Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John M Wolfson

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

John M Wolfson

edit

Final (154/0/2); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

edit

John M Wolfson (talk · contribs) – John M Wolfson joined the project in 2018 and since that time he has been focused on writing, improving, and promoting high quality content, particularly about his beloved Chicago. He has two Four awards, a featured list, three more GAs and several DYKs. He also has served as a bit of a Wikipedian archivist, at specific places like Wikipedia:UuU and more generally with Wikipedian “records”.

As about 75% of his approximately 19,000 edits are either to articles (including 75 new articles) or article talk pages (which John likes to start not only for his own creations but when he finds a missing one), you might not recognize his name. If you do it might be from his work at In the News, which Stephen will talk more about below, or from his questions at RfA. Those questions are, for me, a good representation of the value John brings. At several RfAs he asked a question, based on one he found while reading through our archives, which he thought would elicit useful information, not only for him but others, about the competency and approach of potential administrators. When it didn’t quite work out that way and he got asked about it, he decided to stop asking it. This level headed and reflective demeanor is also present in his interaction with other users whether at his talk page or in his participation at noticeboards.

In other words we have a content creator who thinks carefully about his actions, will listen to the thoughts and concerns of others, and who has a clear need of tools so he can help with a particular task - In the News. It’s for these reasons, and more, that I hope you will join me in supporting John M Wolfson’s request for adminship. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

edit

John has made a great impact on 'In the News' and main page error reporting, making considered nominations for the main page and providing careful polite commentary for others. It's an area that needs more admin assistance, as there's often frustration that stories are not posted or that errors are not fixed quickly enough, but there are rules to ensure that we showcase well-written articles, especially adhering to WP:BLP. John would be an excellent addition to the corps, wth his strong background in content creation, proven ability to listen carefully, and considered manner in mediating frustrated parties. It's a pleasure to recommend him for the administrative bit. Stephen 20:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

edit

As well as the content creation that Barkeep has described, I have seen John's participation at Articles for deletion over several years. I have frequently found his arguments to be concise, well-founded in policy, and courteous even on the few occasions when consensus doesn't agree with him. I am pleased to see him take an interest in sections of the main page outside of DYK, in particular the On This Day section sometimes appears to have hardly any admin activity at all. I have also seen discussions where he is able to admit fault, explain how he was wrong, and suggest ways forward. John is also careful to avoid templated messages where possible, and strives to use a personal hand-written message - indeed, in his own words, "Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful". This is one of the most important attributes for an administrator, and I believe John has adequately demonstrated it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is a pleasure and an honor to be nominated by these fine gentlemen, and I accept. For disclosure purposes, I had two accounts when I was a kid (User:Boingbop in 2010 and User:Eman2129 from 2011 to 2014); I didn't know until 2019 that renaming accounts was possible. Both have been indeffed at my request and I have no intention of using them in the future. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC) (Just for further confirmation, I have also never done any paid editing on any accounts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am a regular at ITN, and would like the ability to post stories on the Main Page when they develop consensus. I believe that I can apply such skills to other areas of the Main Page, especially given that I have had content come on all sections of the Main Page except for POTD. I also give third opinions occasionally, which I believe enhances my mediation skills.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I mainly contribute to articles about the politics of Chicago and New York City, and I like to think of myself as dabbling in both quality and quantity. I have two Four Awards (including James Thompson, which I was quite frankly surprised didn't already exist) and a Featured List, not to mention several GAs and many DYKs, in addition to creating quite a few referenced stubs to fill in the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia. I have also created such templates as {{Pounds, shillings, and pence}} for the mainspace. On a more endopedian note, I am in the process of creating a log of our pre-2003 Brilliant Prose.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I edit in fairly niche areas so I don't encounter much conflict in the course of my editing. However, I did have an edit battle over a year ago when I attempted to improve Larry Sanger's article. My attempts to improve the lead were instantly reverted on the grounds of what I believed to be spurious accusations of failed verification and LEADCITE (in the opposite manner of how I interpreted it); the other party would add citation needed and failed verification tags, and then revert the whole thing less than a minute later. Not wanting to violate the 3RR I asked for a Third Opinion; when that failed to sway the other person I asked the other person to take the matter to the DRN and upon receiving what I considered to be a stonewalling response took it to ANEW. While nothing ultimately came of the ANEW report, a talk page discussion ensued and my version of the lead was largely ultimately accepted. I'm not however particularly proud of this edit. Other than that I wouldn't really change much if confronted with the same situation today.

