వికీపీడియా:Requests for adminship

వికీపీడియా నుండి
Jump to navigation Jump to search

వికీపీడియా:Requests for adminship/Header

Current nominations for adminship


Current time is మూస:FULLDATE

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) మూస:RfA tally; Scheduled to end 15:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination from TonyBallioni


Script error: No such module "user". – It gives me great pleasure to present Sdrqaz for the community's consideration as an administrator. I first came across Sdrqaz through my work as an oversighter: they're one of the more active reporters of content needing suppression or revision deletion, and over time I came to recognize them as a person whose judgement was usually sound, and it made me look closer at them as a candidate for adminship. Taking a deeper look, I liked what I saw. Sdrqaz has a respect for community processes and norms, a good understanding of policy, and is kind and willing to talk to any user they come across. These are all things that speak highly of them as a Wikipedian, and I think their contributions as a whole show them to be someone who is diligent with their work and is willing to work in a variety of maintenance areas where having the tools would be useful. They're an all rounder with a focus on maintenance, and having someone with that skillset with the tools would be beneficial to the project.

In terms of content, they've worked to improve several articles, and brought the Shadow docket article to GA status. I think this article speaks to their understanding of our purpose: it is impeccably sourced and well written, and it was written in a neutral way about a topic that has become increasingly more controversial in legal and political circles in the United States. It shows a sound understanding of policy and content that is needed for an admin.

On the whole, I have found Sdrqaz to be an asset to the community, and I think they would be an even greater asset as an administrator. I hope you all join me in supporting their RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Conomination from The Blade of the Northern Lights


