Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery

Pppery

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (128/47/8); Scheduled to end 16:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Pppery (talk · contribs) – For my second-ever RFA nomination, and first since 2016, I present Pppery, who coincidentally registered their account just a couple days before I started that April 2016 nomination. Since then Pppery has amassed over 66,000 edits (~top 1500 by count). His clean block log, lengthy user log (over 1800 pages moved and 600 pages patrolled) and drama-free talk page attest to his pleasant and civil interactions. Gerda thought he was Precious after only four months of editing! Administrator's Noticeboard search finds just 48 unproblematic items, many relating to him providing technical advice, and some where he reported 3RR violations that resulted in blocks. His top-notch technical abilities caught my attention long ago. He's been very helpful with my merge bot's task 2. I told him he was ready for this back in September 2021. He's been saying he wants to be an administrator since March 2019 and I trust that it's finally time for the community to say that _{his adminship has begun...} – wbm1058 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I'll second what Wbm1058 said above. And I'll also add that in my view, the editor clearly meets my criteria for adminship. I should also probably point out that they are already an administrator on MediaWiki, and a patroller on Commons (Special:CentralAuth/Pppery). And as for "need", they are very active, well, on my watchlist, active nearly everywhere, lol. But in particular, helps out a lot in the more technical side of Wikipedia. And has been helping out at WP:CFD, where there has been an ongoing backlog of late. All in all, a worthwhile candidate. Please hand them the mop so they can get to work : ) - jc37 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 31 July 2023 (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: I first expressed interest in becoming an administrator in March 2019, following a spree of fully-protected edit requests to templates and interface messages (most of which were eventually granted, after week-to-month long delays), thinking I could save the admins processing my requests effort. Although my specific interests have moved on, and I was in hindsight not ready to run for adminship then, the underlying motivation, that I want to be an admin because I find myself making regular requests for admin action of various sorts, has remained the same.

To answer the old version of this question: What administrative work do you intend to take part in?, specific examples of venues I will likely work in are Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and Category:Wikipedia fully protected edit requests, all of which have relatively few active admins or have had relatively few active admins at some point in the past. I tend to dabble a bit everywhere, and will likely do the same as an admin.

The one area I do not intend (at this time) to regularly work in is blocking - if I run into a blatantly disruptive account or IP that needs blocking, I will probably block it, but I don't intend to make that a regular occurrence.

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

A: This is difficult to answer because I work in many areas that are difficult to compare to each other. If you are looking for significant content improvements, see Magic: The Gathering rules, which I took from having lots of unsourced content to the current state of every single claim being sourced and almost every single claim having a secondary source.

If you are looking for significant tech projects, see Template talk:Tfm/Archive 1#TfM in template documentation (2016), where I fixed a longstanding bug causing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion notices to display incorrectly in some cases, Module:XfD old (2019), which implements the backlog table shown at the top of deletion discussion venues, or the major rewrite I did to Module:Authority control in 2021 (discussed at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Discussion example of the new look after the RfC).

Another way one could answer this question is to look at the 13 barnstars I've earned from other users over the years, listed on my userspace.

Personally, though, I think my best contributions are not any of those but rather the many little things I've done: 18,000 mainspace edits, often to obscure articles no one else is editing, 600 edits to Wikipedia:Help desk and 550 to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), often providing technical assistance to another user, etc.

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: First some really old stuff: I did behave disruptively and in hindsight possibly should have been blocked in 2016, and also was a major player in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13/Archive#08 April 2019 and some other silliness from around that time.

Moving on to more recent times, I'm a regular participant in deletion discussions, which naturally involves people disagreeing with me from time to time, and have been in my share of routine content disputes, as my talk page shows. I don't think I've gotten into anything more serious than that recently.

When I get stressed out over something or other, I tend to take a wikibreak for a few days, which happens fairly regularly. This pattern will probably continue as an admin.

---

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 Barkeep49

4. You call Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13/Archive#08 April 2019 "silliness". It's not clear to me what part of all that you find silly nor what you have taken away/learned from that experience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A: What I am saying was silly is how that one interaction led to a lot of drama on both sides which wasted a lot of energy, and almost made me quit Wikipedia, but in practice didn't amount to anything in the end. All that was really going on was back in early 2019 was that RexxS and I disagreed over some technical stuff. I probably should have respected that disagreement more and pushed my own point of view less. After the RfA, although I continued doing some of the same cleanups, I tried to reduce my level of interaction with RexxS, and haven't (to my knowledge) gotten into any kind of conflict of that sort since.

Optional question from AirshipJungleman29

5. How do you pronounce your username? Is it "peepeeperi" or "peepeepee-eri" or just "peri" with a really explosive "p sound" or something else?

A: I'm not consistent, and have used several different pronounciations. The name is a corruption of Perry (given name) and is unrelated to "Peppery", if anyone cares.

Optional question from Shushugah

5. Tabs or spaces?

A: As someone who makes regular edits the module namespace, which uses indented code, this actually does have an impact on my Wikipedia edits. When editing modules written my other people, I try to stick to the existing convention. When I write modules from scratch like Module:RfX tally (actually used on this very RfA), then I appear to have used tabs, but I don't really care

Optional question from Shushugah

6. What is the most silly discussion you have participated or witnessed here and how did you engage?

A: I'm tempted to say "responding to this question on this RfA" :P, but in reality it's difficult to beat a meta-discussion about how to title April Fools deletion nominations, to which I suggested an idea that nobody else agreed with. And no, I won't carry out my suggestion if that RfA passes.

Optional question from Willbb234

7. You mentioned on 19 July that you were concerned about a lack of content creation coming up in your RFA. Do you believe that content creation is a good indication of suitability for adminship?

Obviously not.Not necessarily The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing. I believe have experience in the areas I intend to admin in. Perhaps content creation provides experience that would be helpful in closing AfDs, or in blocking people, or in some other areas of adminship, but just as importantly it doesn't provide experience in the technical aspects of adminship where I intend to focus.

Optional question from Reaper Eternal

8. What would you say is your best article? It does not have to be one you started (Lord knows we have enough random articles already!); just an example of one you put significant time into improving.

A: Definitely Magic: The Gathering rules (which I already mentioned in Q2). I have 18,000 mainspace edits, but most of them are small cleanups to large numbers of articles, not large changes to small numbers of articles.

Optional question from Trey Maturin

9. You don't use edit summaries almost a third of the time (getting close to half the time in some months). Why?

A: I would say the biggest reason is either that I am doing an utterly uncontroversial syntax fix, commenting on a discussion (in which case an edit summary doesn't mean much - the reply tool uses "Reply", which is obvious since pretty much every talk page edit is a reply - also note that the edit summary usage tool appears to count edits with only the automatic section summary as having no summary). The other time it happens is when I am doing some sort of mass cleanup, in which I have a habit of going a bit fast and thus not using an edit summary when I probably should. If someone is confused about one of my edits with no summary they are welcome to ask me and I will try to explain what it did and why.

I have now enabled the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" preference. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

10. You have created 62 articles out of which 42 are deleted can you please explain why ?

A: Because the Xtools deleted pages tool counts deleted mainspace redirects in the "deleted" list, but doesn't count undeleted mainspace redirects in the live list. If you properly include redirects, you see 1362 creations of which 42 were deleted.

Optional question from Floq

11. If you prefer to address my concerns about user category CFD/RFD closures directly in the Neutral section, please feel free. If you're aware of the RFA taboo against disagreeing with commenters directly below, I can't fault that at all, and so here's a place you can do so instead.

A: I can totally understand why you (and others) are concerned about this, and I am willing to agree to stay away from closing contentious user category discussions since, and this is a direct quote from WP:INVOLVED, it's a decision [...] about which I have strong feelings, and will instead participate in them.

Optional question from L235

12. Thank you for standing. This is a followup to Q7, where you wrote that you don't intend to focus on closing AfDs, or [] blocking people, or [] some other areas of adminship where content creation provides experience that would be helpful. As an administrator, you will come across a number of areas in which you can use the tools, even outside of those you originally intend to pursue. Do you intend to refrain from taking actions in areas where content creation is important experience, and how will you determine what those areas are? If you do feel qualified in the future to enter those areas, how will you approach that transition? I also invite you to expand on your answer to Q7 here, if you so desire.

A: First off, I was clearly wrong in the initial (now struck) version of Q7 when I said "Obviously not" - it's not at all obvious, and I should have known that. My thinking was on the lines of "if I thought content creation was a significant indicator of suitability for adminship, then I wouldn't run". On to the rest of the question, I do intend to refrain from taking potentially-controversial actions in those areas. Obviously decisions that make a direct impact on content count here, but I'm also aware of the implied social aspects explained at places like User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, or the concerns people sometimes raise about admins without content creation taking admin action against content creators, and will keep those in mind. I don't think it's possible to answer If you do feel qualified in the future to enter those areas, how will you approach that transition - I'll make that decision in the future, but it's really a matter of gaining experience, listening, and learning from what the other admins do. I could not have told you that I would undergo a significant namespace shift toward mainspace in 2021 at any previous time, for instance.

The one exception is that I will continue doing new page patrol in pretty much the same way as I already have been, since I held that right prior to adminship and have not (AFAIK) received any significant flak over that activity.

Optional question from Guerillero

13. Have you ever edited from or otherwise had access from any account other than the one currently at RfA? If yes, would you be willing to disclose them?

A: No. But I edited logged out for a while before creating my account.

Optional question from Danbloch

14. What does _{it has begun...} mean?

A: "It" originally referred to "a new era of editing after the drama relating to the RexxS RfA". Since then I liked the signature and saw no reason to change it, even though I have moved on.

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

15.If elected, would you support a block if someone questions your actions?

There isn't really enough context to answer this question. The best I can say is that questioning my (or other admins') actions is a normal part of the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia and not something one would block over.

Optional question from Lightburst

16.Almost 16% of your edits have been deleted. It looks like many admins are well under that percentage and I am under 7%. Can you tell us why you have a high number of deleted edits?

A: It looks like the main explanation is that I do a lot of deletion tagging (both for speedy deletions and for deletion discussions), which results in a lot of deleted edits.

Optional question from Z1720

17. Thank you for volunteering for this process and added responsibility. One of the areas you want to work in (as stated in your response to question 1) is CFD, where admin close discussions and determine consensus. In a discussion with multiple viewpoints (where consensus is not obvious) what process will you use to determine a CFD discussion's consensus?

A: This sort of question is very difficult to discuss in the abstract, especially since "with multiple viewpoints (where consensus is not obvious)" is a rather broad descriptor. So far when non-admin closing CfDs I've been thinking in more of an I know it when I see it style rather than following any specific process. At least early on I intend to close CfDs in a similar way to my NACs of mostly uncontroversial cases, and will gradually develop a specific process to follow and branch out to more controversial areas as I become more experienced.

Anyway, CfD (at least from a quick glance of the current unclosed discussions) tends not to get that many especially controversial situations, and well, if in doubt or unsure, don't close.

Optional Conflict Resolution questions from Maile66

18. Admins often have to deal with conflicts between editors and other admins. In these two scenarios, the editor being complained about is someone you've worked well with, or otherwise have developed a productive editing relationship with. As an admin you would be pulled into some of the incidents. As an admin, you can block other editors, and even block other admins.

A. User BravoBee is someone you respect, or just plain like working with. They have complaints filed against them at WP:ANI for ongoing combative behavior towards other editors. BravoBee's friends chime in to defend him, while on the other side editors are listing and sourcing specific incidents. Other admins hang to the rear and try not to be involved.

B. ANI failed to resolve BravoBee's behavioral issues, so a case is opened at ArbCom. Things get worse while the case is divided between those who list specific incidents, and BravoBee's friends who defend his behavior.

How would you deal with these two scenarios, either as an admin or just as a friend of BravoBee? — Maile (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A: As an admin, I should not take admin actions in either scenario - in the second one ArbCom or ArbCom clerks are capable of handling whatever problems may be occurring itself. In the first case, first I'm arguably WP:INVOLVED, and even if I'm not I expressed disinterest in using admin tools in conduct-related matters in Q1 and Q12. As an editor, in theory of course I should try to be neutral and not let my prior experiences taint my evaluation of the case. In practice, when events similar to this have happened I tend to just not engage with the disupte at all, in part because it's difficult to engage productively and not let that happen.

FYI - I'm guessing you haven't been involved in much over at ArbCom. The clerks are there to assist running the project, etc. They really aren't referees in disputes. See WP:AC/PR. ArbCom has more serious consequences than AIV etc., in that these are individual cases, in which the editor who is the subject of the complaint, can be banned from given situations, or even banned from participating in certain projects. The ArbCom committee members are elected and currently are only 14 members. As a rule, they generally are uninvolved until they do the recap and make a decision. Sometimes they intervene, but mostly let it play out among those who filed a given complaint. The process is one where everybody involved in the case has a chance to air their perspectives, much like AIV. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Mitch199811

19. What questions would be the easiest and hardest for you to manage at the WP:Teahouse and WP:Help Desk and why? ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This question really doesn't make sense to me - one doesn't "manage" questions, one answers them, and I'm not (and have never been) a regular at the teahouse. At the help desk, the questions I find easiest to answer are the ones more technical in nature like this one, or questions asking for something that I had already memorized (like this one) and I often leave the questions focusing more on social aspects to other contributors.

Optional question from ToadetteEdit

20. I've seen a lot of your moving activity recently, so is moving articles your hobby on Wikipedia? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I would not say moving articles specifically is a hobby, it's more a consequence of a general hobby of "use some tool to find articles in need of attention and attend to them". In recent months I've worked on WP:Name (acronym) and WP:Acronym (name), and articles titled in all-caps with disambiguators also in all-caps as spin-offs of that hobby, and thus done a bunch of moving.