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

Additional question from Nick Moyes
4. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. How would you handle this?
A: Copying and pasting material from a source that is not duly licensed (which presumably includes the school's website) runs afoul of our copyright policies, so if there is no revision that doesn't contain such material I would tag it for G12. What I would not do is tag it for A7, which exempts educational institutions in bold text. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from DoSazunielle
Collapse of question asked by sock. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. You mentioned that you "mainly contribute to articles about the politics of Chicago and New York City". Where do your political beliefs/instincts/loyalties lie, and how do they affect the work you do on Wikipedia? DoSazunielle (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: My politics don't affect my work on Wikipedia. No editor's politics in any event should interfere with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or with the bottom line of building a high-quality neutral encyclopedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ktin
6. Thank you for your nomination. What in your view is the role of an administrator in making Wikipedia friendly and welcoming for newer editors?
A: All editors, regardless of usergroup, should strive to make Wikipedia a warm and inviting place, and especially have the duty to not bite newcomers. Administrators are not fundamentally different in that regard, although they are and ought to be more stringently held to those standards. Administrators have a special role insofar as they have greater technical abilities with the mop and a generally greater knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; this role essentially entails being as courteous as one would be as a normal editor, but in contexts where the administrator toolset is involved, such as kindly explaining to an editor why an article they created was deleted, etc., or in explaining a certain policy or guideline. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. As a follow up question -- how specifically, in your new role, would you contribute to making Wikipedia a friendly and welcoming place for newer editors?
A: As an administrator I intend to work primarily on the Main Page initially, which means that I would meet new editors on the Main Page errors page and duly hear any concerns of theirs about the Main Page. This would entail me explaining kindly what is/isn't an error, and more generally how we do things on Wikipedia, and noting when they have correctly pointed out an error and I have fixed it. In other contexts I already strive to give personalized rather than templated messages on user talkpages, and will continue that as an administrator. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Joe Roe
8. If you were closing an AfD, how would you weight arguments for deletion along the lines of "per nom", "per User:XYZ", etc.?
A: Much like everything else on Wikipedia, AfDs are a discussion rather than a vote, so raw numbers do not decide the outcome, especially when sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts are involved. "Per" statements are suboptimal in that they don't add very much to the discussion, especially when they are arguing for deletion rather than the default of keeping. That said, they can aid in determining where rough consensus lies if the "per" !voters aren't socks or SPA's, and the general discouragement on them was removed following some discussion late September. Therefore, I would weight good-faith "per nom/User:XYZ" !votes the same as the original !votes (nom/User:XYZ). This includes discounting them when the original !vote is no longer relevant or isn't based in policy, and if that results in a situation where there's only one policy-compliant !vote against several noncompliant !votes, and there's nothing too urgent like a copyright violation, I think I'd be better off either relisting the discussion or participating in it.
None of this applies to "per everyone/majority" votes, which I would discard as not pertaining to a specific argument. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Teratix
9. Any reflections on this recent dispute over a speedy deletion tagging?
A: The nexus of that dispute was an erroneous tag of mine (A9 when not ultimately applicable and when draftifying would have done). Although it started out heated, I admitted my mistake and there was mutual understanding and cordiality at the end; we even thanked each other's parting comments. I think it's a good representation of what would happen when I am confronted with an error of mine, in that I will eventually come around and perform whatever restitution is necessary and feasible, all while explaining myself the best I can. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Eggishorn
10. Thank you for standing for adminship. Could you expand on your answer to Question 1? Specifically, much of the work at ITN and DYK is not work that requires admin tools so are you referring to preparing queues for those sections or correcting other Main Page errors or something else? If the Main Page is your primary motivation for gaining the admin tools, do you think you will eventually expand your use to other admin areas (e.g., backlogs, etc.)?