I'm happy today to conominate Sdrqaz for adminship. TonyBallioni had said most of what I would, but I want to add a little more. One of my common admin areas is UAA, which can get very backlogged very fast. Anytime I see Sdrqaz's signature next to a report I know it will be an open and shut case, of the dozens now that I've handled I have never declined a single one. Additionally, I have seen Sdrqaz do outstanding content work, as TonyBallioni details above. Any editor who can write high quality content, understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and can easily handle the day-to-day maintenance that keeps Wikipedia going strikes me as an excellent candidate, and I hope you all agree with me. Thank you for your consideration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and am grateful for this opportunity for scrutiny. Pursuant to policy, I disclose that I have never been paid for my contributions and that I have only ever edited using this account and an alternate account for public connections. I additionally have an unused Doppelgänger account. I look forward to listening to the community's concerns and welcome its questions. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: There are always administrative tasks that need to be carried out: people introduce BLP violations and create attack pages every day. The time they spend on Wikipedia unambiguously damages the project, as well as the very real people they attack. I hope that my addition to the team will lead to crucial work being done with less delay and some of the burden being eased.
I intend to initially primarily work with revision and log deletions, username violations, and speedy deletions. Where I am unfamiliar with an area, I will stop and consult policy more than I already do and speak to experienced editors in those fields. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In addition to other work, I have written and expanded five articles featured at Did You Know and subsequently brought one of them to Good Article status – shadow docket. That project means a great deal to me. I greatly enjoy dealing with content – work in that area of the project is highly rewarding. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
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: Yes. An editor whom I respected felt a disagreement with me and personalised the issue. I was bitterly saddened by the event and responded as calmly as possible. This event led me to question my judgement and re-examine the events leading up to it. In the future, I would again endeavour to scrutinise the heart of unpleasant messages – they may have been written in moments of passion, but distilling out the substance is an important process.
I think that some stress, in manageable doses, is important to prevent being desensitised to others' feelings. Actions that we take to protect the encyclopaedia may seem routine to us, but can be devastating to them. When working with less-experienced editors, my mistakes may drive them off the project before they find their footing. That is horrifying to me, hence the obligation to rectify errors and apologise. Editors are human and will make mistakes. As administrators are given tools that can cause great harm, the responsibility of care is greater and the corresponding need to make things right is even greater. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Optional question from Ritchie333
4. Your user space has a couple of photos of IU and Jisoo in various prominent places. Any particular reason why? I'm slightly concerned new Wikipedians might mistake these for pictures of you.
A: There isn't a particular reason why, sorry. I also have a photo of Lee Tae-min and Kim Jong-hyun, both male singers, on my alternate account's userpage. From my interactions with newer Wikipedians, that confusion has not shown itself – if anything, since people generally assume that others on the internet are male, they do the same with me. Examples include an editor from less than a fortnight ago calling me "brother" and "Respected Sir". All of that being said, I very frequently work with newer editors. If they become confused by those photos, I will firstly clarify, then change them if it emerges as a persistent problem. It's hard enough being a new Wikipedian. I don't want to add to that. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Mhawk10
5. On the deletionist-mergist-inclusionist spectrum, where do you fall and why do you take that stance?
A: I don't really see myself on that spectrum. I think we always have competing interests when considering deletion: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and is not subject to the same restraints, but we cannot include everything just because it is true either. As Wikipedia ages and editors leave the project, we may also need to have difficult conversations about whether it is feasible to spend resources on putting every marginally non-notable, but ultimately harmless, article through the deletion process. While staving off deletion for a worthy article (Lawrence Rowntree) was rewarding, I have also requested deletion under our BLP policy when it was necessary to the protect the project and their subjects (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Requested BLPDELETE). I'm sorry that this answer probably wasn't as satisfying as you'd hoped. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Sdkb
6. As the second sentence on your userpage, you write This user believes strongly in leaving edit summaries and despairs at those who do not, especially when making major edits. Do you believe that edit summaries should be required for some or all edits?
A: I believe that they should be required for all, though that position is unfortunately not supported by consensus (most editors seem to believe it should be recommended, but not mandatory, and others don't see the point in userspace edit summaries). An ideal edit summary explains what you are doing and why you are doing it. For me, the benefits are twofold: communication and accountability with other editors (which is a responsibility), and, on a selfish level, for auditing your own contributions. It's far more difficult remembering why you made an edit a few years down the line than taking a few seconds at the time to write a justification. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Celestina007
7. Sdrqaz, you already have my !vote & at this juncture my questions have always remained the same, what are your views on undisclosed paid editing and how it affects the project and secondly what measures would you take in order to curb such unethical practices?
A: I view undisclosed paid editing as a threat to Wikipedia's credibility. This was what I was alluding to in my answer to Q5 – there are pages that harm the project more than others, and products of UPE generally have multiple issues, as they were created with the express purpose of promoting the subject (or, as we are told, "to let the world know about them"). Part of why undisclosed paid editing is rife, in my opinion, is the lack of willing patrollers at Category:Wikipedia requested edits, which has a backlog of ~200 requests and stretches back ten months. This does not incentivise users to disclose conflicts of interest or paid status.
As for what measures I will take, there is often no need to establish definitively that someone is an undisclosed paid editor – if they are promotion-only accounts, if they are spamming, that is more than sufficient for deletions and blocks. I will continue patrolling speedy deletions and username violations, as well as the new pages feed and reports of spam. Education of Wikipedia's policies and our Terms of Use is also important: it is not black-and-white, as there is a distinction to be made between a PR professional sneaking in a puff piece about a non-notable company and a clueless teen paid a few dollars by a shady person on the internet. If I feel that a block should be carried out due to confidential evidence, I will notify మూస:Email, as మూస:Logid. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Naleksuh
8. In relation to the increasing number of sysops who work in the categories you identify yourself as, but the decreasing number of total sysops, what do you think about the entirety of possible areas to work in in general? Especially areas that don't relate to any user groups; sysops are still editors. Naleksuh (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
A: While I think I understand the preamble, I'm afraid I'm having some trouble understanding the question itself. Could you please clarify it? Sdrqaz (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B47F:771D:3F6E:5A29
9. Here's a scenario. An editor adds negative unsourced information saying that someone was involved in a scandal. Another person removes that information. The first editor then adds the information back, with a marginally reliable tabloid source. This makes it an ambiguous BLP violation. What do you do?
A: This sentence in the lead of the BLP policy must guide us all when dealing with such situations: "We must get the article right." Consensus rightly supports the immediate removal of unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material concerning living and recently deceased people. While the first editor may have acted with good intentions by sourcing their information, the community requires ironclad sourcing due to the real-world harm these allegations can cause.