Optional question from Barkeep49

21. I have been thinking about Ritchie's oppose. I don't think Ritchie has given you enough credit for the dipolomacy you've displayed at this nomination and which feels to me like what you would do when acting with your admin hat on. How, if at all, would passing RfA change how you approach interactions where you are not acting in your admin capacity? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A: I don't think it will change my interactions in any concrete, clearly-defined way, but I will of course remember having gone through RfA, and am listening to people's feedback here and trying to do better. Am I aware of the implied social status granted by adminship even when acting as an editor and will I remember it in the future? Yes, and I also think it shouldn't exist. Can I make any specific commitment to approach things differently? Not really. In some sense, every experience one has changes the way one approaches future interactions

Thanks for your answer. I have my own complicated feelings about the social status of admins. To be clear, this question was more aimed at your interpretation of WP:ADMINCOND, which you've given but which I admit runs counter to my own. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from EggRoll97

22. What would you do in the event an action you make as an administrator is subject to challenge by another editor?

A: This obviously depends a lot on what the specific administrator action is and why it is being challenged. First off, it's of course possible I'll agree with the challenge and revert my own action (I'm not perfect), or decide to self-revert even if I don't per se agree in the interest of avoiding an unnecessary conflict. If that doesn't happen then, well, I will of course fulfil the requirement of WP:ADMINACCT of respond[ing] promptly and civilly and try to reach some sort of agreement.

If no agreement can be reached then, well, it may end up at one of the formal processes for contesting administrator actions and the action in question will either be endorsed or not.

You can see a recent example of someone challenging an administrative action I made before this RfA at User talk:Pppery#1970s assassinated South American politicians.

Optional question from Hawkeye7

23. As noted below, many content creators aren't conversant with Lua. But some of us are and regard it, like the admin toolkit, as part and parcel of the content creation process. The {{authority control}} has been rewritten since 2019, but looking at your version version I am struck by code like

if not id:match( '^%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%-%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x%x$' ) then
    return false
end

which is repeated several times! Can you tell us how this code could be improved, and how you would write it today? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A: First off, I did not write that code, it was present in the page before my refactoring. Especially when doing changes that are contentious enough already (as the authority control edits were), I tend to only implement the minimum changes needed to achieve my goal and not do unrelated refactorings.

I'll answer the question anyway: the Lua pattern to validate the ID has to exist somewhere, and it has to be written in that repetitive-seeming way since Scribunto patterns do not support the generalized finite quantifier, so one can't write it as %x{8}%-%x{4}%-%x{4}%-%x{4}%-%x{4}%-%x{12} which would be more readable. It would be possible to address the fact that every single one of the p.<ID>link functions start with

if not id:match(' <REGEX>' ) then
   return false
end

by moving the regex upstream to p.conf and checking it in p.authorityControl. The current version of Module:Authority control has gone further still and eliminated the separate function for each type of link, instead storing all of the relevant data in a table in Module:Authority control/config. Even if I were doing this today, though, I would probably still not do that refactoring myself (if I were starting from the same slate I did in 2021) - it introduces more potential for errors to creep in. I might have written the MusicBrainz code in such a way that

	local cat = p.getCatForId( 'MusicBrainz release group' )--special cat name
	if label then
		return '['..url..' '..label..']'..cat	
	else
		return '[[MBRG (identifier)|MusikBrainz]] [' .. url .. ' release group]' .. cat
	end

didn't have to be repeated three times, but don't see any other obvious things I would have done differently.

Optional question from Peter Southwood

24. In what circumstances is an edit summary actually required, as opposed to a thing a lot of people think you should do because it makes their work easier in some way? Also, in what circumstances is it really useful to everyone to leave an edit summary when it is not strictly required, and what should it contain? A conceptual explanation should be sufficient.

A: I don't think an edit summary for any one individual edit is ever strictly required by policy, although as a general principle using edit summaries (as well as some other forms of communication) are. The time it comes closest to being required is when reverting a good-faith edit made by another editor, because not clearly communicating why one is reverting something makes it much harder for them to go through the discuss phase of the BRD cycle. Otherwise, it's especially useful when either the edit is doing something especially significant (like Special:Diff/1168289549, which proposed an article for deletion), or it's unclear from context and a quick read of the diff what you are doing or why you are doing it (like Special:Diff/1168102329, where if I didn't provide a summary every watcher would be confused as to why I had removed an apparently valid entry from the list). In particular, removing content often falls in this category. The more obvious, and the more minor, an edit is, the less useful and less necessary an edit summary is, although of course it always adds some value. For this edit in particular (although I will provide an edit summary for it), context would make it pretty obvious that I was answering this question even if I didn't explicitly say so in my summary so one isn't especially important.

Optional question from User:Coronation Crown

25. Have you ever been involved in any activity or disputes involving political, cultural, or otherwise controversial discussion? Would those opinions or beliefs influence your administrative choices? Feel free to describe what you believe, here.

I don't really understand the question. If you are asking whether I have been involved in editing areas related to off-wiki controversies, then I've gnomed that sort of article like any other but otherwise tend to stay away from that area, and I'm unlikely to take admin actions in that area which could be seen as depending on my off-wiki opinions. If you are asking whether I've been involved in on-wiki controversies about anything, then see Q3. And I see no need to take up the vague offer to describe my beliefs. If you have a question about something more specific, then feel free to ask a follow-up question.

Discussion

@AirshipJungleman29 - You know, now that you mention it, I'm curious about that too. In my head, I guess I mentally read it as "Peppery". I hope that's been appropriate : ) - jc37 16:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't matter much in a typewritten environment; however, still, I prefer to adresss people (even in my head) by what they prefer to be called. So with at in mind - and with apologies - I stand corrected. "Perry" it is : ) - jc37 17:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I've now got the Perry the Platypus theme stuck in my head. First time anyone's ever said that in an RfA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In my head I hear it similarly to 'pippery', but instead of a 'pip' I add a normal plosive. SWinxy (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking "Peppery" for so long, I don't know if I can switch! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Peppers are awesome. Why wouldn't you want to be associated with them? —Cryptic 03:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

---

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

Support

1. Admin without tools. I hope FFF has selected a baton image. Courcelles (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   Note for the far future reader: Courcelles alludes to the WP:ADMINBATON. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

2. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
3. No concerns from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
4. What do you mean Pppery's not an admin? Whose idea was that? Folly Mox (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
6. Support: why not? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   I have read the concerns raised below by those opposing — they do not sway my position of support, as Pppery remains a solid WP:NETPOSITIVE. I would however suggest to them that should this RfA pass, they spend a moment reflecting on the constructive comments many have given. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

7. Support: thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
8. Support. Another mop at CfD is sorely needed, and I don't see a reason not to trust Pppery with one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
9. Support: Don't see a reason not to. (EDIT: Even after the concerns raised by other users, I still find myself in support of this candidate. While I understand the concerns brought up by some regarding their CfD participation, I don't think it's egregious enough to warrant an oppose, especially considering the candidate affirmed that they will stay away from closing contentious discussions. The lack of major content creation is a bit iffy, however, I doubt they will participate in areas where having an extensive content creation background would be needed, so not a huge issue.) ULPS (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
10. Support: Some less-than-perfect behavior seven years ago and less than a year into an editor's time on the project is more endearing than worrying. The SPI stuff is unconcerning. Good luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
11. Support: Excellent understanding of policy and a great gnome. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
12. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
13. I've heard of him before, and nothing too concerning as yet. Do heed Floq's advice if applicable, however. (EDIT: This support is greatly weakened, however, by the candidate's attitudes towards edit summaries and content creation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
14. Support - For some reason my memory failed me and I thought they were already an admin. Excellent candidate!--NØ 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
15. Support: outstanding technical work, excellent behind-the-scenes knowledge, and having the tools will augment their editing. Pppery is already familiar with the tools from MediaWiki. No temperament issues that I can see (if the CfD discussions are the worst of it then it's small potatoes). Edit summary usage is not a valid metric: the point of an edit summary is to explain the non-self-explanatory, not to write one for the sake of filling a blank box.
    I generally like to see content creation, and Magic: The Gathering rules is weak. Many sources are at least usable for uncontroversial content: Paste, Polygon, The Daily Dot, Screen Rant, Game Rant, Comic Book Resources. But I recognise Dot Esports as generally unreliable and there look to be many blog sources. This preprint from arXiv is not good for Wikipedia use (though I've encountered this body of literature before and it's extraordinary). Anyway, in Pppery's case I don't think the tools are going to be used in cases where content creation knowledge would lead to a different decision. So long as Pppery knows where their current strengths lie, I don't see an issue. — Bilorv (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    As a minor note, WP:VG/S treats Dot Esports as generally reliable and Screen Rant/Game Rant as less than reliable. Izno (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

16. * theleekycauldron * _{it has begun...} 18:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    More seriously, I think this is a place where the general rules of thumb we use might fail us. If I took Izno at their word that the candidate has become less combative, and held the candidate to their promise of a limited admin role in usercats, I think what's left over (edit summaries and content) doesn't really bother me. If edit summaries and weak content work made the candidate a net negative to CfD, we would've found that out before at least one CfD admin decided to nominate Pppery for the same. If they move slowly and deliberately and stick to where they have expertise, I think Pppery will make a great admin. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, and I've been pronouncing it /ˈpipɜːri/ in my head :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

17. Pppery remind me, if you would, but have we fallen out somewhere along the path? I've got a feeling it is so, but I can't find any trace of it if so. I was going to oppose "Per Q7" and the litany, but actually, I found it a refreshingly honest answer. While I do—as a "content creator" [where's my Kardashian-number of page watchers, guys?!]—understand (and appreciate) the ethos that an admin should know the pressures writers are under, and, concomitantly the policies that come with article writing, I also think that there's an exception to every rule, á la Rexxs, Trappist the Monk etc., whereby technical proficiency in needed areas—and no content creator can claim to not rely on many of those self-same same technical tools—can if not outweigh then match in lading that weight. Afterall, if I had to demonstrate technical ability before being let loose on a featured article, then Lua Modules and basic markup would leave as big a hole in my brain as the hole in my. The edit-summary thing is also bizarre. I mean, you indeed had it pointed out that a low e/sum. count could be a potential weakness before you lodged this application, but that you didn't rush to change anything indicates strength of purpose. Good. Admins need to have strength of character before they can start worrying about pleasing all the people all the time. After all, while the edit-summary prompt script is useful—I use it myself—since we allow (effectively encourage!) summaries so minimal that a noob might dwell in confusion ("r", "rv", "rvv"—!) than the usefulness of many of our edit-summaries compared to blank ones might be questioned in their efficacy in the first place. When push comes to shove, the only thing I could come close to as a reason for opposing might be, pace, your choice of nominators; a glance down the list of those supporting already indicates that you would not have had a problem finding others from the corps. But it's not so egregious a misjudgement that it suffices to affect my vote. Looking good, Winthorpe. SN54129 19:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not aware of any falling out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

18. All in all, Pppery is a good egg. He's dedicated, talented, prolific. Making Pppery a sysop will improve the project. Pppery, when you receive the tools, use them carefully and well, and keep in mind: as a sysop, you wield the tools wherever you go, even when you're not using the toolset. Indeed, this is often where being a sysop carries the most weight. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    I'm somewhat wavering in this support and expect to switch to oppose. We might wish that sysops don't have the social influence that they do, but that's not the world we live in. It isn't the case that admins are admins only when they wield the tools, and understanding that is crucially important for any admin. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

    Support per my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Moved to neutral; my criteria have updated.

19. Support. I have concerns, per the neutral/oppose !votes below, but it's not as if adminship is a one way ticket with no process for counseling admins on their decisions or appealing these. My hopes for seeing the best of this editor outweigh my concerns. BD2412 T 19:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
20. Support - Worked with them before. We need people who are technical. No big deal. GMG^talk 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
21. Normally, the dearth of content work would be a no from me. I don't care about lack of GAs. I had 0 GAs when I RfA'd. But understanding what makes a little-gee good article, and frankly the experience of writing one, is important for any content or user-conduct adminning. But this is one of those rare cases where the candidate says they intend to focus almost exclusively on an area fairly far-removed from content. And so the question is, does Pppery know what he doesn't know? That's implicitly the question for all candidates, but here it's particularly important. And my feeling is... yeah, probably. The candidate has his faults, but I don't think dishonesty is one of them, so I will trust his assessment of what areas he will and won't work in. So I'll support, a bit cautiously, with some advice: Don't block anyone over anything content-related until you've got a GA or at least a few DYKs. Listen to feedback from the regulars in areas you do admin, especially more experienced admins. And please use more edit summaries. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
22. Support. We've crossed paths before at AfD, where I found Pppery to be both civil and well versed in policy. I appreciate their ability to reflect on past actions and like that they've chosen to focus on admin areas that are underserved. I have no concerns and am certain they'll make an excellent admin. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    Doubling down my support (emotionally, not numerically) following Q23, which I believe marks the first time I've ever seen a code review in an RfA, and taught me something new (and horrifying). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