A: Yes, I do mean that I would work on the Main Page stuff that requires administrator attention such as posting ITN stories and setting up DYK queues, which I believe is aided by my substantial experience in those areas as an editor. It is very likely that I will expand into other fields, but not until I am comfortable with my role as an administrator on the Main Page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Leijurv
11. How would you approach an AfD where discussion seems to have wrapped up if you felt Wikipedia policy heavily supported one side, but the !vote appears to clearly favor the opposite? Would you close, and, if so, how?
A: I would not close that discussion, but rather participate in it with my views on the policy of the matter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from usernamekiran
12. Q5 has lead to quite a discussion. My Q: As long as an editor's contributions are neutral, and of good quality, do you think it is okay if they show their political alignment on their userpage? (A simple yes or no would suffice.) A follow up Q: We know you are a good editor. So: for the sake of transparency, would you just spill it out where your political loyalties lie? The secrecy is giving me heebie-jeebies. Is it the republic? Or the empire? Or is it something else?
As long as we are on the topic: I support the party that has their philosophy based around the Almighty Bob. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delayed explaination: the follow-up question is supposed to be humour. I apologise for the odd humour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is acceptable (and at times even desirable if it presents a genuine conflict of interest); many respected users and administrators do so. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nightfury
13. Expanding briefly on Q5, If you were inadvertently a part of a conversation or a page dispute where another editor is suspected of adding political bias, how would you respond?
A: I would try to listen to all parties involved, and to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page, reminding everyone of NPOV and to not be tendentious. If that fails I would refer them to the NPOV noticeboard. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Power~enwiki
14. When does an ITNC topic have sufficient participation for there to be consensus to post to the main page?
A: An entry at ITNC has to pass two thresholds to get on the Main Page. First, all articles on the Main Page have to be of a bare minimum of quality (duly cited, no orange tags, not a stub, etc.), although this is more urgent on ITNC due to its time-sensitive nature. Second, ITN nominations (except for the "Recent deaths" you see at the bottom of the box and a list of certain recurring events that are considered "inherently" in the news) have to be considered "significant" by the community, which as you might guess is a highly subjective matter. Nominations should generally be open for at least 12 and ideally 24 hours for people of different time zones to participate, at which point I would consider at the bare minimum five-ish but more ideally ten-ish participants to be adequate consensus if they all support and the discussion seems to have "settled". This does not apply to recent deaths nominations, for which as few as two supports (or even one plus the nominator) is sufficient to post. All of this, of course, assumes that the article(s) in question is(are) of Main Page-quality, which trumps everything else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jeromi Mikhael
15. Follow up from Power's question: Is there any static range of support-to-oppose ratio for there to be consensus to post to the main page? (e.g. 3:1 or 3:2, etc)
A: Supports should generally outnumber opposes at least 3:2 and ideally 2:1, and if there are any opposes there should be at least more than ten participants to help flesh out what consensus is and resolve any controversies. A "lively" discussion should be waited to settle down first before any decision is made, as the !votes and resulting ratio is very likely to evolve over time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jaredroach
16. How will you reduce male bias in Wikipedia culture and/or content?
A: As an administrator, I intend to work primarily on the Main Page. I will try to be on the lookout for pages related to women's history to be promoted to the On This Day and Did You Know sections, although I am bound by the guidelines of those sections and whether the articles in question have a high enough quality to be on the Main Page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
17. As mentioned, you have the {{Don't template me}} template placed on your user talk page. Is there any distinction between using template messages to notify established users about matters versus doing so to address problematic edits performed by newer users, such as vandalism? Some vandalism patrollers may revert dozens of edits in one editing session, and it would take a significant amount of time to type out a personalized message for every instance. Should they do the latter instead, or continue to use the template warning messages?
A: Template warnings have their place (as the {{uw}} series shows), and can be useful when dealing with high-volume affairs such as countervandalism. It is the volume and nature of the edits in question (reverting multiple issues of obvious vandalism, for example, rather than proposing a page made in good faith be deleted) that determines whether a personalized or templated message should be used, not the age of the account that receives the warning/notice. When using Twinkle I often place a personalized note on a user's talkpage after the automated notice Twinkle gives. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