As such, until these allegations can be supported by appropriate sources, the information should be removed. The editor should be notified of these higher requirements and be encouraged to engage in discussion at the article's talk page – even if the information can be supported by a reliable source, that is not enough: we need multiple reliable secondary sources. Even if that bar is met, that may not be enough. Is the information relevant to a disinterested article about the subject? Is it necessary to our coverage of this individual? If the answer to both is not a definitive "yes", it should not be added. While it may be worth noting that administrators are authorised to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved", I sincerely hope that such a dispute would not get to that stage. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Iamreallygoodatcheckers
10. When performing an admin role (reviewing a close challenge, reviewing user conduct, etc.) that involves a controversial discussion/issue (politics, gender, religion, etc.), can you completely separate your own opinion regarding the subject and act fairly and impartially towards the users regardless of the side they've taken on this controversial issue?
A: Yes, I can. If I feel unable to do so, I would not make any actions in an administrative capacity – adminship is to be used for the benefit of the community, not for my selfish interests. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Paradise Chronicle
11. As an admin, would you feel comfortable becoming active in copyright issues? Could also be seen as a follow up to question 4 while trying to respect your answer not wanting to add more to that.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
A: In the realm of copyright issues, I would feel comfortable assessing requests for RD1 and G12 CSD nominations, as I see these as natural parts of my stated desire to work with revision deletion and speedy deletions. I have requested both many times as a non-administrator, having had sixty-five G12 nominations in my CSD log. However, I would need further specialised experience in the field before attempting more complicated tasks, such as in copyright contributor investigations and copyright problems. As stated in Q1, I would listen to others better versed in those areas and would consult policy more than usual. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from Mhawk10
12. To what extent would you feel comfortable using your sysop tools to block administrators or other experienced editors who are acting disruptively?
A: Administrators and experienced users should know better than to disrupt the project. The encyclopaedia is bigger than any one person. However, as with all blocks, it would be best to stop disruption through discussion; blocking should only be used where disruption persists and as a last resort. While blocking may resolve the surface-level issue of immediate disruption, the community has long struggled with popular users acting inappropriately. I fear that for such users, unilateral administrative action would be ineffective. It is also up to the community itself, or failing that, its representatives, to face the root issue head-on. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from CactiStaccingCrane
13. There is an oppose about you haven't got enough good/featured article nominations yet. After reading other editors' comments, what do you think about the issue, and what would you do to compensate this weakness?
A: As I stated yesterday, I believe in the community's right to scrutiny at RfA. I also stated that I was dismayed at the tone of debate. It is reasonable criticism, as the core of our project is the encyclopaedia. Part of my growth as an editor was not just writing content, but writing audited content too, as it exposed me to criticism that I would not usually receive, led me to face disagreements, and strengthened my understanding of our core content policies. What marks out great editors from the good is the willingness to listen and compromise, and administrators are no exception.
While I have taken one article to GA and five to DYK, the GAN process differs with the DYK process in its rigour, and the FAC process even more so. Due to these differences, I think it is reasonable that some may disagree on whether the content I've written so far is enough to truly demonstrate familiarity and understanding. Regardless of this week's result, I will continue working with content – as I said in Q2, I find it that involvement rewarding. Perhaps once the scholarship has been developed further, shadow docket can be brought up to FA one day. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from PerryPerryD
14. What do you strive to accomplish as a Wikipedia Administrator? What do you truly wish for the project itself?
A: That feel like two distinct questions, so I will answer them separately: on a basic level, I want to make a difference. I know that there is important work that needs to be done, and I believe that I can help. As for what I wish for the project itself, I hope that we can one day not just survive, but truly thrive. It is natural for editors to leave us, be it due to death, changing circumstances, or disillusionment. However, just because it is natural does not mean it is not sad. I hope that we as a community can deal with such losses and can continue building and maintaining the encyclopaedia for the years to come. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Optional question from AlexEng
15. Would you please comment on your interpretation of the criteria for redaction for the revision deletion tool? In particular, please provide an example of material that you would consider suitable for deletion under each of criteria 2 and 3.
A: This is a relatively broad question (and it's slightly unclear whether the question is about the criteria as a whole or every individual criterion), but revision deletion should only be used to remove clearly inappropriate material from public view.
RD1 is the only criterion with a dedicated on-wiki way of requesting it, and I believe it is the most human-used criterion. As a general rule of thumb, it tends to be used where G12 would have applied, but there was material in the page that was not in violation of our copyright policies or there were preceding revisions that were not in violation either. Common examples include additions of copyrighted song lyrics, material copy-and-pasted from a news article, or from a company's website; in all those instances, the source would need a compatible licence or a credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or free license to prevent deletion. However, the mass use of RD1 has proven controversial (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Revdel on Himachal Pradesh) and I would be wary of using it in such a manner.
RD2 is for grossly insulting material and BLP violations. Although I have seen it used for ordinary incivility (I'd rather not link it to avoid picking on that administrator, but it was something to the effect of "you're an idiot"), that is not its purpose – proper use would be for "x is a paedophile/rapist/murderer". It is worth noting that RD2 has some overlap with RD4 (usually Oversight policy criterion #2), as the line between a BLP violation and libellous material is sometimes murky and very often up to Oversighter discretion.
RD3, purely disruptive material, is sometimes interchangeably used with RD2, but I have requested its use specifically for where someone has inserted HTML code that made nonsense that bled beyond its line and distorted the user interface – for that one, I was unable to access Twinkle. Other possible uses of the criterion may be threatening messages or links to pages that may wreak havoc on someone's computer etc.
RD4, as mentioned above, is for suppressible material. Without being too specific, there are times of the day where there are fewer members of the Oversight team available. As such, RD4 may be necessary to drastically limit the number of people able to see the material. It is worth noting that administrators should not publicise its use, make reference to the criterion when using it, or make it otherwise clear that it is the intention. I have seen that happen way too often, and it is frustrating for both the patroller who sees it and the Oversight team. I have seen an administrator publicise such material on AN without making any deletions, making it clearly visible, which led to a lot of avoidable cleanup. Administrators should also consider that uses of revision deletion are available for public consumption at Special:Log/delete, and as such it is often more appropriate to contact an Oversighter directly. Material covered by this criterion are usually someone's personal information, like their date of birth, address, credit card information etc.
RD5 is infrequently used by human administrators. I have seen it used as a "substitute" marginally less-obvious use of RD4, or used to remove spam under G11, which has dubious policy support. However, a notable use of it has been to delete orphaned revisions of non-free files under F5; this is carried out in DeltaQuadBot's task six and that bot is by far the most active user of the tool. RD6 is generally for log corrections, while Arbitration Committee-mandated uses are self-explanatory. My apologies for the length. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)