23. Support. Pppery is a great editor who I always just assumed was an admin already. The dedicated work in templatespace and modulespace makes me confident he will be a good admin. SWinxy (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
24. Support - I see no reason to believe Pppery will misuse the tools, and it would be helpful to both them and others if they were an admin. I encourage the candidate to use edit summaries much more consistently going forward; this is especially important for an admin. With regard to content, I don't believe that content creation should be a criteria for adminship. There are plenty of administrative tasks on Wikipedia that are important and unaffected by the ability or desire to produce high-quality content. We need technical and back-end admins too! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
25. Support - answer to Q7 is a bit flippant, but nothing in the user's recent contributions suggest they would be unable to provide support to the ≈ c o n t e n t c r e a t o r s ≈. Good luck and thanks for volunteering! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
26. Support - best of luck with the mop Mujinga (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
27. Support – I think it's OK to specialize in certain areas of adminship, if you will. Pppery has the skills and knowledge to be a great technical admin (an interface admin, even), and I trust that he is aware of the areas where he is not as strong and will act accordingly. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
28. Support. I was also surprised that Pppery didn't already have a mop. We have enough admin work to encourage specialisation, and RfA's preference for content creators leaves us in need of more technical experts. Certes (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
29. Support. jp×g 21:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
30. Support. I've seen them around quite often on VPT and on various templates and modules, and I'm regularly impressed by their technical expertise. --rchard2scout (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
31. Support. I've known Pppery on and off for a bit and I can safely say that if "it" hasn't begun yet, it should begin. Godspeed to the RFA, and Godspeed to more great contributions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
32. Support. I agree with the use of more edit summaries but that's just a personal preference, being a user who gets watchlist updates with no easy "diff" view. But as someone who does both content writing and technical work, I find no convincing reason not to support. A truckload of created articles (and even more so GA+'d ones) isn't a be-all and end-all in adminship, and it won't hold Pppery back from being helpful in technical spaces. Chlod (say hi!) 22:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
33. Support - based on prior interactions in RfD among other places, as well as the reasoning of other supports. I think that Q7 opposes are more dogmatic than reasoned, and Q9 is a nothingburger unless someone has diffs of no-edit-summary for something majorly controversial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
34. Support with enthusiasm. – SJ + 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
35. Support. Answer to Question 7 is correct and RfA fetishizes content creation where "FA = good admin". The nominee explains it best, an admin needs to understand where they are competent to act so they don't take incompetent actions (since nobody is great at everything). Uncontroversial edits do not really need edit summaries. The edit I'm making right now has the "support" section header, so it's pretty obvious what this edit does. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    Hmmm. So RfA "fetishize content creation"? You'd prefer, perhaps, an encyclopedia devoid of content in which admins would spend their time blocking and unblocking each other due to their being no actual encyclopedia to administer? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    That's not what they said. Please don't create extremes. - jc37 01:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Beyond My Ken: Content creation and dispute resolution are two different skills. Being an administrator isn't a role where you're expected to create content whole wearing that hat. And in all honesty, bargain-bin content creation nowadays is trivial. ChatGPT can spew out entire articles on virtually anything.

    The value that we as an encyclopedia have is the ability to police content and ensure its reliability. i.e. Creating quality content, which means blocking people that do source manipulation, or closing discussions on content based on policy instead of stochastic word salads, or adding sources to support content that exists.

    Content creation isn't going to be nearly as important going into the future. I don't think you should use it as the singular version to oppose an admin nominee but that's your right. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    "Content creation isn't going to be nearly as important going into the future"? We have c. 7.7 million articles of which 8,200 are FA, c. 43.5k are GA and under 5k are either FL or A-class. And you think content creation isn't going to be important in bringing up poor articles to a decent standard? The point about thinking admins should have at least some content in their background is that they show they have skin in the game, so they appreciate what stewardship of quality content is like.

    To try and claim that "ChatGPT can spew out entire articles on virtually anything" is worrying: just as a trial I tried asking for a paragraph on an article I am writing: it fabricated two sources entirely (a book that doesn't exist and an ONDB source that goes to a completely different person). You can try and demean "bargain-bin content creation" or content creators if you like, but admins who don't understand what content is and the effort it takes to create or upgrade an article to a passable standard are not always best placed to deal with the issues at the heart of a dispute. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    @SchroCat: just as a trial I tried asking for a paragraph on an article I am writing: it fabricated two sources entirely is my point. That's bargain-bin content creation which anyone can do now. ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies can create endless information. GPT-4 offers decent writing for about 3¢ per 750 words, and it's the same (if not better) quality as anything in Category:All articles lacking sources. What AI can't do is consistently cite to reliable sources (Bing tries but fails). What we need are people who can sift through the tsunami of information and create a place that's a hub for reliability. Otherwise we'll be obsolete. People are going to get burnt by ChatGPT feeding them BS, so we need to be a place that people can trust. This will be a far more important skill going into this future and that's why I supported the nom, who participates with speedy deletions, deletion discussions, and other content curation platforms.

    I respect people who spend time on FAs, but for me, the important thing right now is getting people in who can effectively deal with the impending deluge. The nominee demonstrates good work in their chosen areas, understands their limitations, and seems like they can address this crisis. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

36. Support Good answer. Think so similar.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    The above editor is on the verge of being site banned by ArbCom, due to their lying to ArbCom in the past in order to get un-banned, which they have now admitted doing. I suggest when the ban goes through, their vote be cancelled out -- if not before, considering that they shouldn't have been unbanned in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    I would add that Q15 be struck not only for the same reason but because in light of PC's ban the question is now clear and obvious trolling. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    No. This is not block evasion, so WP:SOCKSTRIKE does not apply. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

37. Support will be a clear net positive as admin. No concerns. Gizza (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
38. Support Clueful, has a need, and will be a clear net positive. More should not be required. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
39. Support. Have watched this editor closely for several years and have learned a lot from him. Can be trusted with the tools. One of the most sensitive areas on WP is that of template editing and management, and Pppery has been a template editor for a long time, answers edit requests and helps editors quite a lot. Need many more like him! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
40. Support My experiences with Pppery have generally been positive. Legoktm (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
41. Support -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
42. Support. Based on my experiences with the candidate, I believe he will be a net positive. ✗plicit 01:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
43. Support per TheresNoTime. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
44. Support Because of the strong Q7 oppose arguments, I would put my comments here. First of all, despite not having significant content creation, he still shows a clear judgment and have experience with technical skills, which is desperately needed for adminship. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    Another reaffirmations that I would make is that this user is particularly competent in programming aspects. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 15:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

45. Support At 66k edits, I am generally unconcerned about a lack of content. You don't amass 66k without fundamentally picking up how Wikipedia works. I've seen Pppery comment around a good deal, and have never had an issue with them. I think the "perfectly well rounded Renaissance man" admin is an unattainable goal, and should not be the standard we're using at RfA. That their content work is a little weaker is entirely balanced by their work in gnoming and deletion, and imo gnoming and deletion make one better suited for the slog of admin backlogs than content work does. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
46. Support. I thought they were already an admin. I prefer "Obviously not" to "Not necessarily" but understand that there is significant dispute on this matter - still, they blatantly said that they aren't going to be working in admin areas that need content creation experience, so why does it matter? casualdejekyll 03:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
47. Support. In line with JrandWP, I'm adding a comment to my standard "no reason not to" !vote because of the Q7 oppose arguments. I think those editors have got our purpose wrong; we're here to build an encyclopedia. That includes adding content, but as the encyclopedia ages that aspect has gone from 99% of the work that needs to be done to a far lower percentage, and I see no issue with admins and editors who focus on that other work. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
48. Support - I've confidence that we can trust this editor with the mop. Mjroots (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
49. Support, I feel pretty confident that he'll have the tools. Sheep (talk • he/him) 04:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
50. Support clear need for the tools, not a jerk, clueful. HouseBlaster^talk 04:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
51. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
52. Support - Personally, whenever someone puts their hand up for RFA I am a supporter by default unless I see a strong reason to suspect that the editor will misuse the toolset due to malice or by accident due to a lack of experience and knowledge, or they are hostile, uncooperative, or impulsive and hence of a temperament inconsistent with such a responsibility. I am not seeing that with this nomination. Also, it is quite clear that certain administrators specialise in certain areas. Provided a candidate wants to work in an administrative area and can do so, that is what is important. We openly state that some of our best content contributors would not make good administrators. Perhaps some of our best administrators are not necessarily the best at content. It all depends on the candidate and their motivation. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
53. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
54. Support - don't recall any objectionable interactions. Specialization is a good thing to have. JoelleJay (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
55. Per Jagmanst. —Cryptic 06:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
56. Support - I get some of the issues some people took to Q7, but otherwise Pppery is a fantastic candidate. Opposing candidates for a poor answer to a single question or a lack of content creation (which it is clear Pppery will not be using the tools in) is part of what's wrong with RfA. We can't only accept perfect candidates. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    I invite you to read my essay more closely. My definition of a fantastic candidate is more like Cullen328. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

57. Support per my RfA criteria. I couldn't disagree more with the Q7 opposes below. Iffy★Chat -- 08:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
58. Support - good to see them already taking feedback on board. A valuable specialist admin. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
59. Support per CaptainEek, Curb Safe Charmer and others. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
60. Yes. Trustworthy. J947 † ^edits 11:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    But anyone who doesn't think that contributing content is far and away the most important part of Wikipedia editing is kidding themselves. It's just that Pppery does not plan to contribute in areas where it is important to have experience of that, and if he does then I'm sure he will familiarise himself and become a good admin there too. J947 † ^edits 01:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

61. Support. A long-term, trustworthy, generally competent gnoming-focused editor who wants access to the mop for more gnoming. Seems unlikely to amplify rather than tamp down drama, and is a decent communicator. That's enough for a support from me. As to reasons below to oppose/hesitate: While significant content creation is a useful experience for an admin to have, I'm not convinced it's necessary to be a net positive as an admin. The poorly worded original answer to Q7 was adequately addressed in Q12. The Q9/edit summary issue is worthy of a trout (and doing better) but not a deal-breaker for me. And Floq's concern in the neutral section, while appropriate to raise, doesn't sway me. We discuss things in non-speedy deletion discussions precisely since opinions may vary, and may change with discussion. So while repeatedly putting up for deletion discussion pages that end up being snow kept would be a red flag for me, merely nominating pages for deletion that end up no consensus or keep after a discussion isn't; and by default I trust the applicant to close xFDs in line with consensus rather than personal opinion, or choose to participate rather than close if they feel strongly about something. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
62. Support No reason not to. Nigej (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
63. Support per MaxnaCarta's comment above. Pppery may not have substantial content creation, but they are trustworthy, willing to learn from their mistakes, and a clear net positive to the project, which I believe are much more important. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
64. Moved from neutral, albeit with a few reservations, as described in my struck neutral vote below. But weighing everything, I'm ending up here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
65. Support Per MaxnaCarta. Lectonar (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
66. Support. Maybe it's because I don't create content, but I've never understood the notion that admins have to create content, and if anything, we need more technical admins who don't create content. Pppery is clearly a good technical editor. And about the edit summaries, I think his answer to Q9 is pretty good. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 13:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
67. Support Q7 goes against the common wisdom but for an amazing amount of admin activities, content has little to do with it. He is level headed and a fantastic candidate otherwise and will be a net positive. spryde | talk 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
68. Support, why should not: The candidate might be helpful in the Requested moves and Requested merge project spaces and increase the admins on it by one. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 15:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
69. Support Q7 pointed out that they are not fully developed in every area, but few are. Also the de-emphasis on content creation work could also lead to a lack of empathy for editors. But given that few are strong in every area, I would give an extra 5 gold stars for their statement "The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing." In other words, to know what not to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
70. Support. I don't expect admins to be perfect, or completely amenable in every aspect - I just expect that their having the tools is a net positive to the project. Per nominators, their candid answers to the various optional questions, and many above, I think Pppery meets these criteria. To oppose rationales below: A rock-solid record on content creation is not requisite for a good admin, especially one that wants to focus primarily on other aspects, like with technical matters; we can have admins with different strengths and weaknesses. And regarding the quality of their replies to questions, which has been called "rushed" or "brusque", I personally don't mind the tone they've taken - their answers are candid, if perhaps not perfectly thought-out. Of course I expect admins to think out their words in the course of performing their duties. But RFA is a uniquely brutal venue, and quite dissimilar to a regular admin day, or week. I don't fault anyone for stepping back from meticulously thinking out every answer here and opting to reply more candidly - and, as they've shown with Q7, being willing to return to their comments to strike and amend them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
71. Per Floq; I think there are legitimate concerns in the oppose, but also that Pppery will otherwise be a fine admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
72. Support, after read pro et contra--Noel baran (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
73. Support: Adminship should not be only just for content creators. This candidate has technical skills that they could utilize to improve the site with administrative privileges. Lightoil (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
74. Support: has a clue, and Wikipedia is more than just content creation. The technical side is important too. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
75. Support Every successful project needs specialists, and it looks as though Pppery is a technical specialist. I'm not a big believer in the idea that a candidate must have GA/DYK experience, especially one who seems to be as focused on the tech side as this one. Joyous! Noise! 18:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
76. SupportI think the candidate will have the good sense to do what they are good at, stay out of what they are not good at, and most importantly, be able to tell the difference. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 20:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    PS: What they are good as is useful, I encourage them to continue doing it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Regarding the change to the answer of Q7: Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. It is not bowing to peer pressure to amend a claim that something is obvious when another person points out that it for them it is not, That is simply acceprting reality from another perspective. Also from some of the other comments, the cadidate in not alone in initially considering it obvious. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

77. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
78. Support, I generally had good interactions with the candidate related to CFD, they clearly have a clue.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
79. Support It appears that Pppery's adminship would be a clear net positive. I strongly and respectfully disagree with the opposes. I appreciate the concern raised by Floq, and I find Pppery's answer to Q11 very reassuring. As for the content creation issue, I guess I'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of being a prolific content creator before being an admin. Obviously an encyclopedia couldn't exist without articles being created, but there are so many things admins do (and that Pppery will be able to do with the tools) that are far removed from content creation. Pppery's answer to Q7 is not a massive whiff, even if you disagree with me. I hope that people will take a closer look at the wording of Q7. It doesn't say "Do you believe that admins should be content creators?", it says "Do you believe that content creation is a good indication of suitability for adminship?". To answer in the affirmative is to say that a good content creator would automatically be a good admin. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
80. As one of the few CfD closers, I've found Pppery's contributions there incredibly helpful, and their CfD comments seem reasonable to me. I'm unconcerned about their response to Q7, especially given their later modification. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
81. Support - the opposes based on Q7 are unconvincing; actually I see the answer to Q7 as the perfect answer. Many RFA voters want admins to be absolutely flawless and perfectly competent from the get-go but that is a ridiculous stance: nobody knows what they're doing when they get the mop. The mark of a truly reliable admin is self-awareness to recognize when one is operating out of one's depth, or where are the limits of one's competency, and to take your hands off the controls when you don't know what you're doing. That's a brutal lesson that many admins only learn after they fuck up, myself included repeatedly; Pppery is already demonstrating that awareness in this very discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
82. Support I don't usually vote in RFAs, but considering that I'm one of the people who firmly believe that content creation is not required for admin candidates looking to act in purely technical roles, I feel that I should register a support vote here. The candidate is not only an excellent contributor to enwiki, but is also involved with upstream MediaWiki work as well and has proven beyond any sense of doubt that they are competent in the areas in which they wish to work. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
83. Support I've seen them around a bunch and can't recall any problems. I get the concerns people have about content creation, but I think the issue is overstated. On the other hand, I'm flabbergasted that people are still obsessing over edit summaries. Most edit summaries these days are machine generated anyway. Get over it. RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    @RoySmith I agree with you, but even machine generated edit-summaries are useful, because they save me the time from clicking/viewing an edit diff. I frequently make nicely formatted summary messages with wiki links in them and copy/paste them when doing repetitive tasks, so that anyone looking at a specific edit in watch lists will quickly know what it's about. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    I also find automated summaries useful. I even tend to put more effort into writing a good summary if it will appear on many pages. Certes (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

84. Support I've also seen the candidate around, and to me they've been a net positive. No candidate is perfect, and RfA is no place to argue about whether or not the tools should be bundled. Miniapolis 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
85. Weak Support I find the oppose reasons unconvincing, and the only real reason to oppose is that Pppery appears to have switched their answer to Q7 due to peer pressure. I get that peer pressure is unpleasant and RfA is also an unpleasant arena, but still: have the courage to stick to your guns. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
86. Support Not all admins needs to be involved in content creation; Pppery's work in other areas is grounds for adminship. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
87. Support I don't see reason not to. – Frood (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
88. Support Content creation is of course Wikipedia's ultimate goal, but given how complex Wikipedia has evolved to be, with many essential functions/areas only indirectly connected to content creation, I don't think the relative lack of content creation experience is - by itself - enough to preclude becoming an administrator. Pppery has demonstrated excellence in many of those areas, and that, in my opinion, is qualification enough. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
89. Support. Good candidate, Pppery has a strong technical background and is willing to work at CFD. I also reviewed the oppose !votes and found their reasonings to be ranging from bad to outright ridiculous. Of course, I would like to see Pppery start using edit summaries, but that issue in and of itself is not a reason to oppose. -FASTILY 07:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
90. Support. Pppery is going to do just fine.—Alalch E. 08:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
91. Support Volten001 ^☎ 09:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
92. Support Content creation is not the only thing in Wikipedia. There are lots of other sides of Wikipedia, and the technical side is one thing the candidate is good at. If "content is king" why would people do new page patrols, created and maintained bots, discuss with editors at AFC, reverting vandalism, if at the end their efforts will not be appreciated well? If we are talking about bias, placing too much emphasis on "content creation" will create a bias in the admin corps, where only people in Western countries who had good English lessons would be accepted. Content creation might be the most important thing in Wikipedia, but that's not the only thing in Wikipedia. If this RFA failed because of "content is king", future RFA would bias towards content creators (DYKs, FAs creators) instead of other sides of Wikipedia. I hope that we didn't lose Pppery like we lose MB because of RFA. In closing, being and admin should be easy, not hard. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
93. Support Top editor with tech skills to boot, liked all of I've seen of this user. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
94. Support, almost entirely per Floquenbeam, including their initial hesitation. I have seen enough of Pppery to believe that the feedback they've received about being diplomatic will be taken on board. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
95. Support. Ivan (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
96. Support. a!rado는 더미입니다 (C✙T) 12:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
97. Support, well suited to the job and growing with experience. Time to advance to the Major Leagues. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
98. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Strong content creation is a good sign of a qualified RfA candidate, but not the only one. I expect that if the RfA is successful, Pppery will bear the opposers' concerns in mind going forward. Regarding question 8 about edit summaries, Pppery's opting into the "prompt me for an edit summary if I forget" feature should hopefully resolve this issue. Regarding question 18, editors who are unfamiliar with the procedures at ArbCom are more to be envied than censured. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
99.  WP:RFX100! Reconfirming support of nominator. You've shown a wonderful attention to detail in answering the 23 questions asked (so far). Hopefully Hawkeye7 will find his way to the support column after reading your answer to his programming question, despite his "creators' concerns". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
100. Support - I don't actually see anything alarming about Q7 or any indication they would be anything but a useful admin. GiantSnowman 15:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
101. Support. Competent, trustworthy. Ok, not much content creation – I look forward to the day when that is no longer considered relevant in these discussions. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
102. Support looks qualified and I've seen him around with no concerns. I don't think Q7 is a fair question to ask, even someone who thinks content contributions are extremely important for admins isn't likely to think that content creation by itself indicates that someone is suitable for adminship. Pppery's edit history is focused on improving mainspace and immediately related stuff like categories, and I don't see how forcing him to write a GA would help with closing CfDs, protected edit requests, or anything else that's been brought up. Hut 8.5 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

     The intention of Q7 was to link back to their comments on their talk page made on 19 July. I don't think anyone who opposed had the same interpretation of the question that you had, but I still see your point. Willbb234 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

103. Weak support per GrammarDamner and contra those mentioning lack of content creation; asking the user to be more of a "jack-of-all-trades" can take focus away from their strengths. User is taking the current grilling of questions in stride. I also fail to see anything wrong with Q7. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
104. Support If I can recall, some editors were elected to administrator with little to no content creation, however, I strongly believe that how understanding policies and guidelines here work are more important than content creation. I do understand the opposition though, proof of content creation does strongly present an editor's ability in understanding guidelines and polices, a backbone to help establish understanding on how Wikipedia works. Pppery's years of commitment to Wikipedia and participation to the community from nominated deletion pages to RMs and continuous page editing is likewise proof of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Who knows? Maybe we will eventually see more content creation from Pppery after the editor is an admin. Jerium (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
105. Support @Wbm1058:: You are correct, I have ultimately found my way to the support column. I should make it clear that my personal policy is not to oppose unless I want the candidate removed from the project. In this case though, a lot of editors I really respect both personally and as content creators are on the oppose side. And Pppery, you make voting for you really difficult. Q23: First off, I did not write that code... I'll answer the question anyway Not really the foot you want to step off on if you are trying to show us that you are less combatative. Coming from an admin, many editors would mentally add "you peon". You need to work on that. For what it is worth, the response was sound: that is the way I would have tackled changing a template that is on a godzillion pages too. However, some editors will note the contradiction between "major rewrite" in Q2 and "minimum changes needed to achieve my goal and not do unrelated refactorings" in Q23. The current completely refactored version is superior, although I personally would like the template to be more flexible and configurable. Also, while the opting into the "prompt me for an edit summary if I forget" feature is a good idea, it would be even better if it worked properly. The software waves through edit summaries that consist purely of comment, but when someone consults the stats they are not counted. I strongly believe that understanding policies and guidelines is purely ancilliary to the more important function of content creation. The admin toolkit is not for your agrandisement, it is there to help the content creation process. The editors who lack the tools will turn to you for assistance, and occasionally for guidance. They may not understand our policies and guidelines (that's your job). You really need to reconsider Q18. "I'm arguably WP:INVOLVED" is a sound response, but "arguably" is a weasel word. When you are answering an RfA question, the questioner is probing for your knowledge of the subject, so you should have stated what circumstances would constitute involvement. In particular, "I expressed disinterest in using admin tools in conduct-related matters" is just fine—we don't expect every admin to work in every area—but what you and every admin aspirant needs to understand is that when you are an admin all conduct will be seen in that light whether or not you are using the admin tools. Otherwise, the editors in the Oppose column who think you might be on a trajectory towards ArbCom will be proven correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
106. Support based on my impression of Pppery and general disagreement with the opposes. SilverLocust 💬 00:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
107. Support. Not only is this a clear WP:NETPOSITIVE, I don’t find the comments in the oppose section swaying at all. As a non-content creator myself, I see no issue with users becoming sysops, even if they haven’t contributed much content to the project. There are other ways to help and prove policy understanding, such as NPP and more technical areas of Wikipedia. Why must we make RFA all about this box-checking? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
108. Support: Content is king and I am very thankful to those who have the ability and desire to create it. But there can not be a king without the support of many others. When a person has demonstrated that they have the skills, clue and desire to help, I want to let them help. Not a perfect candidate, but very much a net positive. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
109. Support as I'm unconvinced by the opposes. I do hope the candidate takes Barkeep49's thoughts under consideration, and (unrelated to the candidate) that the nominators can be more convincing if they nominate someone else in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
110. Support: I'm substantially relying on the feedback of others here whose appraisals I trust, because this is, as best I can recall, the first time I have so much as seen this contributor's name on the project--which is perhaps not super surprising given their apparent gnomish and technical foci here.
     You can count me as being firmly in the the camp who feels the 'Q7' objections are largely uncompelling, especially in light of the candidate's apparently quite substantial technical contributions and facility. We have a profound administrative shortfall right now, and we can't afford to turn away viable candiadtes for antiquated and idosyncratic standards regarding skillsets that are not vital to how every candidate will be busying themselves as a mop. I would of course expect ppperry to tread lightly as an admin in any context in which they do lack experience, and thankfully I do see them expressly indicating their attention to do as much above. Honestly, I feel we sometime ago turned a corner at RfA where hard oppose !votes based solely or mainly upon deficits in mainspace edits only end up inspiring increased support, including outright protest !votes, so we might as well save ourselves the trouble and not fixate so much on that (undoubtedly important, but not necesarily dispositive) element of the analysis.
     The one concern I had reviewing the candidate's responses to questions was the kind of oblique discussion of the RexxS RfA, but re-reviewing that discussion, I'm not seeing conduct that is sufficiently problematic to push me away from support. I think, as a somewhat personal !vote very much rooted in their personal dispute with that candidate, they could have maybe modulated (pun totally intended) their comments there, but their objection was no unreasonably and none of their conduct disruptive. On the balance, I'm willing to take a chance on empowering this user with tools: they seem cordial, steady, and collaborative on the whole, and others above have attested that they bring much needed improvements to the areas they work in, with (generally, anyway) a minimum of drama. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
111. Support. Like, I get the opposes, but I am not really too convinced Pppery has bad enough judgement anything brought up will be a problem. He is a lot smarter than me, Pppery will easily be in asset in our more technical spaces. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
112. Support Leijurv (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
113. Support I know Pppery as a master-TA on Meta-Wiki, and I hope they will make a good addition as an admin here, given their diverse contributions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
114. Support I don't see extensive article creation as a prerequisite for an admin. These are different skills. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
115. Support I don't care about the content creation, but after continued review I think Pppery will do a good job with the tools - this RfA has highlighted some areas they could stand to work on (and I don't really care about content creation) but in reviewing more of their edits I'm convinced they're here to build an encyclopedia and will do a good job with it. SportingFlyer T·C 14:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
116. Support. Pppery will be a welcomed part of the admin world. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
117. Support Would be a net positive if given the tools. I don't find any of the concerns raised to be compelling. Noah^Talk 15:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
118. Support. I've read the opposes and I don't find them persuasive. Speaking as a content creator, I welcome more Admins taking on the tasks of keeping Wikipedia honest and reliable. Welcome, Pppery! The challenges are increasing, not decreasing. Smallchief (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
119. Support The opposes do not convince me. A lack of content creation doesn't concern me at all. However, I strongly advise the nominee to usee edit summaries more often. Lastly, the civility concerns do not convince me to oppose him because I have seen a lot of people who are currently administrators do or say worse things without any consequences. The question at the end of the day is "Will he abuse the tools?" I think the answer is no. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
120. Support per GrammarDamner. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 19:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
121. Support Not all admins have to be involved in content creation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
122. Weak support - Pppery's positives are generally fairly obvious: their technical skills are clear and even outside of that, they don't talk about something without having a clue in that field. The negatives have now also been relatively laid out, in terms of ones I agree with: I would like to see content work, as it aids understanding in so many areas (not just an editor's pain at bad admin actions). I'm more concerned at Pppery's abrasive tone in any number of areas. When reading through a dozen AfDs, my recurring view was "these are okay, because Pppery is right in these cases". But the problem is that sooner or later they'll be either: wrong, in a field with no right answer, in a field where just being right isn't enough. And their tone is going to escalate issues there. Barkeep49 is right that their in-RfA behaviour has been good, but I'm sceptical that we'll see a major change from their small-a fields. So I was planning to go neutral. But I've argued we don't need flawless admins, "just" good-faith net-gain ones that will aid the project. So they know their weaknesses, let's extend some trust. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
123. Support Seems like a good egg. While I've read all - and at least partially agree with most - of the oppose votes, the concerns don't rise to the level of me also opposing. A bit more following of "The Rules" by everyone can only be a good thing on Wikipedia, some more content creation would be nice but not essential for me, and I'm AGF the nom will be using edit summaries from now on, now that they've been made aware of how important they are. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

     We allow a lot of replies to opposes, and since your reference to "The Rules" is a reference to what I said, I'll reply to your support to make clear that no one is advocating violation of policy, just having enough flexibility to understand the nuance in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

     Actually, several of the oppose and neutral votes commented on this user enforcing "the rules" above the "nuances" of said rules, and wasn't singularly incorporating your oppose vote. Instead, my vote was referencing a highly positive trait which I believe would serve this candidate well should this nomination pass: violate 3RR, get blocked; provably system-game, get blocked. Et cetera. No ifs ands or buts. That was more or less what I was getting at. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

     While I do think that way in other fields, I expressed disinterest in blocking people in Q1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