edit

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

Support
edit
  1. Support as nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, fantastic creator, and works in so many great areas. Never had a bad word to say about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Nice content creator. Has a clue, not a jerk. —Nnadigoodluck███ 18:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've always had been impressed with John's work. Combined with a nom from Barkeep and Ritchie, that's a slam dunk in my book. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No concerns. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as co-nominator. Stephen 19:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I trust this editor and ITN needs more admins. P-K3 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I've had plenty of interactions with the candidate and I think he has the right temperament to be an admin. Additionally, he seems to have a need for the admin toolset. In my opinion, he'd do well with the tools. epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per noms and what I've seen of the candidate, I don't believe the tools will be misused. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support thought they were one already. Excellent work! (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Especially with their focus on ITN, an area that admin help would be welcomed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support no concerns, NETPOSITIVE and the endorsements speak for themselves, really. Best of luck, Patient Zerotalk 22:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Diligent content creators with clue and consideration make good admins. Plus I trust the nose of the noms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - clear net positive to the project, happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I've checked a random sample of this user's contributions. There's a very, very high proportion of small, gnomish edits to the mainspace, but I was eventually able to find some edits in which the candidate displayed reasonably good editorial judgment. I didn't locate anything of concern.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - (edit conflict) have had positive interactions with this user. No concerns from me. Interstellarity (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Per noms. No upsets or concerns to note. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support ITN could definitely use more admins (though not as badly as it needs more blurb nominators) and John is among the more reasonable ITN regulars. A co-nomination from Stephen, who is the the main ITN admin, should be enough to support any admin who intends to work in that area. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, well qualified. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  24. Support Well qualified. Excellent content creation and good editing and, importantly, good demeanor. Will work in areas that need prompt attention and necessary corrections. A few years ago I reported a link to the wrong page from the main page article introduction, which under the circumstances required correction by an administrator. Luckily, an administrator was watching and corrected the link within minutes. I am glad to support someone who will pay some attention to the accuracy and correction of mistakes of this important page and is competent to do so. And per noms. Donner60 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Judging by candidate's excellent response to the questionable Q5, expect the mop will be in good, safe hands. Congratulations in advance! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per noms and for his handling of Q5. Best of luck to you. JPG-GR (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Suppoert - I've worked with them before, and thought they were a capable and respectful editor. They have my support. Hog Farm Bacon 02:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per noms. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support unequivocal net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, seems pleasant and has great experience with content creation. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support – I've noticed his careful work at Wikipedia:UuU and Wikipedia:Wikipedia records, which shows an attention to detail that can be very useful for admins. Graham87 03:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Temperate, clueful, content-oriented. I can't find any "smoking gun" problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, good luck for the candidate. Rulforth (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - No concerns. Thanks for volunteering. Well done with Q5. Lev!vich 05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I have interacted with the candidate at WP:ITN and I look forward to seeing more of them in the days to come. Thanks for answering Q#6 and Q#7. Empathy and kindness should be the hallmark of any editor, but, more so of an Administrator. Anything and everything that you can do to further that will help our community. Here's wishing you well. Ktin (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, I do not see any issues--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support classic "I thought they already were..." scenario. No risk. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nominator. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - individual would be a net gain for the corps, and couldn't identify any appreciable risks in their activity. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I'm familiar with John from his edits to WP:ITN/C, which I watchlist and follow closely though only occasionally edit myself. He's been a consistent voice of calm and reason there, despite it being an often-fraught page; I can't recall ever having had an issue when he's closed a nomination or made similar administrative edits there, which is more than I can say about plenty of admins. —Cryptic 08:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Great candidate. No sign of abusing tools. Pamzeis (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, I looked at your contributions for the last six months and saw nothing that I found concerning. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, I can see no reason why the candidate should not be trusted with the mop. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - You only just meet my criteria, but you seem like a reasonably trustful editor. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Everything is clean, good luck to you. Mikola22 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Clearly trustworthy and competent - why not? GirthSummit (blether) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - solid content creator, no obvious red flags. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong record of contributions; no concerns about quality of judgement. AGK ■ 12:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Much along the same lines as most of the supports above. I already thought they were. They have a solid history of contributions to content, exercises good judgement and another admin helping with eyes on the Main Page is always welcome. Woody (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. A very good content creator and I'm sure will be a net gain to the project as admin. Alan Islas (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Very pleased with their answers, Would no doubt make a great admin, I don't see any red flags here. –Davey2010Talk 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. While not really sure what admin duties the candidate is willing to take on, other than the main page access mentioned, there appears to be no reason to oppose. No big deal, my minimums met, I hope you will branch out into some other admin areas. Ifnord (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. In my dealings with the nominee at DYK, I have found him to be professional, efficient, and pleasant. His good judgment will enhance his effectiveness as an administrator too. Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Seems level-headed and cautious, no red flags, good answers to questions, what's not to like? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support go for it!Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. My quick and scant scrutiny seems to concur with the support !votes and comments are making above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Thumbs up icon – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Perfectly reasonable answer :) Leijurv (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, no concerns. GiantSnowman 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Is a net positive for this project. --Enos733 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - excellent article creator, matches AfD results at least 3/4 of the time, editing for at least two years, and no concerns. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really a good idea to judge users based on their AfD pass rate? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support: a need for the tools, an abundance of experience and no issues that I can see. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Very good Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 00:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support good content, competent actions, seems like a nice guy, good noms, good need for the tools. Ticks all the boxes afaics. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I've seen the candidate around, and like what I've seen. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 02:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Great content work, clear communication, and good policy knowledge. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 02:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I appreciate the answer to Q5. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No concerns that I can see, and I trust the nominators. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Although this editor is a bit new to the project relative to the typical admin, I see no cause for alarm. BD2412 T 05:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per nominators and solid answers to questions, no concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - no concerns here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support excellent candidate with excellent noms. No concerns all round so far as I can see. All the best! JavaHurricane 07:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, never had any interaction, but an excellent and deserving candidate. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per noms and style displayed in answer to Q5; happy days, LindsayHello 09:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. I'm persuaded from the nominations and question responses that the candidate would have use for the tools and can be trusted with them. My qualms related to Q9 (see my reply in the neutral section below) are not strong enough to be disqualifying. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support his answer to the inappropriate Q5 was good and from what I could find in reviewing a sample of his edits is also consistent with his editing. Demonstrates skill at de-escalating conflict. Could do better, eg situation in Q9, but that will come & I trust him with the tools. --Find bruce (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Great contributor to ITN and AfD and, as may other say, the answer to Q5. No concerns JW 1961 Talk 10:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong support - We've had some strong RfA candidates lately, and still this is one of the better ones. Seems to be an excellent content contributor; having a Four Award is no small feat, with only 221 editors ever having achieved this, and the editor has done it twice! Answers to questions are tactful and clueful, and, importantly, concise. Nomination statements are convincing, and the user is one of the relatively few main page volunteers. Main page areas are chronically understaffed, and we would definitely be doing ourselves a service by promoting a new admin who wants to focus on this area. Brilliant handling of Q5, which egregiously asks where his "beliefs" and "loyalties lie". There is a concern raised in the neutral section, but reviewing that situation the CSD nom was textbook, and even though the author was nothing short of hostile, John kept his cool, explained the nom, addressed civility concerns, and deferred to them, removing the tag and allowing the author a chance to expand the article into something more viable. Although most of us in this situation probably would have become defensive and taken more of a hard line approach, John cut the user a break even though he wasn't really in the wrong, and the article, rather than being justifiably deleted, was subsequently expanded. Contrary to it being a concern, that incident only strengthens my support. Good on the noms for bringing this one forward. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 11:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per noms. Graham Beards (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support No concerns. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support; I see nothing wrong here. Regardless if they answer my question or not, they still have my vote.Nightfury 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Good answers to the questions, no reason for concern. I also enjoyed your 1927 Chicago election article, by the way. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Impressed with the level of high quality content creation, will definitely be a good asset to the project. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support would be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Great user, I love admins involved in content creation. Really didn't like Q5 and I think he had a good answer for a bad question. Great nom, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 15:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Another of our users to have proved themselves to be trusted and with sensible ambitions for the mop. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Straight to the mop for the answer at Q5. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Great content creation and a justified need for the mop. Roller26 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - While I don't see John using the tools much, that's not a reason to oppose. After all, many hands make light work, and John is absolutely trustworthy enough to have a mop. Great content work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. I'm not seeing any reason to justify an oppose at this time, so I'm going to go with the crowd on this one. JMW seems fine to me in our interactions though. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support there's less recent "admin-lite" work (CSD tagging, AFD voting) than I generally expect, but they clearly know how it works, and are planning to use the tools in other areas where they are fully qualified. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, will help in needed areas and understands content creation. Gleeanon 19:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Looks like a reasonable candidate. scope_creepTalk 22:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Net positive IMO. I found all of their answers admirable and find no issues with their content creation or history. I also like that they are on the newer side and still well versed with policies, makes me think they're going to be here for a while. Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support without hesitation Chetsford (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I looked over the candidates contributions and I am pleased. I also have respect for Ritchie333 and barkeep49. I hope that you never allow your politics to influence your edits. Sorry - recent issues on my mind. Keep on keeping on! Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - just the qualities I like to see in an admin. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - A very solid and knowledge candidate from what I've seen. No concerns over their ability to use the tools well. Kosack (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Have seen the candidate around AfD, impressive overall. StonyBrook (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - The answer to Q5 (now hatted) was absolutely excellent. FA? Well, due to the way it is or has been managed in the past, it's a place I vowed never to go near, so any criticisms of what you did or didn't do there completely escape me. I seem to recall you and I had a disagreement at some time in the past, but whatever it was (and I may well be wrong - apparently I often am these days), I can't find any reasons not to support, so per Swarm, you're going to be an excellent Admin and let me congratulate you on what is looking to be an easy pass. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Nomination seems fine. I don't see a strong link between SandyGeorgia's rationale and this candidate's profile, but it is nonetheless good advice that all admins should internalise. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - can be trusted with the tools.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. No evidence of damaging the place. Candidate has demonstrated through diligent action (and interaction) a willingness and aptitude to mop. No history of personal interaction springs to mind. As of this timestamp, appears trusted by a number of wikipedians I respect. Candidate is not a source of drama and appears to listen without undue judgment. BusterD (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - Has the temperament and experience to be a trustworthy admin. That he is a great content creator is a plus. No concerns whatsoever. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - A very sensible user. and great answers to questions. I was initially tempted to post the boilerplate question about copyright-violating elementary schools that he used to post on every RfA for a while, to my extremely faint annoyance, but (a) he's stopped doing that and (b) Nick Moyes pretty much beat me to it anyway. All looks good to me. ~ mazca talk 21:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support A bit new / I'd give it more time to do heavy duty stuff like editor conduct issues, but we don't make that distinction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support People have high standards nowadays, and that's fine, but my standards are: Is this person a good contributor to Wikipedia, and will they do any harm with the mop? In this case, I firmly believe the answers are yes and no, respectively. That is all. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support — No real reason not to. Celestina007 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support – no concerns whatsoever; only positives. — kashmīrī TALK 09:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - looks good to me. Atsme 💬 📧 09:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - As Jimmy Wales says "adminship should bo no big deal", and it's not. Support. SethWhales talk 12:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - No concerns, thanks for volunteering. Loopy30 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Seems an excellent choice.--agr (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Seems levelheaded, good answers to the questions presented, lots of good work in his contribs, and we could use more admins sometimes to help fight vandalism. I wish you the best! Techie007 (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support – Can definitely be trusted with adminship. Kurtis (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - trusted user. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - based on review; would like to see more GA contributions, but that can be worked on. Kierzek (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - in addition to being a good content creator, and answering all the questions in a way that demonstrates clear understanding of the issues, I like the idea of an admin who knows a lot about Wikipedia history and has an interest in preserving/documenting it. jp×g 02:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - looking through John's contributions I see nothing of concern and based on his areas of activity believe he will make an excellent sysop. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. While I agree with Sandy's comment on neutral section, I have also checked the nominee's background on the noticeboard and AfD, and I could verify politeness and traces of empathy. They frequently mention WP:ROPE on the noticeboard for supporting unblocking requests, which is a nice thing in my opinion. I'm not actually quite fond of WP:ROPE due to how that essay is written, but this doesn't change the fact that Wolfson seems to be open to giving second chances to people, and I really sympathize with that. Here's my appeal that they do not give hostile reviews to featured article proposals, as pointed by Sandy. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 19:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Looks fine to me. Not sure there's a good reason for that many questions, but meh. Risker (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Looks good to me. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 04:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. per nom. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. per nom. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - great content advocate and full of clue. --Laser brain (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  140. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - didn't spot any issues.--Staberinde (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  142. SupportPer above, great content creation record as well.--Catlemur (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - great user. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support per above. Great user. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - FitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 19:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support no concerns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  147. per everyone/majority I appreciate a well-intentioned editor who admits mistakes and is willing to remedy and learn from them. I think Teratix makes a fine enough point in the neutral section regarding the talkpage interaction but I likewise agree that [o]f course, this is not disqualifying by any means. Helpful editor who learns from errors, what more could you want! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support No problems. I've seen his good work, deserves the tools. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support per the supports above, with no opposes, shows me that this user is trusted by the community. I trust the judgement of several of the supporters (inc. Swarm). Their FL, DYKs, GAs and (two!) 4 article awards when they have only been here since 2018 shows they are here to improve the encyclopedia. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support I see no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support A well qualified candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support His genuine reply to question no. 8 really made me to support him. A trusted and experienced user, indeed. All the best. Nalbarian (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support No major concerns. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - From their edits and demeanor, I can see that John M Wolfson seems like a very sensible and calm editor who would would make editing for himself and others as pleasant as possible. I also like their approach in how they handled their past editing disputes. Good work at ITN as well. A net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
Neutral
edit
  1. I would have liked to have seen a bit more in the answer to Q9. Wolfson retrospectively suggested draftifying Natural Selection (Art Department album) instead of A9 tagging, but considering he applied the tag a mere nine minutes after the page was created, draftifying wouldn't have been any more of an appropriate option, since he could not have known whether further expansion was imminent. Additionally, some consideration of how linking to policies and guidelines like AGF and CIVIL can come across as patronising when replying to disgruntled editors would have been ideal. Of course, this is not disqualifying by any means, but considering this RfA is likely to pass unopposed anyway, I think it's worth noting. – Teratix ₵ 06:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a reasonable point - it didn't stop me from !voting support, and an ability to step back was relieving, but there would still have been better actions taken, but seemed a lesson that could be learnt without issue Nosebagbear (talk)
    Agreed with you both. I also have some concerns from the exchange about awareness that article content does not determine notability, and that a bunch of reviews from music critics is plenty sufficient to establish notability, let alone the much lower credible claim of significance standard. That said, he was able to engage with a pretty hostile editor without losing his cool and to admit fault, both of which are very positive qualities. I'm still comfortable supporting. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I find myself in this column for a number of reasons: humility, and awareness/concern about trends among sysops.
    The most essential attribute I seek in an admin is an assurance that the personality is just not compatible with the mushroom effect problem. Whether I have known an individual for one year or five, and whether I've worked in depth with them on content or not, the qualities of an unflappable and humble character are always unmistakably evident when one has the good fortune to encounter them. Those possessing these qualities can rarely be stumped by RFA questions, which only give them an opportunity to shine.