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

మూస:RfA toolbox

  1. Support; was on my list of candidates to examine :) Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support I do like this candidate. Lot of anti-vandal, anti-spam work, a proper CSD mechanic. Some good content been created. Really good but better with the tools. scope_creepTalk 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support: Sdrqaz will make a great admin 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support I rarely jump into an RfA this early but I've seen the candidate around over time and always been impressed. I also trust the judgement of the noms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  5. Support I really like Sdrqaz's response to Q3! GrammarDamner how are things? 16:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  6. Support This candidate will definitely make a good admin, and I especially like the Q3 response. Editors are definitely human. Kline | yes? 16:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  7. Support - absolutely. I run into Sdrqaz fairly frequently while responding to revision deletion and oversight requests. I find them extremely knowledgeable in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They will make a great administrator. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  8. Support obviously as the conominator. Sorry for the slight delay, ended up in an internet dead zone for a little while here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  9. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  10. Support - Had a look through some things, didn't see much to fault. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  11. Support. I have never met this person, so I will need to use the old noggin to see if I think they should be an administrator or not. Let's see. Their articles are good. Their reverts are good. They were once accidentally indeffed, and immediately unblocked with the summary "idiot", which is silly and doesn't reflect on them in any way. Not a lot of AfD participation, but what interaction they've had with the process seems quite astute (all articles they've nominated have been deleted, for example). Talk page participation is frequent and helpful. In the last six months, they have created one AN thread which seems to have been intelligent and acted upon as recommended. Their CSD log is quite long and very red (although I certainly regret the loss of Draft:Poopoopeepee). Their answers to the questions here have been smart. It does not seem to me like this person is likely to fuck things up by being an administrator, and they seem to be smart and competent. jp×g 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  12. (edit conflict) Support I was pinged into the discussion about this in January, and consequently have done all my research already. Good mix of mainspace contributions to maintenance work, good CSD record, excellent demeanour and communication skills when talking to confused and disgruntled editors. Excellent answer to Q3 : "Actions that we take to protect the encyclopaedia may seem routine to us, but can be devastating to them. When working with less-experienced editors, my mistakes may drive them off the project before they find their footing." I couldn't agree more. And yes, the indef block last September was immediately overturned as a mistake on behalf of the blocking administrator, and should not count against them in any way whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  13. (edit conflict × 2) Support No concerns -- lomrjyo (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  14. Trusted noms, frequent (and frequently correct) revdel requester, seems like a net positive. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  15. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  16. Excellent move, getting indef-blocked before running. SN54129 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    I can help you with that if you'd like. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC) SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    And thanking you for the offer, General, but the results might not, quite be the same thing 🤪 SN54129 17:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    A comment so nice, you signed it twice. —Locke Coletc 17:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  17. Support - Highly qualified, trustworthy and competent contributor. I thought they already were an admin. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    Support - no obvious flaws Moved to neutral mostly as a protest vote for the disaster that was this RfA casualdejekyll 17:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  18. Support. DS (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  19. Support. Sdrqaz has a lot of experience with helping people and building the encyclopedia. Great job! I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  20. Support I have seen them around quite a bit. I have never seen anything bad come from them. I am happy to support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  21. Support; for so many great reasons above --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  22. Support - looks good to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  23. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  24. Support. Sea Cow (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  25. Support. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  26. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  27. Support. bibliomaniac15 19:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  28. Support competent, helpful Vexations (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  29. Support. No concerns with answers to the questions. The candidate raised their own perceived skeletons in the closet at this discussion, and looking through them, I'm not seeing anything concerning, nor does it appear anyone else has discovered others not disclosed. My only reservation (and it's a severe one) is that the picture of a red panda on their userpage is collapsed under a "frivolous things" header, an insufficient level of reverence for such a majestic creature.మూస:Fbdb {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    Not that it's particularly needed, but in light of the userpage photo concern, reiterating my support. On appropriateness, the potential for confusion is genuine, so it's not something I'd do, but it's well within the "considerable leeway" allowed by guidance. On copyright, I concur with Nosebagbear's !vote below—it is not reasonable to expect editors to conduct an exhaustive investigation before using a photo that has been marked reviewed on Commons; this does not come close to the level that'd give me concerns about competence. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  30. Support Yeppers CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  31. Support Good noms, no reason to oppose. Chaddude (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Chaddude
  32. SupportSdrqaz, is excellent at new page reviewing, anti spam, possess the right temperament, demeanor and judgement. Furthermore as an active member in new page reviewing I have seen their work first hand. Furthermore if TonyBallioni & The Blade of the Northern Lights endorses you it means you are extremely brilliant and you deserve the mop. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  33. Support – no concerns. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  34. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  35. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  36. Support sure. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  37. Support. Good editing track record. No issues I can find. Bibeyjj (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  38. Support I feel like I've seen you around but WP:EIA hasn't shown anything. Seem like a great choice to support. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  39. I've checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions and I found nothing that concerned me.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  40. Support clear use for the tools, net benefit to the community. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 22:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  41. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  42. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  43. I can’t see why not. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 22:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  44. Support I'm confident they will make good use of the tools. Nice work on shadow docket too. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  45. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  46. Support - have seen their good work (UAA for instance), good answer to Q5, really like answer to Q3. Took a bit further look into their interactions with new and established editors, more positive things found. I firmly believe this candidate will be a significant positive when given the additional tools. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  47. Support. Everything above inspires my confidence. Maproom (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  48. Support a no-brainer. Has a clue, respected noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  49. Support Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. Trust the noms, and I think Sdrqaz can meet these requirements, based on what others are saying (50th vote) Rlink2 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  50. As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  51. Per Fastily, Ymblanter, CaptainEek, Ritchie333, and ToBeFree above. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  52. Support; no concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  53. SupportKurtis (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  54. Support I particularly appreciate the thoughtfulness in the answer to question 3. Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  55. Support. I've interacted with Sdrqaz on several occasions, and my view is the same as that of the nominators. Mz7 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  56. Support. Nothing but the best to say about this candidate. Courteous, reasonable, excellent understanding of policy, excellent content contributions and project-side contributions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  57. Candidate seems helpful, sensible, dedicated, collegial, experienced, and trustworthy. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  58. They will be a great administrator. DanCherek (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  59. Support - the AfD participation reflects thorough attention to policy, guidelines, and sources. Also glad to see the interest in responding to BLP violations. Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  60. Support - trust the nominators. Plus I trust the candidate. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 02:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    I'd like to re-affirm my support, even with the opposes below about the use of the images on their userpage. I can see why an editor might be confused, but as mentioned in their answer to #4 they are willing to change it if it causes confusion. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  61. Wug·a·po·des 02:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  62. Support I too am familiar with their UAA reports and have general positive impressions from other areas around the project. No direct engagement that I can recall, but also no concerns at all. Star Mississippi 03:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  63. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  64. I have met you on WP:UAA reporting cases and commenting about others reports. I even declined a cases based on your rationale. As many shared on your talk page, I also think you are an admin without tools. So Welcome! Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 03:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  65. Support. Excellent communication skills. All-around competent in multiple areas. — Newslinger talk 03:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  66. Support. This support vote is for your edit summary percentage, thats really impressive. I hope you will be an asset to the community. signed, 511KeV (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  67. Support. – B203GTB  • (talk)  • 04:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  68. Support - Number of administrators dropped from 1,073 to 1,052 and above. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 04:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  69. Support - See immediately above and also the qualifications of the candidate. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  70. Support. Desperation setting in (jus' kiddin'). Starting to think it's time for me to run again, the number of admins is droppin' so. Nah, probably not. Anyway, no concerns here as Sdrqaz appears to be an excellent candidate! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  71. Support no reason not to. AryKun (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  72. Support any candidate of Tony's. ♠PMC(talk) 07:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  73. Support no concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  74. Support: the noms say it all. Graham87 09:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  75. Support Any nominee of Tony's is going to be fine, but that's something of a dis-service to Sdrqaz who is an excellent candidate. Nick (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  76. Support Great candidate with long productive editing history. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  77. Support Trusted user with no concerns Thingofme (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  78. Support. I'm very happy to see this page is no longer a red link. Like both noms, I've been aware of Sdrqaz for a while now and I've been very consistently impressed with their judgement, their willingness to ask questions when they aren't sure, and their willingness to listen both to the answers to their own questions and to questions from other users. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  79. Support. No reason not to. //Julle (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  80. Support -- It is a yes from me. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  81. Support - Cabayi (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  82. Support: Zsohl(Talk) 13:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  83. Support: I see no reason not to. Rin (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  84. Support Seems to have a good head on their shoulders. — GhostRiver 14:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  85. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  86. Support a good candidate. Less Unless (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  87. checkY GMGtalk 16:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  88. Support Well-respected by the community, thoughtful responses to the questions-- more than happy to support. Helen(💬📖) 16:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  89. Support per nom statements. I've seen this name around and have no concerns. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  90. Support. I often came across their work and I've never found issues with them. Thoughtful answers. Overall a good candidate in my view. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  91. Support. Terasail[✉️] 17:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  92. Support Clearly well qualified, has clue, not a jerk. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  93. Support Sure, why not? Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 18:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  94. Support Looks like a good candidate. Also, supporting to negate User:GregJackP's oppose vote, based on arbitrary personal criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talkcontribs)
  95. Support - no real concerns, although I would prefer if the infobox photo was removed and the user page was toned down... GiantSnowman 19:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  96. Support Agree with the many reasons given by others above. Equineducklings (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  97. Support No concerns with me. JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  98. Support - a nomination from TonyBallioni and The Blade of the Northern Lights needs no further input from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  99. Support; unconcerned eviolite (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  100. Support. I'm one late for WP:100. No concerns about the candidate, who should do fine with the tools. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  101. Support Routinely does the right thing, obviously considers editors to be actual human people, and has the trust of some good noms. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  102. Support, I see no problems here. BD2412 T 03:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  103. Support Strongly. And good answers to the questions--Enos733 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  104. Well deserved, long overdue. Nothing but positive interactions. Will no doubt excel as an admin, I'd wager in record speed. El_C 03:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  105. Support, would be a great admin :D Justiyaya 05:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  106. Support Leijurv (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  107. Support valuable editor with strong history who will be valuable to Wikipedia. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  108. Support, answers given reflect will be good with mops. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  109. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  110. support per all above reasons--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  111. I confess that I was a bit confused by the photograph on the user page - I just assumed that it really was a photo of Sdrqaz - perhaps she users some voice to text software to write articles? Happy to support regardless of my confusion. Girth Summit (blether) 13:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  112. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  113. Support - I believe this user will handle the mop well and not abuse it. They have a good editing history. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  114. Support - as for the reasons put forward so far JarrahTree 14:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  115. Support: Appears trustworthy and would handle the tools well. Bsoyka (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  116. Support Trustworthy candidate; will benefit the project as an admin. SpencerT•C 15:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  117. Support why not? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  118. Support Seems like a good candidate, trustworthy. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  119. Support, seems a perfectly qualified candidate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  120. Support, but I believe that something needs to be done about the pictures. At the very least, I think that Jisoo should be prominently credited and wikilinked. I should note that it’s not easy to find out who this person is, exactly: Kim Ji-soo is the name of multiple celebrities, and to access the Commons metadata for the User Talk picture, you need to go to the /header subpage. JBchrch talk 21:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    A small point, but you can also access the file page by clicking on the icon in the top-right of the caption. I believe this method works for every image with a caption - if you have navigation popups enabled, then hovering over this icon will preview the file page, if you don't then you see a tooltip saying "enlarge". Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Thryduulf that's correct. JBchrch talk 04:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  121. Support for a candidate who's a net positive, with trustworthy noms. Miniapolis 22:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  122. Support, I see no concerns here. Seems very qualified and level headed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  123. Support looks good >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  124. Support overdue to be honest. Gizza (talkvoy) 01:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  125. Support. Seems a good candidate and I have no concerns, in particular I don't think not having a FA should be a bar to adminship if the candidate is otherwise qualified. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  126. Support has demonstrated commitment and competence. --Find bruce (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  127. Support. Not a jerk; has a clue. –MJLTalk 03:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  128. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  129. Support -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 06:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  130. Support TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  131. Support. I've had positive interactions with the candidate and I'm impressed with them. Huggums537 (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  132. Support I’ve positive interact with them. So... why not? READING BEANS Talk to the Beans? 10:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  133. Support On the outside, he looks a bit immature, but on the inside, he looks trusty. I't's good to see he redeemed himself after that recent block. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  134. Support Their positives are enumerated nicely above, but I felt I should provide my specific support in response to the concerns raised. Firstly I don't believe there was significant chance of mistaking them, but the more significant issue (copyright), I also feel was well within the bounds of acceptability. Neither I, nor most editors or admins alike, would (or should) feel an obligation to check a Commons photo that has been reviewed and do our own exhaustive inspection. That would heavily erase the purpose of Commons' existence. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  135. Support. I've seen the candidate around and think they have a good need for the tools. The concerns about their userpage are inconsequential in my view. Meanwhile, their stated need for the tools makes sense and is backed up by their activity. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  136. Support- trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  137. Support I have only been here for about a year, But I have found this users contributions to be extremely helpful and useful to the project. You have my vote.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  138. Support ~ no further comment, except how disappointing it is to see the wedge of prose on the talk page about the single oppose; i don't necessarily agree with GregJackP's rationale, but seeing that rationale questioned, rather offensively at times, every time it is raised is...sad. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 18:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  139. Support: good temperament, plenty of experience and no cause for concern. Thanks for running! — Bilorv (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  140. Support Temperament. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  141. Support - I'm surprised that I haven't encountered Sdrqaz about the place, but from what I've seen here, I trust them with the admin tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  142. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  143. Support Chlod (say hi!) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  144. Support Cavalryman (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  145. Support. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  146. Support. I see a legitimate case for why the user's getting the tools would be a net benefit to the community. The opposition based on the lack of an FA or a second GA is the user's prerogative, and I'd like to see more content creation (even at the DYK level), but this is not disqualifying in my mind for an admin who plans to focus on some of the more back end tasks so-to-speak. My first impression upon reading their userpage was that they were the person in the photo—I'd recommend that they make it more explicit that it is not so (for example, by removing the photo or putting something on the page that prominently says they are not Kim). The answers to questions have been inoffensive. The user seems to be competent enough for the tools and doesn't seem to be plagued with long-term civility issues. The case that they (and their noms) make are much stronger than the reasons to oppose, so I think it's best to lend my support. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  147. Support Experienced, dedicated, and most importantly, with a good head and calm demenour, which will help them in the role of an admin. Minor side-comment: while the photos on the userpage, that Ritchie33 mentioned, are to me very transparently an attempt at humor/friendliness rather than deception, I still think Sdrqaz should reconsider their inclusion in light of the Front page test (esp. imagining a naive or hostile framing). Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  148. Sdrqpport. The userpage pictures did confuse me a bit at first too. Perhaps, in the caption for the infobox photo, it would be better to append something like "as portrayed by Jisoo". Either way, though, there are existing admins' userpages that prominently feature photos of notable living people; I don't see it as something worth opposing over. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  149. Support. Fully support. No issues. --Bduke (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  150. Support. Mouthwash15 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  151. Support. Trusted user will make a good admin. I do agree with comments about the userpage pictures and feel as an admin they should make the image caption unambiguous.Polyamorph (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  152. Support. Full disclosure: I used to have File:Carl Spitzweg 021.jpg on my userpage to refer to myself, even though my hair is not white and you are more likely to find me browsing the 'pataphysics section than metaphysics. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  153. Support. At this point I deeply sympathize with the ordeal that Sdrqaz is undergoing in this RFA, particularly in regards to the bewildering drama that the oppose and discussions sections have descended into (someone dropped Cassianto's name for crying out loud). I agree this user has a need for the tools.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  154. Support, and I'll echo others above that the userpage image discussion is a real tempest in a teapot. GABgab 14:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  155. Support. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  156. Support. No concerns. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  157. Support, good answer to Q12. 15 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  158. Support: I didn't really think I had anything to add here, but now I wanna say that if users are really objecting to their fitness for adminship based on an image in their userpage, this thing deserves to pass with 105% approval. Clearly a qualified and competent editor who will wield the mop well. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 22:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  159. Support: First time voting, and I agree about edit summaries! Suvannixb (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  160. Support: User made appropriate requests for administrators, and should be able to do it themselves. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 02:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  161. Support because there is no valid reason not to. SK2242 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, per my criteria. User has one GA, no FA, and needs more experience as a content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 14:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to talk CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Athaenara and GregJackP. Using someone else's photos and implying they are of you is a hard no-go, and GregJackP also raises very valid points. My personal criteria are a lot more relaxed than his; however, I do agree with his reasoning. Furthermore, the amount of badgering GregJackP experienced despite providing valid reasoning for his oppose is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I am thankful to see that Sdrqaz did not participate in that, however, and kept cool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, changing my vote from Neutral. So, the deal is, I had some questions about whether the candidate had a copyvio image on their talk page. I opened a thread on the talk page of this RfA, and after some discussion and digging into archives it turned out they didn't and so no problem. However, now a new and worse problem arises. So, I change my vote because, even tho I requested Sdrqaz's presence, on their talk page, at that thread here, they couldn't be bothered to come I guess, nor engage in the discussion at their talk page. And I mean you'd think that Sdrqaz would be especially alert and on their best behavior at this time (if they're too busy, they could have requested a delay (unless very pressing external circumstances arose suddenly)). It's just not OK for an admin to meet requests for engagement on important questions with complete silence. And again, this is presumably his best face. It's not OK, and at this point I don't want the guy in the admin corps barring some explaino. (If it's a matter of being too stressed to engage while in the middle of a 157/2/5 lovefest, that indicates to me that the candidate is not tough enough. If you're an admin people are going to yell at you, and you have to shrug that off and make dispassionate decisions. If it's a matter of considering the matter too trivial to bother with, that's even worse. If it's something else, I'm all ears.) Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Moral (at this juncture) support for your oppose, H. It is odd, considering the swathe of recent arbcom cases based on (a perceived lack of) communication. SN54129 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Usually matters about certain content, especially in relation to their user page, would be discussed on HIS talk page, His lack of response could very well be due to time-zone differentials. As for the RfA talk discsusion and his lack of participation, There was no direct reason for his participation. So far this oppose as far as i can tell, is based on his lack of responses. This would be a valid reason if he didnt respond period. However, usually i have found this user to respond to issues and complaints. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    It's been two days. And there is also a discussion on their talk page in which he also has declined to participate. If the reason is that they feel that "There was no direct reason for his participation" then I really don't want him on the admin corps nor should anyone. However, your averring that he is usually is responsive is important. I can only vote based on my experience, if you have other experience you might vote differently, and fine. But then it's just odd that he's not responding here. There may be a good reason, if one comes out I'll strike my vote. Herostratus (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Herostratus and Serial Number 54129: As I've written twice in this RfA, I believe strongly in the community's right to scrutiny. I appreciate that those who have not heard me speak on the issue probably think that I am saying that for show, but I am not – I repeatedly delayed this RfA so I could run alone and the community could carry out their duties with minimal distractions. I intended on joining the discussion on the talk page, but by the time I had seen the message, others had responded with identical rationales to me (that there was a CC-BY-SA 4.0 icon on the page). Since the licensing issue seemed to have been resolved (and is considered that way by Herostratus) and I had responded on the first day regarding the issue of confusion for newer Wikipedians, I didn't see what else could be said, so didn't, and I was told by Herostratus that I didn't have to participate in the thread, so thought it would be acceptable. I am sorry for not engaging earlier. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Meh. I think choosing to ignore Herostratus being a bit of a dick is actually evidence of perfect suitability for being an admin. Nick (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Is this a case of going back on words? @Sdrqaz You are doing great, please ignore and don't involve yourself in ridiculous situations like these. Congrats! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 21:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. No user, and particularly no administrator, should have images of public figures placed on their main userpage in such a way as to convey the impression that they are images of the user him/herself. – Athaenara 14:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    I appreciate your point, I wanted to mention that that's not how I saw it. On social media, (WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA) using a format such as {{{name}}} when {{{something}}} is a pretty common way to relate to others. Although Herostratus makes a point below, that is being debated on the talk page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    But it's obvious that the public figure is not Sdrqaz themself, you could ask them to verify their identity but that's really not necessary. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 12:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Neutral on the same basis. [EDIT 19:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC): changing my vote. My original post here is somewhat germane so I'll leave it. If anyone knows how to re-format my comment here without messing up the numbering, that'd be great.] To the above commenter my initial reaction was "enh, I see the point, but it's kind of a no-fun point, candidate is not really claiming to be that person... perhaps asking them to remove it when they're an admin could possibly be called for, and that's it." Being a little bit fun on one's user page is actually a good thing IMO. Buuuut... looking into it, it's questionable to me if the photo is in the public domain. That's... quite a different thing. I'm willing to be educated, and it's not a deal-killer (I'm not going to oppose the candidate about this), but if I'm right it's not a good a look for an admin and an explain would be in order please. Details of my reasononing I'll put on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC) [EDIT, added 19:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC):] Well this is odd, but I'm changing my vote from Neutral to Oppose on a different basis, I'll explain at my vote there. Herostratus (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Similar as Athaenara. I initially had the impression Ji-soo is not a celebrity but the wikipedia editor in question. Just after a little research I assumed it was not her. The answer to Q4 isn't really clarifying the issue, and on the copyright of the image I'd like to see some further explanation before I support.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    On the Copyright there was a discussion at the talk page, so the copyright issue is clarified and settled. But the issue on claiming to be a public figure but not being it is still pending.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    Neutral, based on GregJackP's comment. It makes sense that an admin must be able to write about content, thus know the difficulties of writing in the first place. However, this experience can be claimed while being an admin, so I am not sure to support this candidate or not. I will look at their contribs, answers, and editing stats to decide. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    @CactiStaccingCrane: "Neutral" means "I have looked into the issue and have genuinely mixed feelings, so am neither supporting nor opposing", not "I have not looked into the issue but would like to draw attention to myself". In the future, please don't do this. --JBL (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    as far as i can tell, @CactiStaccingCrane has looked into the user in question. Please assume good faith in the future. @JayBeeEllPerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    @PerryPerryD: Their comment is quite explicit that they have not done that yet -- maybe you should read it? --JBL (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    Wow. Hostile much? Cacti is not using this space to call attention to themselves. They were talking about needing further research on the user in question, not beginning their research. Again. Assume Good Faith. @JayBeeEllPerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    I can see where JBL is coming from: this is a place holder !vote that can be perceived as vanity; OTOH, CSC hasn't been here long enough to know that. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, I would strike-through my vote. I think I am not ready for doing any voting in RfA, or anything here in that matter. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    No apology necessary CactiStaccingCrane, at least not from you. If it's any consolation, I've been registered more than a decade and there are still parts of "here" that I avoid like the plague. RfA is a special place, though, where many members of the community get to express their trust/distrust in certain editors who are willing to expose themselves to these rigors of becoming an admin. It is said that for all its apparent and evident shortcomings, the RfA process does mean that if a candidate succeeds, he or she has earned the trust of our community. For me, there is nothing more personally satisfying than that. Please do feel welcome here and, after awhile, you will be giving it back as ably as you learn to take it. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Athaenara, GregJackP, Reaper Eternal, etc. This is more of a protest vote than an actual thing. ALSO I BROKE THE NUMBERING HELP casualdejekyll 13:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Numbering fixed. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. per Athaenara. While the user's work for Wikipedia has been good, the user page is a concern to me, especially with the fact that I'm not unsure if the photo is in the public domain. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per Athaenara and the subsequent lack of engagement on the topic from the candidate. The answer to Q4 doesn't really do it for me; if I can be fooled by the image and caption (which I was), then so can any other editor. Something about this just doesn't sit right with me. 49 TL 20:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
General comments

