand a bit about how you would use revision deletion in general, and when it would be preferred over G12? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A: In general I would probably be rather conservative with revision deletion with the notable exception of potentially oversightable material; the revdel policy rightly gives a lot of leeway for sysops to protect private information and that's likely the only situation where I wouldn't hesitate. As for revdel vs. G12, I would prefer G12 in cases where there's no non-infringing content to be recovered. If there is some text which does not infringe copyright, I would prefer to first remove the infringing material to create a suitable text and then delete the revisions in which the infringing copyright was present, keeping the usernames in history to provide the needed attribution. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Espresso Addict

7. I see you've created a few 'microstubs' eg David Lightfoot (linguist), David M. Perlmutter and (an older example) Bridget Harris. Would you care to comment on this practice, in the light of the admin toolset including the autoreviewed flag? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A: Stubs are an important way to help the encyclopedia grow especially now that non-autoconfirmed users cannot create pages. Taken to its extremes though, it creates a problem where the encyclopedia has a great breadth but shallow depth of topics (see User:Danny/What next for a good reflection on this). When I create a stub, usually it's because I believe the subject is unambiguously notable and I have plans to come back to it and improve it. Professors Lightfoot and Perlmutter both served as Presidents of the Linguistic Society of America so they are notable under WP:NACADEMICS criterion 6. Both of them are part of my long-term plan to improve coverage of linguists prior to the Linguistic Society's 2024 centennial (See User:Wugapodes/LSA Centennial). I actually forgot I had created the Bridget Harris article, but Speaker Harris is notable under WP:NPOL having been elected to national office and serving as speaker of their legislative body. In light of the toolset including autreviewed, I don't believe the occasional stub will be a problem. I'm already on the New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist which covers the bulk of my page creations (I make way more redirects than stubs), and when I do create articles, I tend to tag and categorize the pages myself, so the lack of patroller eyes shouldn't impact the placement of them into maintenance categories. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Puddleglum2.0

8. Thank you for standing. How do you respond to the first oppose? Have you edited under previous accounts? Thank you.

A: In 2011 I was about 15 years old, and I made my first account Cbrick77 (talk · contribs). I largely abandoned that account before the end of the year, with some sporadic edits in 2012. I did not enjoy that year on Wikipedia, and I considered vanishing and abandoning the project forever, but in 2013 I decided to simply blank the account and scramble my password. A few years later while halfway through my undergraduate degree, I wanted to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of linguistics topics. I began this account, and in August 2015 notified functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org of the association between the two accounts. With maturity, my experience on Wikipedia has been better, and I'm glad I decided not to give up on the project after my bad first experience.

With regards to the first oppose, it is an example of the kind of conduct that made my first experience with Wikipedia unpleasant. Being young and not understanding the importance of online privacy, I revealed a lot of personal information about myself on my then userpage (partly because I didn't understand WP:NOTWEBHOST). Similarly, I was too ambitious for my own good and ventured into WP:ARBCOM not realizing how toxic of an environment it could be. On the basis of WP:DUCK, an editor accused me of sock puppetry resulting in a day of haranguing at ANI before a checkuser showed that I was unrelated to the accounts in question. It was an upsetting experience to say the least, but it shaped my current editing philosophy of being unfailingly kind to newcomers and assuming good faith wherever possible.

So to finally answer how I respond to the first oppose: it shouldn't be strange that someone read the fucking manual. Nearly every single article talk page links to a WikiProject, and that a reader or new editor could find their way there and join shouldn't be strange. If anything, getting more traffic to WikiProjects could be a good thing for editor recruitment and retention. Even templates aren't that strange considering that WP:V and WP:RS talk about templates a good deal, and Help:Templates documents them and their syntax very well (with links to further guidance). That is in fact how I learned template syntax; my previous account never edited in the template namespace, and my early template editing wasn't even that good considering my second talk page message. Such behavior is in character for me; a month ago I didn't know PHP, but through reading documentation and tinkering, I've learned niche aspects of MediaWiki development like mw:Mustache templates (see gerrit:563326). This isn't evidence that I've used HTML templates before, just that I know enough to read the documentation pages. We should encourage editors to read documentation, learn, and try new things, not assume their curiosity is a sign of ill intent.