    While I am immensely appreciative that John M Wolfson has dug in at Featured article review (FAR), where we need all the help we can get, I do not know him well enough to know if he has the qualities that lead me to support an RFA. On the humility score, though, as he moves forward into adminship, I hope he will always keep in mind that there are real people behind every situation and every username he will encounter. He will mop alongside respected admins who were adding content to Wikipedia when the rest of us had never heard of it. The standards when Wikipedia was just forming were considerably different from those today, and we should be respectful of those who came before us. The WMFlab tools are your friend, and it is good to keep them in mind before entering commentary like this. For the good of Wikipedia, we do not seek to chase people off from FAR or make them feel it is a hostile place, rather a place where old FAs can be brought for improvement. Although your harsh words there will not affect someone wise to Wikipedia, as an admin, your choice of words can make all the difference with a new or struggling editor.
    I am not satisfied with the answer to Question 5, which I consider a reasonable question, for the same reasons: when an opportunity presents itself in any form to demonstrate awareness, empathy, humility and knowledge of All Things Wikipedia, a short snippy response is less than optimal. Non-admins have to step aside and unwatch articles or discussions at ANI all the time when confronting POV admins. Editors are topic banned unequally when admins bring their POV to discussions. Edit warring is treated unequally by admins when they bring their own POV to issues. And I have encountered scores of content issues where admins were decidedly introducing political POV; the brazenness of this has increased recently. When non-admins encounter this, they have little recourse but to go edit elsewhere, because reprisals are likely. Wolfson was presented an opportunity to reassure us that he is aware of this problem, and that he has those characteristics that I most seek in an admin. He did not take that opportunity to demonstrate a full awareness of the power of the mop, the increasing problem with brazen POV on Wikipedia, and if there would be circumstances where he would take care to avoid politicized discussions if his own POV (whatever it is-- I don't know because I didn't look) came in to play. That our POV should not come in to play on Wikipedia does not mean this is what we commonly see, even among admins.
    I wish you, John, the best with the mop. I hope you will always keep the need for respect and humility in mind, as the plague of Wikipedia is sysops who turn abusive and sometimes use their power to enforce POV. And I really hope you will stay involved at FAR to assure me that you weren't just checking all the right boxes on the path to RFA. And please be aware that admin POV is particularly problematic at ITN and OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
edit
  • I'm not sure that I think question 16 is appropriate. I am always hesitant to comment on things like this, with the risk of being called out as "sexist" but it seems to coincide with WP:RGW and I don't think it's any the responsibility of any editor (or Admins) to "reduce male bias" (and the question seems to be phrased with the implication that it is). Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. While there is a gender gap on Wikipedia, both in terms of content and membership, it's not within the purview of individual administrators or editors to "fix" this. Asking how a candidate will "reduce male bias" in their capacity as an admin is a no-win situation, because it entraps them between the possibilities of stating that they do not intend to address a complicated systemic moral issue, or stating that they will make an effort to "right a great wrong", which as you say is out of line with policy. @Kudpung: "there's nothing wrong with RfA". ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the rest of that statement which you craftily truncated Swarm 😜 , is: ...the problem is the participants - fix the voters and RfA will fix itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q16 is inappropriate and should be struck. We aren't electing a political representative. We're investigating the candidate's temperament and editorial judgment.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking is a very rare thing done at RfA, because we do have different people from different places all over the world that come to edit. While I don't see it as reflecting very well on the user, or an appropriate question, an (supposed) administrator's answer could be completely relevant as to how they handle this type of user. It would speak to the (supposed) administrators state of mind and interaction with those unfamiliar with the rules. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to agree, who would want to out themselves to contact a fellow wikipedian outside of wiki about a wiki issue; or vice versa? unless on IRC of course, if they wish; but then again they have the option to use usernames etc... I don't understand... Nightfury 20:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there is an unlikely chance that someone would contact you over facebook to ask your for advice or ask you to edit, I have seen similar campagin type things at least by email, and I get them on a regular basis. So the question as I read it is 1) Will you ask them to contact you over wikipedia instead 2) will you maintain their privacy. While an unlikely question, it's not an inappropriate one, and hearing the response may help someone to decide. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What tried to mean that some are very strict that they don't even want to hear from anyone. If I made mistake, I believe I deserve a pardon. Thanks. — A. Shohag (pingme or Talk) 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, ShohagS, that makes much more sense. Obviously a language/interpretation issue. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me the question sounds like, "Will you respond if I contact you off wiki for WP admin related matters, because I saw your profile on fb?" Not really sure whether it's appropriate. Questions should be asked about the candidate's track record and knowledge of the project's policies and procedures and not about their social media activity or communication style. — kashmīrī TALK 09:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is still rather rude and aggressive. Whether a person replies to you on social media is that person’s choice, and should not affect his adminship. It’s also rather off-topic, along with the questions questioning John’s political affiliation. I suggest the user who gave the question remove it or reword it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/John_M_Wolfson&oldid=1142575241"