  • I can't speak for the candidate, but I don't understand what Naleksuh is getting at with Question 8. What are these categories that Sdrqaz identifies as, and are there really increasing numbers of sysops working in them? What is meant by 'areas that don't relate to user groups'? This is worded so ambiguously that I can't see how the candidate can be expected to provide an answer. Girth Summit (blether) 08:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    I think the "categories you identify yourself as" is meant to mean "the administrative areas you say you are interested in working in" (i.e. UAA, CSD, and RevDel). I'm not sure what "areas that don't relate to user groups" is meant to mean: insofar as it has any meaning, I would expect deletion to come under it, and two of the three admin activities Sdrqaz claims an interest in are deletion-related. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    A good thing questions are optional and can be ignored. :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I think the question is, "you work in a field with lots of admin, but there are now less overall admin. What are your thoughts on areas where there are fewer/no administrators." Although I'm unsure where that is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    Category:Administrative backlog? JBchrch talk 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I strongly believe in, and will defend, the community's right to scrutinise candidates at RfA, as administrators serve the community. However, I am disheartened by the tone of some of the discussion and request that all editors take a step back and lower the temperature of debate. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I fully agree. If we are not careful, we will not have enough admins. I was an admin and did quite a bit of what I think was useful work and then retired as I am getting too old. I doubt I would have been made an admin in the current situation. Being an admin is not a big deal. We need more of them. --Bduke (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that irrelevant opposes should be called out and those that make them topic-banned from RfA. SN54129 15:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that irrelevant opposes !votes, both support and oppose should be called out and those that make them topic-banned from RfA. There, fixed it for you - unless you are claiming that only people you agree with can take a position on an RfA. GregJackP Boomer! 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In not claiming anything. I am firm in the knowledge that what I have written is fully compliant with community consensus. If you do not understand that by now, perhaps it is beyond your understanding. SN54129 13:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, now I understand why Cass thought so highly of you. GregJackP Boomer! 22:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Iamreallygoodatcheckers, is there a specific concern you have with this candidate that has caused you to believe they wouldn't be capable of being neutral when closing a discussion? A diff would help. valereee (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: No, I’ve had no experience with the nom as far as I’m aware. I just think impartially is an extremely important trait for an admin.