Since this has turned into a mini essay, for those interested further, I would recommend reading one of the last pages I edited under the previous account: Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. For an essay on the effects of being quick to assume bad faith, see meatball:DefendAgainstParanoia. For the sake of completeness, I've edited as an IP as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC),

@Wugapodes: Thanks for the well thought out answer! This has strengthened my support a lot! Puddleglum ^2.0 04:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from User:WilliamJE

9.Did you read WP:CLEANSTART, particularly its section of requests for adminship, before this RFA began and if so can you please tell us why you didn't follow the recommendation that prior accounts be revealed?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship says candidates are not obliged to publicly disclose previous accounts, so I didn't. I disagree with the recommendation you reference because it defeats the purpose of a clean start policy and places a burden that we don't even require of functionaries. People abandon previous accounts for a variety of reasons such as harassment or protection of privacy, and weak protections for clean start editors mean those editors need to choose between outing themselves or deceiving the community. Even candidates for the arbitration committee are not required to publicly disclose their accounts; as long as they notify the arbitration committee of the accounts, they are not required to publicly disclose them. I don't believe a more stringent requirement needs to exist for administrators, and since clean start is clear that I was under no obligation to follow a recommendation I didn't agree with, I didn't follow it. With 5 years of edit history for the community to evaluate, I don't see how an abandoned account from my childhood would provide much clarity on my current patterns of behavior. For those who believe it may, see my answer to Q8. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Wugapodes

• Links for Wugapodes: Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wugapodes can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support quality candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 03:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support second support. Insert cliche surprised they're not an admin already here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support although technically the singular of his username should be "Wugapus". :P – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Wugapodes is a terrific dedicated Wikipedian and will make a wonderful administrator. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
5. A well qualified individual who it is a pleasure to support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Yet another candidate who I thought was already an admin. An accomplished behind the scene editor, as well as a prolific content creator, with not one but two Four Awards! And they have a pigeon on their userpage so its a homerun :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Support, yet another candidate who I thought was already an admin. We are certainly lucky to have had such wonderful candidates lately. Wugapodes is exceptionally insightful and courteous in their dealings with other users, which is probably one of the most important factors to consider for admin candidates. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Support - when it rains it pours excellent admin prospects!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose; (edit conflict × 2) 4im warning just 3 days ago. Also evidently their only goal on Wikipedia is to become an admin since they noted that fault themselves with a very solemn edit summary. Kidding of course; a full-hearted support. J947 ^(c), at 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Support, as nominator. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
11. Support Sounds like an excellent candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
12. Support was leaning oppose due to the 4im, but decided that the warning is actually a good thing. ☺ Puddleglum ^2.0 04:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
13. Support Unfailingly civil, helpful, and competent. --valereee (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Have seen good work and expect to see more good work with the bit. —Kusma (t·c) 06:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
15. Support An obviously qualified candidate. I can‘t see anything at the moment that one would object to. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
16. Support No brainer, good mix of content, administration, tech and diplomacy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
17. Support Meets my criteria! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
18. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
19. Long overdue. –xeno^talk 09:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
20. Support. Great all-round skill set, and a very good temperament; model candidate. Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
21. Support without hesitation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
22. Support precious dialogue, linguistic and legal --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
23. Support Seem 'em around, always been impressed, no red/yellow flags. Thanks for standing. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
24. Support – At last, a builder! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
25. Support Possesses all the attributes and experience needed. Loopy30 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
26. Support One of my favourite Wikipedia usernames, and I guess he's done a modicum of helping out around the site too ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

    Following up from that, I'm significantly more supportive after his set of excellent question responses. Nosebagbear (talk)

27. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
28. Support Not before time. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
29. Support A fantastic editor. Everything we could want: great content, skill and clue. Vexations (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
30. Support. I'm mostly absent from RfA these days, but I couldn't resist this one. You had me at "linguist", but there's a lot more to like ... everything to like. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
31. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
32. Oppose They already are one. jk From everything I know about this candidate, they will be a net contributor to the project so I support. buidhe 13:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
33. I haven't interacted with Wugapodes too often, but every time I have he's had the temperament I'd expect from an admin. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
34. Support - Seems like Wugapodes will make a great admin. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
35. Support. I've been offline for a couple of days, and when I come back I see three RfAs in progress. And each one is an obvious support just through seeing who the candidate is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
36. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
37. Support. Has done great work so far, so no reason to believe they will do anything but great work as an admin. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
38. Support One of the good ones. Will definitely be an asset as an admin. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
39. Weak Support - You only just pass my criteria. Most of your edits have been in the past eight months, and have only been here for a few years. Aside from that, you seem like a pretty good choice for an admin. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
40. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
41. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
42. Support no worries here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
43. Support. Really a no-brainer on this one. Ifnord (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
44. Support. We've crossed paths but never swords. Sound, from everything I've seen; and you can never have too many wugs. Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
45. Support. Admins - call us wiki gnomes or the mop and bucket crew - Wugapodes has already been doing fixes and cleaning up to make one thing or another work. His technical expertise helped DYK solve a problem. When DYK grew to the point of having too many nominations to display on a page, he created a secondary page, and bots to move approved nominations to their own page. He monitors that part of the DYK process, so you can count on him to be around when he's needed. DYK aside, Wugapodes has been on Wikipedia long enough, and has good technical skills, that he would make a really good admin. — Maile (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
46. Support based on nom statements and my past interactions with the candidate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
47. Support, without reservation. BD2412 T 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
48. Support I've seen Wugapodes about a few times, and never in a bad way. No concerns that they would misuse the tools. Number 57 23:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
49. Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
50. Support, as this nominee is actually one of the few that meets my criteria. Wugapodes not only has a featured article, he has two, and he earned a Four Award for each. In addition, he writes legal articles and uses the Bluebook referencing styles. There appears to be no impediments to his being an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 00:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
51. Support I've seen them around, and have liked what I've seen. As Boing! said, this is an embarrassment of riches. Miniapolis 00:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
52. Support – no concerns. – bradv🍁 00:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
53. Support Looks like another solid candidate though in this case I have no real personal experience with the editor. No red or yellow flags that I could find. Break out the cigars, I think we have another winner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
54. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
55. Support, gladly, per my criteria. Wug is an even-tempered editor who, in my experience (mainly at RFD), typically makes the effort of providing reasoned arguments. I am not keen on Q7 (I prefer a red link to a micro-stub) but, ultimately, one's viewpoint on micro-stubs is not directly linked to one's quality as an admin. And, besides, I genuinely thought he was one already... :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
56. Support Seems to be a solid contributor. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
57. Support great content creation chops, seems to have a clue, and will concentrate in areas they are familiar with. Sounds good to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
58. Support without hesitation. Solid candidate – Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
59. Support per nominators-- Deepfriedokra 07:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
60. Support Wugapodes should make an excellent administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
61. Support, well qualified, will likely make good use of the tools. the wub "?!" 14:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
62. Support seems generally sensible; nothing to make me worry about abuse of tools — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
63. Support Good editor, sensible, has a clue. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
64. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
65. Support EC: Great candidate, will work well with the tools. >>BEANS X2t 18:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
66. Support Seems to be a level-headed voice of reason around here. I'm happy to trust them with a few extra buttons. Thank you for volunteering to help out. Ajpolino (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
67. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
68. Pleased to support. El_C 20:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
69. Support. Decent content contributions, good temperament. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
70. Support Looked at his profile and work, seems good to me. Flalf (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
71. Strong support: an editor with an excellent temperament. Everything else is secondary, but Wugapodes ticks all the boxes I can list: experienced, needs the tools, outstanding content creation, thorough knowledge of policy, has worked in admin areas etc. Seen them around a fair bit and always been impressed by their helpfulness and calmness. — Bilorv (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
72. Support – Kurtis ^(talk) 02:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
73. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
74. Support I default to supporting unless there's a good reason to oppose, and there isn't one yet. Banedon (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    Support meets my content creation criteria, seems to have a clue and should do well with the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    Strike multiple votes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

    I’ve changed this to an indent. –xeno^talk 12:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