124. I see nothing to make me belive that Pppery would misuse the tools if given. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
125. Support I find the opposes to be unconvincing. I also, in reading the replies here, find them to be suitable person. Importantly, I also note they take criticism to heart instead of brushing it off. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
126. Support Pppery's edits I've seen related to supporting CFD have been very helpful in an area of the encyclopedia sorely lacking in admin presence, since many (most?) noms are now closed by non-admins. I read the oppose votes below and don't share the concern about a more tech admin who doesn't create a lot of content. (Question 9 was a concern though and I'd encourage more consistent use of edit summaries going forward.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
127. Support Administrator without tools. —MdsShakil (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
128. I support Pppery's candidacy for adminship without reservation! Having interacted with him on numerous occasions while observing his editorial manner and conduct (in real time) many times more, I am certain that his motivation is, foremost: the best interests and betterment of Wikipedia. And his demonstrated competence and clue leave no room for doubting his ability to achieve the goals he is motivated toward. While the entire sum of opposition rationale constitutes constructive criticism that I am confident Pppery will take on for his own betterment, it does nothing to marginalize the positive things that Peppery has shown and my own eyes have seen. I am, in fact, glad that Pppery has agreed to serve as an admin.--John Cline (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose q7. Willbb234 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
2. I'm uncomfortable with the Q7 answer, plus the weird reasons for not using edit summaries (which work, I suppose, as an 'ordinary' editor, but when you're an admin are just... bad practice). And Floq's neutral would be an oppose from me if I'd spotted the pattern myself. Sorry. — Trey Maturin™ 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict) Oppose - The answer to Q7 is a massive whiff. However, one whiffed question shouldn't be reason to oppose a candidate, so I dug deeper into Pppery's contributions, especially his self-identified (in Q8) best article, Magic: The Gathering rules. The primary concern with this article is whether it should even exist per WP:NOTHOWTO. Ignoring that, the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired with citations to places like "oshkoshmagic.com" or "coolstuffinc.com". How are either of those reliable sources? In fact, the majority of this article might as well be cited to the official MTG rulebook, which it largely summarizes. A large number of other sources are simply various people's personal guides on to how to play MTG. These mostly appear to be opinion pieces, which are not strictly reliable sources (see WP:RSOPINION). I don't know if Comic Book Resources (CBR) is considered a reliable source. Ultimately, this oppose boils down to an apparent poor understanding of reliable sources. Like Floquenbeam, I invite Pppery to respond either here or on the talk page if he thinks I am incorrect—I often am! I will not feel badgered. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   The article has survived several AfDs. Also for the record: I did not add "oshkoshmagic.com" or "coolstuffinc.com" - they were present in the article before my changes. For the rest, you kind of have a point, but I considered the inclusion of only details that can be found in secondary sources to establish due weight and prevent the article from becoming a trivia magnet as many articles on fiction are * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   I know you didn't add those two personally, but you did remove the "more sources needed" tag, which generally means that you went through the article and cited it to reliable sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   That tag is clearly inappropriate for the article as it stands. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

4. I largely share Floq's concerns below, which for me is essentially that you'll have supervoting on technical areas of the project that have a content impact since both templates and categories impact the reader. When combined what appears to be a lack of understanding of the central role of reader-facing content on this project and its importance as seen in the reply to question 7 and based on Reaper Eternal's response above, I don't feel comfortable granting access to the admin toolset. If it was just the items Floq raised or just the lack of content understanding, I'd probably sit it out. But combined it really isn't ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
5. I consider significant content creation to be an extremely important qualification for becoming an admin. Typically, admins -- because they do so many other types of things necessary for the continuing survival of the project -- see a major drop-off in their content work once they get the mop. That's entirely understandable and I make no complaint about it, but it does mean that the admin had better know what it's like as a content creator before they become an admin, because they're not going to get a lot of that experience with it once they have the bit. For me, content creation is the essential aspect of Wikipedia, all other aspects have no meaning or make no sense unless there is an encyclopedia to administer and protect, and that encyclopedia came into existence because of content creators. Because of this, admins really must understand the needs of the content creator when they make the decisions that help to shape our community. For this reason -- lack of significant content creation -- and for this reason only, I oppose the nomination. I make no claims for or against any other aspects of the nominee's abilities or character. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Beyond My Ken: What are the needs of the content creator? wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Beyond My Ken: following up since I think you wanted me to answer my own question. See Wikipedia:Content awareness, not content creation. Occasionally a content creator may need help with moving a page, or making an edit on a protected page. Maybe they'd like a page they've been working on protected because they've become tired of reverting persistent vandalism. Or they'd like to make that persistent vandal get off their page, by blocking them. You doubt that Pppery would do things like that for you if you politely asked him to? Other common "needs" of creators, especially short-term creators such as those driven to us by the Education Program, are basic edits to their creations to make them conform to the manual of style. Boldface the title in the lead sentence. Make the section headings use sentence case rather than title case. Add a references section. Categorize the article. Remove draftspace-only templates. Etc, etc. I don't think one needs to be a particularly skilled editor to make these sorts of edits. wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks for answering a question which I withdrew. I'll note that Wikipedia:Content awareness, not content creation, which you cited, is an essay, and one which primarily represents the viewpoint of a single editor, the creator, since the few other contributions to it have been technical ones. I don't see any reason therefore to take it as the sense of the community.

   As for your response, by the needs of content creators I did not at all mean the kind of simplistic problems needing the mechanical actions that you referred to, which could obviously be handled by any admin of any ability. I was talking about something much more amorphous and more difficult to define. It's the kind of thing that's hard to put into words, that you really need to experience to understand, which is why I like to see admins who have significant content creation experience.

   That's very vague, I know, but it's the best I can do. I guarantee you that the content creators reading this know exactly what I mean, even if they might have difficulty expressing it; who knows, maybe someone can better put into words what I'm talking about.

   In any case, that's the basis of my oppose vote, insufficient content creation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   I know exactly what you mean, so I'll have a go. The admin who lacks empathy or sympathy or shows actual antipathy towards content creators has become a trope. That it was felt necessary to create an essay on content awareness is one symptom of this. Too many of us have been on the receiving end not to regard it as a serious problem. Ironically, the possibility that an admin may vandalise the front page often comes up in RfA discussions, but admins uphold the right of vandals to attack the front page by refusing to protect it. wbm1058, I think you sum it up with the comment the admins should do things like that for you if you politely asked. The notion that content creators should be deferential and obsequious towards admins is wrong-headed. All editors should treat each other with collegiality and respect, but admins should perform these tasks not because they are asked politely, but because that is what the tools are given to them for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   Refusing to protect the front page? C'mon, the main page is protected so that only users with administrative rights can make edits. And conflating "deferential and obsequious" with "polite"? These are radically different concepts. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   Today's Featured Articles are not pre-emptively semi protected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

   The featured articles are not pre-emptively semi-protected; they also are not on the front page. The actual TFA template is protected by WP:CASCADE. As pre-emptive protection of articles is explicitly forbidden by policy it isn't admins who "uphold the right of vandals to attack the front page", it's the community as a whole. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

   Today's Featured Article is a section of the front page, and the policy of upholding the rights of vandals to attack it is not supported by content creators. Preemptive protection is not explicitly forbidden by the policy (and indeed is employed elsewhere on the front page, as you note), which reads: Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied solely for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism, disruption, or abuse is occurring by multiple users and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

6. Oppose Q7 answer is concerning to me when taken in conjunction with Q1 answer. At the end of the day, this project is built on content, and I would hope those with the admin toolset understand that content creation is the foundational part of the project. If the main reason you want the admin toolset is to save yourself the time and hassle of dealing with other admins and asking for permission then I'm not sure it's really necessary for you to have the toolset. I commend your work thus far but I'm just not sure I see your need. IceBergYYC (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   I get the note about content, which is why I asked Q12, but the answer there is satisfactory to me. I would just note that making Pppery an admin would also save other community members, including our deeply shortstaffed pool of technical admins, much time and hassle in approving his work, when his work is quite good and doesn't need that kind of checking. Overall, Pppery's "need for the tools" seems quite clear — more than most RfA candidates. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   That's all well and good, but Pppery says himself "I tend to dabble a bit everywhere, and will likely do the same as an admin." - so if this RfA passes and in a year's time we see a massive flame-war about an established FA writer getting blocked by Pppery for "civility", don't say I didn't warn you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333 - any particular users you might be referring to with that one? I'm probably overanalyzing your hypothetical scenario but I'm of the personal opinion that if somebody's insufferable to everyone they could have 10000 FAs and I'd still think they're a net negative to the project. casualdejekyll 16:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

7. Oppose Q7 is certainly odd, at least in the first iteration of the answer; Q9 is concerning, as i don't think any of those reasons are good reasons not to use an edit summary to help fellow editors; Floq's issues are also problematic. All in all, cannot support. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose I rarely vote in RFA, but the answer to Q7 bothers me on two levels. One, a person who is a effective content creator on WP would have significant experience with the rules of WP. The fact that the candidate thinks that wouldn't be a good indicator is troubling. And two, even if it was just a lazy mistype, this is an RFA. If the candidate can't muster enough attention to answer questions properly for their RFA, what will they do when they have the ability to block and ban people? Angryapathy (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose Answer to Q7 is less than satisfactory and just a lack of content work in general. I’d say it would be a good idea for this candidate to come back when they contribute significantly to a GA or a couple of DYKs or so. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 21:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
10. In my opinion, edit summary usage is a good measure of whether someone is thinking about *any* editor on the project anyone can edit, or they're just thinking about themselves, or maybe their ideal collaborator. A bit like comments in code, for the programmers out there. If the defense of low edit summary usage boils down to "it's easier for me, and someone else can easily figure it out with extra work, so it's not really a problem", well, that's not very respectful of other people's time and energy, is it?
    Maybe this is just another way of saying that I agree with TonyBallioni and Floquenbeam and BMK's various concerns, in the sense that an attitude I would describe as "I understand things my way, so it's not my problem, it's your problem" seems to be driving objectionable behavior identified in different areas. Stepping on rakes in the answers to Q7 and Q9, answering Reaper Eternal's entirely legitimate concerns about content quality with "the article has survived several AfDs"... well, I just don't see a path toward support. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    Can you give an example of an edit that Pppery has made where you believe it was a significant oversight not to have left an edit summary? --JBL (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    My reasoning is based on the overall pattern of edit summary usage and what I think it indicates about an editor's stance toward other editors, in case that wasn't clear. If you want to have an argument about one specific edit summary, you'll have to argue with someone else, I'm afraid. (struck per talk page request, could definitely have been friendlier!) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

    On the programming analogy: not every line of code should be commented. Excessive comments are bad practice. Instead, wherever possible a commented line should be replaced with a more readable line of code that makes explanation redundant. The analogy to edit summaries is not a bad one. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    Edit summaries are analogous to git commit messages, not comments. Andre🚐 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

11. Oppose based on the candidate's answers which feel rushed. I do not want an administrator rushing headlong before thinking things through (see Q7). My criteria is that an administrator must protect content and content creators before anything else. When someone likes to operate in deletion they need to have have a consistent and significant content creation record. Pppery has no good articles? Pppery has no DYKs? I think @Beyond My Ken: has summarized very succinctly. ...the admin had better know what it's like as a content creator before they become an admin Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I had a look at their recent engangement with an editor on their talk page. I believe their reasoning was sloppy. They used various short-hand arguments that are not valid. They were dismissive of the editor with whom they engaged,-not civil or collaborative. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    I want to point out the sloppy reasoning provided was used to justify the deletion of a new article about a bonafide college with proper accreditions. See how they: gutted an article. This is a proper college attended by likely thousands of students, being told on dubious grounds they are not notable enough. I this speaks to their lack of content creation experience, if nothing else.Jagmanst (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, Jagmanst, I have a lot of experience in content creation and I would also redirect that article in less than a heartbeat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    Why? It is a bonafide college covered in national media attended by thousands of students. If it was a college located in a western country I cant imagine it not having an article.Jagmanst (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't dig into each source in the diff you provided, but I see quite a few for which this school is mentioned in passing, as part of a list or because someone wrote a press release about something happening there. That's not quite the level of national media attention that is needed to establish significant coverage. While this candidate appears to have weaknesses, I wouldn't count this among them. Pppery did carefully review each of them against Wikipedia policy. ~TPW 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

13. Oppose per answer to Q7 and all the reasons set out in User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. My attention was first drawn to Pppery when I received an off-wiki complaint over their edit warring over a comment on Stanley Kubrick, and although this was a long time ago, nothing they've really done since has dissuaded me that they don't really have the diplomacy and tact for communication I expect in an admin. A quick look at their contributions shows them getting into an argument at User talk:Pppery#Why are you reverting despite necessary submissions?; while they might be right on the merits, clearly a more diplomatic tone should have been used as it's now ended with their opponent saying they will oppose them at this RfA. The brusque way they have dismissed lack of content creation experience and insufficient edit summaries doesn't help either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    It was an entirely different user, Jagmanst who came in after the fact to state they would be opposing this, not Anhop, the user who Pppery was having a disagreement with. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    I chose to oppose this nomination after reading that discussion with Anhop, to which I added my comments. I found this statement particulalry bizarre: "I see no point in continuing this discussion, since it's clear we are working from incompatible principle sets and have no hope of convincing each other of out positions."