  • The candidate complains that others assume she is male, but unhelpfully does not declare her gender on her talk page. If it is important to you that people address you correctly then you need to say how you want to be addressed. SpinningSpark 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that they may not identify as female and are simply complaining about people assuming that they're male (which is fair enough - using gender-neutral language to refer to people who haven't specified their gender identity/preferred pronouns is almost always the best thing to do). Whether they publically declare how they identify is up to them - it can eliminate any confusion, but they may be uncomfortable with doing so and, as I've said, using gender-neutral language in this sort of scenario is a good idea. Remagoxer (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi @Spinningspark! I presume you're referring to Sdrqaz's answer to question 4? I appreciate that you're seeking communication so you know how to address the candidate, but there are a few things to keep in mind when questions like this come up.
On Wikipedia, the software allows you to specify your gender using three options: male (he/him), female (she/her), and undeclared (they/them). This info is public, and can be queried by using {{gender|username}}. {{gender|Sdrqaz}} produces "they", so that's the pronoun I'll use to refer to them unless they indicate a preference otherwise (if they did indicate a preference somewhere I've just missed, feel free to point me to it). Many people who are not male are female, but some are non-binary, and it's important we not make assumptions so as to be inclusive.
Unfortunately, in many environments, a "default male" assumption takes hold, where users with unknown gender are assumed to be male. This is what Sdrqaz was referring to, and it's very widespread. It happens both because of systemic sexism that has made maleness the default and femaleness marked, and because environments like Wikipedia are around 90% male, which it's easy to round up in one's head to 100%. To help fight against systemic bias and make Wikipedia a welcoming place for everyone, it's really important that we fight back against the default male assumption and refer to users with unknown gender using they/them/their (or, if you're uncomfortable with the singular they, just by their username).
Whether or not to disclose one's gender on one's userpage or talkpage is a decision that every Wikipedian gets to make, but it's important to remember that it can be a particularly difficult one for users who are not male. Unfortunately, in our present world, outing oneself as female or non-binary can open one up to a lot of potential harassment, so some editors prefer not to disclose it. They should be allowed to make that decision freely.
I know that you're coming to this with good intentions, so I hope you don't feel at all called out—a lot of these points aren't obvious to those who haven't experienced or studied them. But I hope they help clarify one way to approach this topic that helps everyone of all genders feel comfortable here. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to add on to Sdkb's comment, this is the main reason why I've added a prominent userbox in my userpage indicating that I'm female. Even then I get misgendered from time to time, but it helps fight the default male problem mentioned above. I'm not saying Sdrqaz should add this userbox (nor feel they must do so), but I thought I'd comment on how I deal with it. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 22:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that is a complaint, at least if you are talking about the response to Q4. Sdrqaz observes that people assume that they are male, in the context of a question of whether people will be confused by a userpage which shows a female celebrity with the caption "Sdrqaz after editing". Their response to that was the incredibly mild "please don't call me brother" and "no need for respected sir either – not all editors are male". That perhaps implies that they are not male, but I suspect even many male editors would be uncomfortable with what can easily read as over-familiar ("brother") or excessively obsequious ("respected sir"). (Though I suspect that "respected sir" reads significantly less weirdly in India, where that editor is from, than it does in the UK or the USA.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Indian here. You get your marks deducted in letter writing if you don't address someone of higher authority, like Principal of a school, editor of newspaper, (in this case, an experienced WP editor), with the term "Respected sir" and using it is seen as basic courtesy towards the receiver. That's how students are trained. So, that behaviour doesn't seem obsequious to me. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 23:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

వికీపీడియా:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.