75. Support per above. epicgenius (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
76. Capable and trusted. AGK ■ 07:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
77. Support Best of luck. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
78. Support - another high standard candidate. Orphan Wiki 10:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
79. Yes please. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
80. Support per User:Dank. TSventon (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
81. Support per noms. P-K3 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
82. Support Great candidate, I've had good interactions with them before and there really isn't much to add that hasn't been said already. I guess I can encourage them to use 2FA and other good security practices since a compromised admin account can be incredibly disruptive, but I'm sure they're aware of that already. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
83. Support without hesitation. --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
84. Support Has my trust; will fill a need for more admins paying attention to the MP. Spencer^T•C 14:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
85. Very impressive answer to Q8. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
86. Support Great contributions to content and also to back-stage areas of Wikipedia. Would be a net positive. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
87. Support I've enjoyed working with Wugapodes in the past, and I'm impressed with their answers to the questions. No concerns from me! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
88. Support: And here I thought 'Podes was an admin already... — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
89. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
90. Support: good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
92. Support No reason to think Wugapodes will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
93. Thought I’d supported early. Meets my criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
94. Support. I've seen Wugapodes here and there and have always been impressed by their attitude, common sense, and helpfulness. No hesitation in supporting. Plus I always get a grin from their user name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
95. Support, positive impression gained from seeing Wugapodes' contributions. Cabayi (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
96. Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
97. It's a yes from me, though I have minor concerns about reliability. Looking back at contributions, there are gaps, and there have been several nudges regarding unfinished GA reviews. Everyone's attention can wander now and again, and attendance has been more regular recently, so it's not a serious concern, though it's worth a gentle reminder to Wugapodes that admins per WP:ADMINACCT should remain contactable and/or in touch with Wikipedia if they have performed an admin action that may be questioned. SilkTork (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
98. Support per nom. Lulusword (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
99. Support Under the assumption that the clean start or whatever is not a cover for anything untoward, it seems like a reasonable case for adminship and some research of their edits showed no concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
100. Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
101. Support would make a good admin, no reason to oppose. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
102. Support This one is not overdue, their activity has been concentrated in the last eight months, which absent other factors makes me uncomfortable. However, there are other factors. Wugapodes has created very solid content in his time here, and has actively participated in highly visible areas, and in ways that have left me favorably impressed. His answer to Q8 is a classic, and should be required reading. As he has sufficiently demonstrated clue and NOTJERK, I will support this candidacy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
103. Support Passes my incredibly difficult, incredibly stringent admin criteria (or is that criterion?), which quite simply, is "don't do anything outrageously stupid".--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
104. Support Has made good progress with GA reviews for Chomsky and Melville. CodexJustin (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
105. Support per the excellent answers to Q8 and Q9. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
106. Strong support can be trusted with a mop, productive user with clear use case --DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
107. Support - Excellent editor.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
108. Support - Good Xtools stats. Glad to see participation on Wikipedia namespace as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
109. Support - No concerns. Nihlus 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
110. Support - seen this editor around and have no concerns. Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
111. Wizardman 22:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
112. Support per the answer to Q8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
113. Support Candidate is qualified and trustworthy. Also, strong answers to questions. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
114. Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
115. A pile-on at this point but particularly impressed by Q8. – Levivich 00:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
116. Support - No concerns and the answer to Q8 really demonstrated some strengths the candidate has. -- Dane ^talk 01:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
117. Support - No concerns here, Also Q8 says a lot about the candidate which is another reason for this support. –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
118. Support. — sparklism ^hey! 13:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
119. Support Obviously, ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
120. Support Won't wreck everything and per the nominators. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
121. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
122. Support Basically comfortable to go with the flow here as virtually no-one seems to have great concerns.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
123. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
124. Support because I would like content creators to have an easier time out here. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
125. Support·a·po·des. I've seen them around, and have had positive interactions with them. Good editor. content + good attitude + clue = mop — Ched (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

     Ched, ha, I thought about writing that. I expect that the candidate will inform us that it means 'supported by plural tiny feet', which makes me think of The Luggage... GirthSummit _(blether) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