    I would prefer admins who believed in discussions. Jagmanst (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    You seem very approachable and open to dialog... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

14. Oppose Let me start by saying that I think that Pppery is a productive good faith editor, and I hope that they will try again in a while, after addressing the concerns expressed here. I believe that content creation is one of several important factors to evaluate when deciding whether to support an RfA candidate. I personally consider it to be the most important factor in most cases, although I will not support a great content creator who is also a jerk. I do not require candidates to have been the main author of multiple GAs and FAs, but I do expect significant creation of new articles or at least substantial expansion of prose content on a significant number of articles. Transforming crappy stubs to informative start grade articles is both relatively easy to do, and important though underappreciated. I see none of that in the candidate's history. Gnoming is OK but writing solid encyclopedic prose is the most important thing here by far. Writing good content that sticks is the only way to develop a deep understanding of our policies and guidelines. I understand that the candidate intends to work mostly on things like templates, merges and categories. That is all useful "behind the scenes" work, but I feel confident in saying that very few readers come to Wikipedia to see which templates have been edited or which categories have been created or deleted. Our readers come for informatively written, neutral, well referenced encyclopedia articles. Also worth noting is that new administrators often get involved in areas they did not anticipate before they got the toolkit. The candidate states that they have little interest in blocking. I never anticipated doing a lot of blocking, but once I became an administrator, I developed an interest in dealing with spammers, undeclared paid editors, self-promoters and assorted trolls, and have blocked 8640 accounts in the five years since my RfA. I believe that has been of significant benefit to the encyclopedia. The candidate identifies Magic: The Gathering rules as their best content work. While it is true that the candidate has the most edits to that article with 80, it is also true that they are #6 in terms of added text, having written only 0.7% of the content. Their next most edited article is Polyglot (computing), where again they are #1 in edit count with 59, but do not rank in the top 10 editors in terms of added text. Their third most edited article is Amphetamine, where they are in neither the top ten in edits nor in added text. On the edit summary issue, Help: Edit summary says The Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to provide meaningful edit summaries. As an administrator, I have declined to block editors who do not provide edit summaries because they are not required by policy, but I am reluctant to support an candidate for administrator who has declined to consistently do things that the community strongly encourages. Similarly, in a hypothtical scenario, I would be reluctant to support a candidate who has made an effort to write an autobiography, even though that is only strongly discouraged rather than forbidden. I also have some concerns regarding temperament. Floquenbeam mentioned the CfD discussion about Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF, where the candidate wrote last year Every time I start a deletion discussion on a user category, it gets polluted with "let's randomly ignore established consensus" non-arguments like this. To me, that comes off as "I am consistently right and everyone who opposes me is consistently wrong" reasoning, and it rubs me the wrong way, even if it was not intended. My decision has been affected also by the opposing comments from TonyBallioni, Reaper Eternal, and Beyond My Ken. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
15. Oppose Q7 and many of those above (and below, particularly Floq in 'neutral'). - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
16. as above, and fewer than 80 uploads ?! Gotta start with the basic work --Mateus2019 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

    Uploads of what? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

17. I wouldn't necessarily oppose for lack of content work alone but the combination of answers to Q1 and Q7 makes little sense to me - it's true that admins who focus on certain technical work don't necessarily need lots of content experience but protected edit requests is definitely not an example of such an area. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Cullen328 and also comments re Q4. Use of “both sides”-ism and describing such incidents as “silliness” fail as evidence of growth since that time. This user is not yet ready for prime time. Maybe later. Montanabw^(talk) 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
19. Oppose with some regret per BYK, Cullen, Floq, and Ritchie Andre🚐 15:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
20. Regretfully oppose due to lack of content creation background. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
21. Oppose: The deletion discussions linked throughout this section give enough examples to convince me that the candidate has a pattern of nominating borderline pages for deletion and then hounding those who oppose the nomination rationale. The most unpleasant part of XfD, and something that I believe pushes XfD outcomes to not reflect policy, is when editors react to disagreement at XfD by becoming combative and re-stating their case to every !voter. I worry that, if an editor regularly believes so strongly in their prior beliefs about a page's notability that they really dig in when someone disagrees with them, they will continue to rely primarily on their own reading of policy when they are tasked with judging consensus and closing those discussions. And, not for nothing, this also connects to the concern about a lack of content work. I think that those who have put in the sweat of building Wikipedia pages from scratch, and gone through the enormous pains of digging up hard-to-find sources that establish the notability of the page subject, are more likely to see ways of salvaging a page about a notable subject. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
22. Per Tony, filelakeshoe. I don't care about edit summaries, and ordinarily I wouldn't put much importance on content work for RfA either, but it is quite...strange, for lack of a better word, when a candidate declares that it isn't important for the things that they want to do when they explicitly name several content-focused admin tasks among said things. ansh.666 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
23. Oppose mostly per Tony and Cullen's excellent observations. Just not confident about this one at this time. Intothatdarkness 23:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
24. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
25. Oppose Regretfully. Content creation is in my view an important aspect. For editors who are active in highly technical areas, and this applies here, I can look past this requirement. What tips the scales for me, though, is an underlying attitude of brusqueness and self-centredness. This demonstrates itself in the original way Q7 was answered, the attitude towards edit summaries (Depending on how the RfA goes I may consider turning it on. as per User talk:Pppery#Hey you), and the CfD items posted by Floq. As an admin, it's super-important to be both helpful and transparent, and I'm afraid those underlying attitudes could get in the way. Schwede66 02:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
26. Oppose – content creation is not hard. Find a topic that interests you, or you know a lot about, spend a focused hour or two, and you can make massive improvements. I don't think I've ever seen someone with this little content creation at RFA. Really people, not even one GA? Maybe a few solid B-class articles? It's hard to explain how little this is to ask. Frankly, Magic: The Gathering rules, is not particularly impressive or poor, but its sole existence makes me question the editor's dedication to the sole purpose of Wikipedia: being an encyclopedia. We don't have high expectations for content creation, we just have bare minimum standards, and I can't say that this editor has achieved that. Aza24 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    You... were not around for my RfA, then. The entirety of my significant content contributions were expanding two fairly unremarkable articles and creating a start class article about a Thai village (they're listed at my RfA if you care exactly what articles I'm taking about). And while I didn't say it there, at that time and to this day I actively avoid DYK/GA/FA because I find it entirely meaningless. It's the same reason I never read CliffNotes or similar, I want to read and analyze text myself instead of viewing it through the preconceived ideas from some self-appointed Judge Of What Is Good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Your RfA from 14 years ago? Yeah, I wasn't around then, and as we both know there was practically no scrutiny for the process then. You're desperately missing my point and frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say DYK/GA/FA is the only way to content creation ("Maybe a few solid B-class articles"). Not sure what you're trying to prove, I would have opposed your nomination as well. Aza24 (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    RfA had plenty of scrutiny in 2011. And the point is that I've been an admin for 11+ years with my background, and seem to be getting on with it just fine. Though I'm familiar with the arguments for content creation and adminship, I've never (for example) drawn upon my research into Ainu culture when making a username block or reviewing an AE request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Nice cherrypicked example. This is an encyclopedia. If you are the admin for an encyclopedia, you should have some substantial experience writing in the encyclopedia. It is just not much to ask at all... to the point where it may even be too lenient of an expectation. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

27. Oppose I don't usually bother opposing RfAs where the candidate doesn't have what I would consider enough content creation, if that is the only reason I'd oppose. However, on top of the lack of content creation, I get the impression that the candidate doesn't consider content the central purpose of this project, which is a big red flag for me. Add to that their answer to Q21 and the documented issues by Cullen and Floq at deletion discussions have pushed me into actually opposing. Barkeep's reason for their neutral !vote is persuasive also. A minor issue is the flippant approach to edit summaries - edit summaries are not for the editor leaving them, they are for all the other editors, so as not to waste THEIR time in having to figure out if an edit is good or bad. Admins should model good behavior even when they are not doing admin activities, and thus they should even do little things like edit summaries and think of those things as important because they are part of the collaborative environment in the project. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
28. Sorry to end up here, but I was tipped from neutral due to the persuasive arguments of Schwede, Aza and Ealdgyth. Content creation is the core of the project, but I would be willing to overlook this if not for my concerns over attitude (as identified by those above and below). I sincerely thank Pppery for their technical efforts, but I cannot support at this time. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
29. Although I find Pppery to be a competent editor (especially in requested moves), but I'm concerned about his hyper focus around the maintenance areas of the project, and I'm worried that his inexperience around content will cause a lack of empathy towards creators. I find Cullen's !vote to be quite compelling on this matter. Just because an article has survived several AfDs does not mean that it is actually "good" content that readers can use. I also find Pppery's comment throwing the blame on others for the article's poor sourcing to be not the kind of attitude we need for an administrator. We need someone who is willing to examine their mistakes and attempt to correct them, not just leave it for someone else to fix. I also believe that Pppery does not consider content to be the central focus of the project, which I think is a huge issue that will take time to become old news. I cannot support. The Night Watch (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
30. Oppose: please work on content more, using edit summaries. Ann Teak (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
31. The lack of understanding of the general standards of admin conduct coupled the attitude that enforcing the rules is more important than content puts me here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
32. Oppose I was troubled by the content and tone of several of the answers by Pppery (eg, "silliness" in Q3; "obviously not" in Q7) but didn't want to place too much weight on possibly isolated acts of subpar communication. However, a perusal of their talkpage shows several instances where, perhaps due to limited content experience, Pppery is arguing that they were technically justified to make an edit while missing the big picture. See for example, this exchange in which Pppery spent considerable effort tablulating the number of edits by editors involved in a slow edit-war, while missing the point that the version Pppery was reverting to was not supported by the cited source (see pp. 27, 61) even after Freetrashbox pointed that out explicitly. Sorry, but despite Pppery's skills in other areas and indisputable good faith, this fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia's content and sourcing policies is a deal breaker for me. Abecedare (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
33. Oppose, after a lot of thought, and regretfully, this is a very strong oppose for me. I started here by posting some thoughts in Neutral, but now I know what I think. I had a feeling when the RfA opened that I remembered something negative, but I wasn't sure what it was, and I didn't want to make an unfounded criticism. I said that I was concerned that editors who are focused on The Rules can make bad admins. I also said that I thought that Cullen328's oppose resonated with me; I'll add now that I think CaptainEek's support is a good example of what I would see as reasons to support. I took interest in Barkeep49's reasons for posting in Neutral, and they make me feel uncomfortable, too. But as I re-read various comments in this discussion, I realized that I had overlooked Floq's link to this: [1]. That was the thing I was remembering. And for me, it is an absolute disqualifier. As I said, admins need to have nuanced judgment, and not simply want to enforce The Rules. I co-wrote WP:MALVOLIO out of similar concerns. The attitude that the candidate shows in that CfD discussion, as well as in some of the others that Floq linked to, doesn't just reflect a difference in opinion from mine. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the consensus that existed in the community at that time. The claim that there was a consensus against facetious user categories was counter-factual, and that's not the kind of understanding that admins need to have. And there's also something rigid and lacking in human understanding about it. Take this along with the relative lack of interest in serious content work and the somewhat off-key comments about how admins should act when not doing admin tasks, and I'm seeing someone whom I cannot trust with the permissions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    This isn't a reply to anyone, but it just occurred to me to link to something I posted elsewhere today: [2]. I do this out of understanding that some editors might take issue with equating humor with what I call having empathy. It should be clear from that diff of mine that I'm no apologist for joking around at the expense of the serious project of writing an encyclopedia. But it takes judgement to see the difference between when something does or does not get in the way of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    I've looked over the CfD discussions, and I don't think Pppery is pedantically just following the rules. Their rationales seem reasonable, not just following the rules for the rules' sake.
    I also feel like calling Pppery's "claim" counter-factual ("incorrect" ?) gives the impression it is patently wrong, but to me it seems a reasonable reading of WP:USERCATNO (not to rehash those CfDs here). — Qwerfjkltalk 06:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the reply, but I disagree with you very strongly. In a sense, he wasn't just following the rules, because he got the rules wrong. But he specifically cited the rules as as the reason for his position. I can accept that his position was "reasonable" to the extent that it is shared by some other members of the community. But it showed a profound lack of human understanding, of empathy, and that's a big part of where it diverges from what I need to see in an administrator. (We've had a history of admins who have ended up desysopped over that, and frankly, you can see an example of what I mean in that same CfD.) You say you don't want to rehash that CfD (and the others that Floq linked to, because they do amount to a pattern, rather than a one-off), but your comment necessitates that I point you back to what I said there. I reviewed the history of community discussions on the topic, and distinguished between red-linked and blue-linked categories. And the closing consensus found that I was correct. And yet the candidate didn't adjust his position when his misreading of consensus at the time was pointed out. He doubled down. Whatever else one wants from an admin, we should absolutely expect that admins will generally understand existing consensuses correctly, and will correct their mistakes when a mistake is pointed out to them. I see that numerous editors who support this RfA have said that they think the candidate is someone who will make things right after making a mistake. It seems to me that I have documented that this might not be something we can depend on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Tryptofish, I don't believe it is in any way clear that Pppery misread the rules. I'm fact, it seems to me that the whole CfD dispute was about whether the rules should be aplied (namely WP:USERCATNO versus WP:IAR). I'm not quite sure what exactly you're referring to by it showed a profound lack of human understanding, of empathy, perhaps you could point to specific comments? As I understand it, Pppery was frustrated with those who created categories like these, a view that they were not alone in. I would say that calling Pppery unempathetic is excessive.
    Finally, I find the latter part of your comment mystifying. You seem to feel that it is wrong that Pppery was not swayed by your arguments and maintained (doubled down) on their position. Are you seriously suggesting this nomination had only one "right" outcome, that the arguments of those opposed were invalid? And that we should always !vote the way a discussion is closed? I'm afraid I must absolutely reject that. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    I think this is getting into the area of "if you've got to ask, you'll never know". If you think that this was about IAR, then you do not understand what I wrote back then. And of course it's OK to !vote in the minority in a discussion. But that's clearly not what I'm saying. We disagree, and at this point, we should leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Tryptofish, I find it vaguely insulting that you've essentially described my whole arguments as "you don't understand, and in fact cannot understand" . Perhaps that's not how you intended, but that's how I read it. that's clearly not what I'm saying - call me obtuse if you want, but it's not at all clear to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Noted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose: I’ll start off by saying, Pppery’s time and efforts as part of the NPP are appreciated, especially when it comes to work by first time editors. But, I can't shake off this concerning edit I came across (changed lynching > hanging & no mention of why in the edit summary). Paired with their scarce use of edit summaries and low content creation, this leads me to question whether the rest of their edits follow a similar pattern of reducing and being careless with language? This kind of thing comes down to representation of fact and is incredibly significant to the community and what we’re trying to represent. There isn’t a clear answer of why they did what they did, but it would be nice to know Pppery’s thoughts, and whether this is the kind of behavior they’ll employ/support as admin if granted these rights by the community? Bflx 11 (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