126. Support, a strong candidate. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
127. Support, great contributor, will be sensible with the tools. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
128. Support No concerns. Some content creation and much BLP experience. Slightly less main space contribution than I would like, but sufficient. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
129. Support – will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
130. Support . Looks good. AfD participation is light, but reviewed !votes look good. Oppose #1 is well answered at Q8 and Q9. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
131. Support, has a clue, excellent candidate; opposes utterly unconvincing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
132. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
133. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
134. Support - no concerns, will be an asset. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
135. -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
136. Support -- Appears to be a qualified candidate. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
137. Support - I see no reason not to support. Has decent contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
138. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
139. Support Per others. While I've not worked with them myself (from memory), there seem to be no concerns. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
140. Support seems to be a qualified candidate; giving them the tools looks to be a net positive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
141. Support another very easy support. Glad to see another highly qualified candidate step up; thank you for volunteering. CThomas³ (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
142. Support. Obviously a no-brainer – excellent editor and candidate. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
143. Support - No concerns here! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
144. The candidate has done useful work at DYK, but I didn't realize he was also a fine content creator. Answers to questions above indicate intelligence and maturity. In short, plenty of reasons to support. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
145. Support: Will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
146. Support: Dede2008 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
147. Support, attitude and competence look great to me. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
148. Support- they'll do good things. Kicking222 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
149. Support I'm pleased with what I've seen from this editor. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
150. Support. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
151. Support. Quality editor and good answers to the questions. I've encountered this editor at RfD some lately, and while I haven't always agreed with this editor, their contributions there are always sound and policy-based. Hog Farm (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
152. Support. See them around a lot, and don't remember anything that would set off red lights. Clearly competent, apparently thoughtful, polite, and can read the instructions. Probably even knows who to ask too. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
153. Support; a wonderfully wide variety of excellent contributions in many areas. No red flags at all. Great choice to be an administrator. ~ mazca ^talk 18:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
154. Support Welcome. Be gentle with the content creators. I have no concerns. Wm335td (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
155. Support per nom and above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
156. Support No concerns here at all-- long overdue. Nomader (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
157. Support - Well qualified and a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
158. Support. I figured I would end up here, from general feels/impressions I have about the editor. After digging about, I'm not finding anything at all that causes me to question the editor's intent or competence. To the contrary, this is a very WP:HERE editor who has the project's best interests in mind, from everything that I see. Calm enough, active enough, content-editing enough, and not too often lolling about in the dramaboards. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Wugapodes first edit was to join a WikiProject. In his first edits he did work on templates. That has all the signs of WP:DUCK. It seems this editor has been around WP before his current account was created and this hasn't been disclosed either at this RFA or on his user page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   Wugs are birds, but I do not think they are ducks. I’m not sure how extraordinary it is to join a WikiProject as a first edit, given the nature of WikiProjects is to be inviting and are linked from talk pages of topics of interest. As for template familiarity, have you considered posing an optional question if you wish to know about the candidate’s prior wiki experience here or elsewhere? (I see raised in Q8.) –xeno^talk 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   They could have edited as an IP before or hey maybe they came from Wikia or Fandom or whatever they are calling themselves these days. @WilliamJE: you should AGF unless you hav actual evidence that indicates otherwise. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   Yeah, I was an intermittent IP editor for 6 months or so before creating an account.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

   It's irrelevant now after the answer to Q8 but this oppose really should not have been added in the first place. Joining WikiProjects very early is completely normal. I'm not meaning to badger but good faith should definitely have been assumed here. J947 ^(c), at 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Concerned about lack of activity, just waiting for any opposition justification before deciding on opposing or supporting. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

   Hi, @Willbb234:, could you clarify what particular sense you mean "lack of activity" - total edit count, edit count in a certain namespace, recent edit count etc? Don't want to start a discussion on it something we already agree on. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

   @Nosebagbear: regarding all namespace edits: significant numbers of edits have only been performed fairly recently. I think their total edit count is also a little concerning, but then again this user does lots of content creation so it's understandable. 09:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2. Agree with Willbb234 - a bit short on content creation (until recently) for my liking. I would like to be sure that the current level of activity isn't a flash in the pan. Deb (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

   @Deb: I do wonder if you've read the dates correctly; Wugapodes has two four awards from 2016. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   Well, that's nice, but most of his contributions are noticeably in the past couple of years, just as Willbb234 commented. If there's one thing an admin needs in large quantities, it's staying power, because once you're there, many contributors go out of their way to try to drag you down.Deb (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   Staying power is a valid concern; but my point was that edit-count is a poor proxy for activity and staying power in the case of an editor who managed to get an article to FA in ~60 edits. I won't pester you further, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   And given that we semi-often accept candidates who have a total of only "the past couple of years", I'm curious what Deb is getting at. It's not clear to me how being active for 2+ years and counting equates to evidence of inconsistent, noncommittal participation in the present. Seems to be rather the opposite.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

General comments

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.