    You've read the diff incorrectly - the change from "lynching" to "hanging" was done in the edits before mine. This is what I actually did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    It's an easy mistake to make when doing a diff of multiple edits. This: [3] is the edit that changed that word (and others), and it wasn't Pppery. - jc37 00:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying that yall. I retract my oppose. My sincere apologies Pppery for this uncomfortable oversight, clearly messed up when reading the diff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflx 11 (talk • contribs)

34. Oppose, rigid thinking regarding "the rules" and lack of content creation are red flags to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
35. Oppose with regret at this time, largely per Tryptofish above, whose observations track with my own impressions upon having encountered the candidate's work from time to time in project space. I would add to the thoughtful comments above that it's not just that rigidity in applying The Rules is bad, but that it's incompatible with any sort of deep understanding of how rules work on Wikipedia. Which I think is reflected in a number of the specific interactions that have been raised above. When a shallow reading of the rules combines with rigidity in their application, the results are seldom good for the project. In addition to doing some more content work (easy or not), I would suggest that the candidate take some time to meditate on the Fifth Pillar and particularly the rule from which all rules flow. -- Visviva (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
36. Regrettably per responses, content creation, and discussion above. ResonantDis_tortion 08:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
37. Strong oppose per Cullen328. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 10:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    I would think that such a "strong" opinion would have more to it than just "per X". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

38. Oppose. Admins are not expected to be perfect. However, they are held to a very high standard of civility and particularly self-reflection. Admins make mistakes, and that‘s fine, but they’re expected to handle both that general reality and specific instances of controversy and complaints constructively. It‘s essential that admins are receptive to (well-intended) feedback, even and especially when that feedback is critical of their actions. Admins should be models of behavior on this. Per Cullen‘s and Floq‘s arguments, and seeing the general issues of temperament and attitude that have been pointed out, I don‘t think this candidate meets these expectations. It‘s a very high threshold of self-reflection and maturity, and for me, that aspect of this candidacy is more pertinent than (supposed) lack of content experience or depth of technical ability. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
39. Oppose - Not ready. Too soon. Looks like this editor wants the tools for their own convenience, and is not interested in the project as a whole. Answer to my question #18 about Conflict Resolution and ArbCom. A bit alarming that an admin candidate doesn't know what ArbCom does, or how it functions. Pppery's noticeboard/Incidents show he has only participated 16 times since 2016. In general, his replies indicate he wants the tools to do his own thing, not necessarily to interact with other users. Prepared or not, admins end up being pinged and dragged into situations. Admins are asked for help on any number of areas, and they shouldn't flip off any ping because it's not their chosen area. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Maile66: Not ready is one thing but too soon feels a bit absurd for an editor with over 57,000 edits and 7 years of experience who has contributed to numerous areas of our project in meaningful ways. The basis of your oppose seems to be why I'm unable to support so I'm on a similar wavelength there but this too soon wording strikes me as insulting more than anything. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    So? It's too soon if he hasn't ventured his editing into areas where a question like mine doesn't seem to be one he understood. Whatever. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    So I think we can oppose candidates (again I think you and I have very similar concerns) without saying something that if I were the candidate would feel like insulting rather than a constructive criticism/analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    Barkeep49, no insult was intended. If someone said that about me, I think I would not be insulted. What really concerns me about this nomination, is the nominee seems to just want the tools for his own work, not to help the project as a whole. Their statement, "The most important trait of an admin is to know when one knows what one is doing." I'm not even sure what that means. But I thinking participating at WP:ANI can shed enlightenment on admin work. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

40. Oppose, too many red flags, starting with Q7 and Q9. Nsk92 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
41. Oppose: I was torn between an oppose vote and a neutral vote but ultimately landed here. Ppery does not meet three of my five criteria which, while not a dealbreaker, is not ideal. I am troubled, however, by their answer to Q21 and the general tension between wanting to work in content-related areas while hand-waving away a lack of significant content creation experience. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
42. Oppose: I don't think the candidate should become an administrator. To a large part, this is down to their attitude to content creation. I'm generally reluctant to support candidates who don't have high-level content experience, but I also disagree with Pppery's answers to Question 7. They say perhaps content creation provides experience that would be helpful in closing AfDs, or in blocking people, or in some other areas of adminship. But creating good encyclopaedic content is fundamentally what we're here to do. And while there are other important tasks (including maintenance), understanding that sysops are only there to facilitate this central task is a requirement for passing RfA in my view. (WP:WRITE summarises this excellently.) The cavalier attitude to edit summaries (another basic requirement) and their answer to Question 21 don't sit right with the justifiably higher behaviour standards required of admins. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
43. Oppose due to both the lack of content creation, and their answer to Q7 which compounded it. I find it hard to believe that at some point in their administrative work they would not have to deal with issues related to content, and I don't believe they have the necessary experience. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
44. Oppose. Too many concerns expressed by experienced editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC).
45. Oppose - not an easy decision, but basically too focussed on rules, not clued up enough about content. The edit summary thing is an added irritant. Ingratis (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
46. Oppose - Reading through the discussions so far, I think that there's both pros and cons to Pppery becoming an admin, but overall unfortunately I think the cons outweigh the good side. The answers to the questions just don't convince me that the candidate will use the admin tools in a mature and useful way. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
47. Oppose - There are various issues in which I feel that the candidate is not ready for the mop. Even though edit summaries are "not required", per se, they at least should be entered as a "courtesy" to other editors. The answers to some of the questions leads me to believe that the candidate does not have a basic understanding of the admin role, again based on the answers given.   ArcAngel   (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Moved to support Neutral I'm not willing to oppose yet, but I do have one concern. Pppery and I have both occasionally been involved with CFDs and RFDs about user categories, and he has pretty strongly held views (opposite to my own strongly held views, or else I probably wouldn't be expressing concern, but I am not complaining about his opinion) that usually do not close in his favor, and often close as "no consensus". He has said multiple times in those discussion that he "is just enforcing the rules" and expressed exasperation with those with differing views. I have no idea if this occurs only in user category discussions, or other areas. I worry that Pppery's "strong urge to put everything into the order that they perceive should exist" (as stated by RexxS in the SPI linked by Pppery above, and as agreed with on the same page by nominator Wmb1058) will result in his closing borderline CFD or RFD discussions in a way that he favors (that is, in a way that he sees as enforcing the rules), rather than interpreting consensus or acknowledging that there is no consensus. I'd welcome anything that would ease my mind about this. Is it only user categories, or does it happen elsewhere? If it's isolated, maybe agreeing to not do user category closes (he would, of course, be more than welcome to keep discussing them; I'm just concerned about his closing them)? I'm not sure what would be best, and I'm not sure what would keep me from opposing, and I'm not sure if I'll even oppose if I'm not happy with the response. But this is a serious worry of mine. By the way, the rule about the candidate not responding to opposes or neutral comments is stupid, and we should abolish it. But I acknowledge that some people frown on it, so Pppery, if you prefer I'll mold this into a question and you can address it there instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Floq, do you have a diff or two as an example? Speaking for myself it would be helpful as a person yet to vote and I also quite imagine it would be easier for Pppery to respond (whether here or in questions) to something specific. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll dig a few examples up. I'm going to have to hunt for them. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably a discussion for elsewhere. but I wholly agree with your sentiment about commenting - a candidate should be able to comment where-ever the heck they want in their RfA. This process gets cotentious enough without adding gag rules. - jc37 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Tangentially related, but I have no qualms about the taboo against candidates directly responding to the "peanut gallery" – it enforces a desirable sense of purdah and "gag rules" tend to make the process less, rather than more, contentious. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are 4, all nominated on 1 April 2022:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Category:Former vandals who now contribute constructively
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF
  • relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Category:Wikipedians who feel disappointed with WMF
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Category:Wikipedians assessed by WikiProject Users

Two where others proposed deletion:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Category:Wikipedians also known as Le Poisson de Trypto
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery

A more recent one:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that last one the correct link? I'm not finding it. ULPS (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. No, it's not the right link. I'm an idiot. hang on... Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are looking for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you, cutting and pasting too quickly. I've changed the original to make it easier on others. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clearer on what I think I'm looking for: there is an admin in several of those discussions (who I won't drag into this) who is, if anything, even more vehement than Pppery about these categories. But they have never to my knowledge closed a contentious user category discussion, so I have no concerns about them being an admin. An agreement from Pppery to do the same would go a long way in easing my mind. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Pppery, this resolves my concern. If nothing else comes up, I anticipate switching to support. I won't oppose based on content creation (that would be throwing stones in a glass house); having empathy/understanding of content creation is a legit concern, but your situation is not a deal-breaker. I still get a ... vibe ... that you might be a little too "enforcement"-driven, rather than "assisting"-driven, but it wouldn't be fair to oppose based just on that feeling. If this succeeds, please consider that. Your lack of desire to block people goes a long way towards addressing that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Floq: I don't understand why you think that being "enforcement"-driven, rather than "assisting"-driven isn't a valid reason for opposing. Maybe things have changed since I joined this merry band some 18 years ago, but I thought it was a given that admins were not cops, they were more akin to janitors. Is that not still the standard? Why is assisting not what we're looking for in an admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Presumably Floq's point is that it wouldn't be fair to opposed based on something as inconcrete as a vibe. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe he would say that, maybe he would say something different, I'd like to hear from him what he thinks. For me, Malcolm Gladwell sufficiently expressed the value of "vibes" and "gut reactions" and similar rapid cognitions in Blink that I now tend to take them more seriously then I once did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mostly what JBL said; it's just a worry, nothing concrete. It could easily be a valid reason, if you feel strongly enough or have enough examples. My opinion is weaker than that, so I think it's better to support them with a note to be careful.--Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I have long gone back and forth over Pppery's suitability as an admin and have been quietly waiting for the notice to pop up (because I think RFA is worth a shot for him). As Floquenbeam says, Pppery is a person with strong views which he also expresses at TFD in addition to the others. I have observed a general mellowing since he came on to the scene A While Ago and what I think is general adjustment toward "it's not the end of the world if the discussion doesn't end the way I want", which is a positive quality (and about where I'm at also). I tend to agree more rather than less with his opinions there these days, and when I don't I can see where he's coming from. Izno (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

   I am pretty torn at the moment. The lack of content creation doesn't concern me as much as the lack of edit summary usage. I'll wait until 100 people weigh in before I make a decision. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   Move to oppose I have unresolved concerns regarding Pppery's attitude to content creation and edit summary usage but respect their technical work, so I wind up here for now. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   @Scorpions13256: More than 100 people have made their decisions. Do you feel ready to make one yourself? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

   @QuicoleJR: Thank you for letting me know. I have struck my comments and moved to support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

2. Neutral, They don't seem like a nuclear choice that would ruin the encyclopedia. Also, their answer to my question at least makes me less worried as they didn't say copyright was their hardest. But, I am still slightly concerned that I, a 2,000 some editor, might start to lap a possible admin based on article building. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   I looked a bit deeper into Pppery's edit count and by sheer numbers, they utterly squash me. They also have a lower deletion rate than me. However, my average article size is much larger than theirs. While my concern about me trumping them in mainspace is mostly gone, I still feel like there are too many issues for me to support. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I don't see that the candidate's tone is at all problematic, for one. That might be because I try to imagine the voice of Tweety Bird reading the text, but I get that not everyone does that. As for content creation, that concern is really just a proxy for testing the temperament of a candidate, as administrators need to both understand policy and work with editors who may be emotionally invested in a particular article. I do think it's a poor proxy, and that good candidates are rejected because it's a poor proxy, but I don't have a better one to offer. Edit summaries percentage is also a proxy, for being willing to take the time to document one's own work rather than expect someone else to ask. Honestly, the only reason I use edit summaries all the time is because I activated the reminder feature; maybe that should be the default setting. All told, I see evidence that this candidate has solid knowledge of the policies and guidelines, but may not appreciate the demands created by reducing all communication to writing. I am confident that Pppery will do a good job as an admin, once the community agrees to grant those rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   (Moving to Oppose.) Neutral for now, but likely to move. I'm struggling over this one, and I decided to say what I'm thinking about now, invite anyone who wants to, to respond to me, and then I'll probably move one way or the other. What's holding me up is the sense of an editor who is very focused on things like templates and categories, and on gnoming work, while not being that active in content work or content disputes. We've had admins like that previously, and sometimes they have turned out to have been bad choices. I find Cullen328's oppose very well thought out. On the other hand, I recognize the comments that the candidate has been improving over time. I'd really like to see evidence of being able to navigate a complicated content dispute while being able to appreciate both sides, as opposed to wanting to decide things based on The Rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   We've made plenty of bad choices in admins who focus on content, too. —Cryptic 19:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   Oh, I understand that, and I'm not rigid about wanting content creation at some specific level. This is really about what I said about not just approaching things as The Rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

   I've been going through the candidate's recent edits, and I'll use this to indicate what I'm trying to get a handle on. I find this sequence of three edits: [4], [5], [6]. They are all good; I'm not finding fault with any of them. The first one seems very representative of a lot of other recent edits I've seen: coming to a page to gnome something that arises from an issue that readers won't generally care about (in this case, Wikidata). The second two strike me, in a favorable way, as staying around the same page and doing some additional things that improve the page. But I have the impression that I'm seeing more edits like the first one, than like the second two. (And, with regard to the issue of edit summaries, the edit summary for the middle edit completely omits the most important part of it, tagging the page as "advert".) And while all of the edits are helpful, none of them is the kind of thing that gets deeply into addressing something about content that has come under dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

4. Neutral While I have positive experiences with the candidate in XfD, their view on content creation is a bit concerning. I suggest more experience in collaboration in article creation, probably a Good Article or two with other Wikipedians. This will help them understand the other side more and empathize with them while conducting admin work. Rules without empathy will just turn admins into Officer Javert which will hurt them and the project. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
5. I don't think I've ever posted in the neutral section before (and indeed I think this section should be eliminated). However, I am here because I think there is plenty of good about Pppery but I also have fundamental concerns about how they interpret admin conduct and since those concerns haven't been discussed (except briefly by me in response to a question) I am making a formal neutral in the hopes of raising the sailence of that topic. I was getting ready to support Pppery, after initially being concerned by Floq's and Izno's neutral, as I would expect high volume admin in a core process area for a candidate to be supportive rather than neutral. However, Floq moving to support combined with the fact that I liked their response to completely messing up their answer to q7 and their answers to other questions had led me to think I would support. Before doing so, I decide to reread all the opposes to see if anything in there resonated with me and part of Ritchie's oppose did. So I asked Q21 and got an answer that meant it is impossible for me to support the candidate. An admin who dislikes the social capital of being an admin is fine - I am often uncomfortable with the social capital I have and also bemused by others who think I have so much more than I do. What is not fine, for me, is an Admin who thinks that there are no conduct expectations for Admins except when they are acting in their admin capacity. That, simply, is not how I read the policy and I am uncomfortable with promoting someone who does. Which is too bad because I expect the overwhelming percentage of the time Pppery would be a real asset as an admin and a majority of the time that they goofed, they'd make it good. But to think about the classic "not a jerk, has a clue" support rational it doesn't matter how clueful they are or how rarely they might actually be a jerk, if someone is unconcerned about being a jerk at times. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

   Moved to support I spent some time on this one including reading the questions and looking at our interaction history and just don't feel comfortable either supporting or opposing. If I had a clearer sense of how they would be using the tools I might be more motivated to support, but I haven't interacted with them much, and users I respect are flagging possible problems. I don't have any problem with the Q7 answer and don't want to oppose but just can't support yet. SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

6. Moved from support because I had a little think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
7. I've been watching this RfA since it began, and have changed my mind about my !vote half a dozen times since; so I think it's best if I sit here, and write out my thoughts for the (presumable) crat-chat to consider as it will. The positives first; Pppery is clearly dedicated to the 'pedia, he's WP:HERE, he has a clear use case for the tools, he fills a necessary technical and maintenance niche that lets the rest of us focus on things we like better, and he's earned the support of many editors I have immense respect for. He also appears to be able to self-reflect and to keep his cool under fire, which in my view are the two traits that set apart good admins candidates from other experienced editors.
   On the debit side; I was concerned by the discussions Floq brought up, but that concern is addressed by Pppery's willingness to stay away from the tools in similar discussions. I'm more concerned by his approach to content. I want to be very specific about what I mean here, because I see some !votes that I consider wide of the mark. I don't expect an RfC candidate to work entirely or even primarily on content, and while the answer to Q7 could have been better thought out I believe it's poor word choice more than anything else. That said, what I do need is for a candidate to demonstrate a solid understanding of content policy. There's many ways to do this; FAs or GAs are great, a few start-class articles would be good, some careful rewrites of problematic content chunks would be sufficient. But I've yet to find evidence of any of that. Reaper Eternal outlines some issues with Magic: The Gathering above. Hoping that Pppery's second- and third-most edited pages might show something better, I took a look at his contributions to Polyglot (computing) and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. His edits to the former are entirely updating an external link (why it needed to be updated ~50 times, I'm not certain); and the edits to the latter are entirely tweaking presentation of in-universe detail. To be clear, I'm not taking issue with the edits Pppery made, but with the ones he didn't make; I'm still left with an absence of evidence that Pppery has engaged with the nuances of writing content. And the edits mentioned by Abe confirm this impression.
   With that in mind, I'd be willing to support a second RFA if my concern is addressed. I usually dislike the "come back in six months" category of RFA comment, but in this case I believe the concern is specific enough to be addressed, rather than a nebulous concern about experience: and I'm not particularly concerned about the time-frame. If this RfA passes, and at the moment I think that's likelier than not, I hope Pppery increases his engagement with content anyway; it's administrators, and not just admin candidates, who need to be familiar with content policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
8. Neutral, primarily on reasoning similar to that of Lenticel's. Candidate shows experience with the ins and outs of the technical "kitchen" of Wikipedia, but appears to not have a ton of experience with high-octane content improvement (GAs and FAs would be really nice). I absolutely think sysopping is No Big Deal and the user certainly has a clue, but some time spent working heavily in improving The Reader's experience is a critical component of making good decisions as an admin IMO. AviationFreak💬 04:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• As someone who submitted to RfA on a "I just want to be helpful where I can" platform, I wish more people would do so. In thinking about L235's question, I'll just note that when I ran I had virtually zero interest in doing blocking. And yet my admin stats say I have blocked 145 people, which I find astounding every time I look at it but is also small potatoes compared to people who really do that work and could rack up 145 blocks in a month. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• I guess since this might go to a crat chat, I'll add a bit more substance to my support. It's okay for people to have strengths and weakness. We need more technical people in the community and not less. If you see me mucking around in Module Space or trying to design a bot, block my account immediately and send me an email or a phone call to verify it's actually me. I have no business being there. A lot of our most experienced users are in the same boat. The principle of having a lot of good-meaning people from a lot of different backgrounds is what makes this thing work. We've had a lot of people get the mop with less content creation, especially early on, and we have current admins who have barely touched mainspace in years, because they have a special set of skills and they're over on Phab or something trying to figure out a problem, because some dummy like me doesn't know how to computer. We don't punish content creators because they don't know how to use Lua, and we shouldn't punish technical users because they don't have a boat load of FAs. GMG^talk 11:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is the best point made so far. Diversity in our community is a strength. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  ... we shouldn't punish technical users because they don't have a boat load of FAs; is that happening? I'm not seeing it. The answer to Q7 is dismissive of content creation, the main reason we're here, which indicates the candidate may not understand how admins with tools who don't respect and understand content creation, or haven't engaged it (essentially, at all) can impede it and the editors who focus on it. But I don't see anyone calling for FAs.

  I do see a bigger problem in the answer to Q2. If the article the candidate considers their best work is in a February 2023 state that causes this kind of GA reaction (from a reviewer who isn't overly strict, rigid or nitpicky and who I have seen pass articles through content review with a few prose adjustments), that's cause for concern. Consider this scenario: we frequently have disruptive or tendentious or NOTHERE editors showing up at ANI, where we offer samples of their "best work" to show why they don't belong here. I'm not seeing this article as being much above that level, which tells me the candidate really might not understand the bare minimum of what makes a decent article, and what our expectations are of productive editors.

  Similarly, the answer to Q18 suggests an editor not actively engaged in core issues and parts of Wikipedia; I'd have liked to see the response invoke something like User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned, because the scenario is a very real problem, and Barkeep's ideas are one of the few ways change can come about. Invoking INVOLVED misses the point-- the scenario is created because the "INVOLVED" can't or don't speak up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know that I follow a parallel between an article with 70+ citations, where everything does seem to be sourced, and bringing someone to ANI for NOTHERE. That comes off as a little hyperbolic. That's a standard that I expect would have us blocking 90% of the community. GMG^talk 13:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  You have misunderstood or I have failed to explain well. In precisely the scenario of Q18, we often see examples of an editor's best work thrown up in defense. In such a scenario, if an article like that were given as an indication of an editor's best work, I'd see it as not a very good example of a productive, knowledgeable editor. That article has prose, sourcing, MOS, and organizational issues at minimum, and the prose is so mangled, a fairly lenient GA reviewer gave up. If we saw something similar come up at ANI, with an otherwise disruptive or tendentious editor, would this candidate consider that article a productive contribution, and go light on the ANI subject? Alternately, if an ANI subject is causing similar deterioration in a GA or FA, would this candidate recognize it, if this is their standard of "best work" ? (Also, invoking "70+ citations" is problematic, when some aren't reliable; at minimum, one would hope an RFA candidate would review for that before offering the article as a sample of their best work.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't seem to understand very well at all. We've certainly blocked and/or CBANed editors that were probably more productive than both of us combined. So if either of us were being extremely disruptive, there's nothing in our FAs and GAs that's going to save us regardless. So what's the relevance? Also the vast majority of our articles aren't GAs or FAs, but it doesn't mean they aren't helpful or important. GMG^talk 14:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  The relevance is that NOTHERE editors (and their defenders) offer examples of their "best work" to support them being productive editors, regardless of article assessment. In that scenario, if an article like this were to be offered as the best example at ANI, I'd not give it a lot of weight, and would hope admins wouldn't either. It's barely understandable, and I'd not be happy to have an editor appearing at ANI introducing that kind of prose, etc. to a GA or FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I dunno...Q2 is standard for every RfA. This isn't ANI. GMG^talk 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• This RfA is an almost perfect example of why the tools should be modular.Elinruby (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Either that, or sysops and desysops need to be much easier to do.

  Admins are effectively "super users" with all the privileges that come bundled with the bit - and as a result, the community (during RFAs) has started holding them to VERY high standards in ALL areas an admin MIGHT work - even areas where a candidate probably wouldn't work very much. The root of the problem appears to be that admins can do a LOT. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Surely this has been a community discussion in the past. I've seen it raised here plenty. ~TPW 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed it has, see Wikipedia:Unbundling administrators' powers. TL;DR is a lot of permissions have been unbundled, but blocking and deletion will both always require a process like this (even if they're separated from each other). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have to disagree that content creation isn't hard. It isn't hard for those of us who are content creators, and I completely agree it's best that admins have content creation experience because protecting content creators is huge. But the fact it's easy for us doesn't mean it's actually easy. It's easy for those of us who have that ability. It's like Pete Rose, who could see a pitch coming toward him and see the stitching forming an X and just hit to the crosshairs of that X, coaching other players to do that. Easy peasy. But they couldn't see the X. Valereee (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  My father was a professional football player and he used to say that there's always one thing a player can can do and that is: try. There is a certain amount of natural talent involved in the simple skill of writing and organising your thoughts in a coherent matter. It's also a skill that some editors will use and hone in their day job. You also have to spend time reading, researching and organising your materials. I've written many articles and I still find the content creation process difficult. I normally only get a paragraph or two written each day. The articles get written because I keep at them until they are complete. Building an encyclopaedia is what we are all here to do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) Building an encyclopaedia is what we are all here to do. Absolutely. I would never offer the opinion that every kind of contribution to building the encyclopedia isn't necessary. We should always be thankful that some people like to do one kind of thing and others like to do another, but the bottom line is without content there is no encyclopedia, and it's worrying that people -- good people -- seem to be prone to downplay that, perhaps because it's not what they do best. There's no shame in not being a content creator, but it is nevertheless dubious to minimize the importance of content creation. That's why, in my opinion and that of others commenting here, it is important, perhaps even essential, that admin candidates have a substantial record of content creation before they become admins, to sensitize them to the content creation process and the need to protect it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  And I'm not arguing that it isn't important, possibly even crucial, and certainly worth considering, FWIW. I'm just saying that it isn't easy for everyone, and it's a bit insulting for those of us who do it to argue that it's easy, which implies there's some sort of laziness or lack of initiative responsible for not doing so. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that content creation is not necessarily easy for everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  The basic problem, as I see it, is that admins without any content creation experience will be fine about 95% of the time when they just roll up to AIV and block vandals. As I say at my essay, blocking obvious vandals at AIV is super-duper easy and anybody can do it. The trouble is for the 5% of the other cases, when they mistake something for vandalism, or some other disruptive editing when it isn't, or wade into a contentious topic like India - Pakistan or US Politics and cause a huge fracas and cries of "admin abuez" which tends to lead to one or more of massive ANI threads, retirements, or arbcom cases. If you've had just a bit of experience in writing, you'd probably know enough to avoid these. It's the Dunning–Kruger effect.

  To be clear, I have supported admin candidates with minimal content experience before eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2 - but in those cases, the technical skills were excellent (with apologies to Pppery, I'm not aware of them maintaining essential bots or tools that thousands of people use and respect) and they had clearly and unambiguously shown without question they had absolutely no indication of ever getting embroiled with drama. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  And yet Enterprisey is now on ArbCom... Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  So you're saying the reason most football players never were able to go professional was for lack of trying because playing at that level just a matter of trying so the other 99.999% must not have been trying hard enough?

As I said, I'm not arguing that admins shouldn't have content experience. But those who are saying it's easy are incorrect, IMO. It isn't "easy" for most of us, and people who use that as some indication the person isn't trying hard enough are not correct. Valereee (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Eh - content creation is very easy and very difficult to do well. We don't need admins to do it well, but we do need them to either understand the process OR clearly provide important work in another area of the project (a sockpuppet or copyvio gnome, for instance), and one of the reasons why I'm on the fence about this nomination is because neither of those are clear from the responses so far. (I actually looked to see if the article had been sent to AfD for failing WP:NOT, which it had, and was kept.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue a candidate who does it, but badly, is a worse candidate than one who recognizes their limitations. Valereee (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

And I would generally agree with Valereee on this point. Its a Dunnung-Kruger thing. The question then becomes whether we think Pppery is sufficuebtly self-aware to not rush in where they are out of their depth. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's my strong opinion that asking someone to become a content creator just to become a wikipedia admin, when their strengths clearly lie in other areas, is counter-productive and goes against WP:VOLUNTEER. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.