Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef

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

0xDeadbeef

Final (203/36/9); closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 07:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I have been an edit filter manager since April 2023, where I have been helping triaging false positive reports and helping with maintaining edit filters on WP:EFN. I (co)maintain two bots, User:DeadbeefBot, which helps automate gnome edits; and User:HaleBot, which generates the Wikipedia:Database Reports.

One thing you might notice is the drop in activity levels in 2023 when compared to last year. To be upfront: I don't think I would be able to regain the activity levels back then. The free time I had was due to a global virus outbreak that (hopefully) should not happen again and that I have stopped doing much anti-vandalism work lately, though even if I was to start patrolling recent changes again, I would not be as active as back then. I still enjoy being helpful with my limited free time and would like to contribute whenever I can.

Some disclosures: I have never edited for pay. I have not edited anonymously, and I have access to another account created in 2019 with no edits. The details of the account have already been disclosed to the Arbitration Committee.

Thanks for your consideration. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:58, 23 October 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 would like to help out in administrative areas, specifically administrator intervention against vandalism, speedy deletion, and other backlogs should a need arise.
In relation to the work that I have already been doing as a non-admin, I have on multiple occasions found having the tools would help by reducing effort or work that is required of other editors: While triaging false positive reports for edit filters, I'd often come across clear cases of WP:NOTHERE accounts that warrant a block right away. I have also occasionally seen deleted revisions being brought up on requests for edit filters where being able to view them would have helped with implementing those requests quicker.

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

A: In terms of content creation, I am proud to have brought Rust (programming language) to GA status. Besides that, I enjoy helping in technical areas, running bots behind the scenes that improve the reader experience, even if just by a little. Although I joined as a co-maintainer of HaleBot only fairly recently, I've helped implement a few changes that should have improved this area of maintenance. I patrol false positive reports for edit filters quite often, and have helped with editing and creation of edit filters, such as an initial version of Special:AbuseFilter/1245, which catches non-constructive comments on talk pages.

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: About 1.5 years ago, I opened an ANI thread concerning a user whose behavior I considered problematic. I didn't know much about our policies and guidelines back then, and events from real life also contributed to my stress at that time. After that thread unfolded, I took a break. Shortly after, I resumed editing and started contributing in areas that I was more confident in. Looking back, I definitely should have tried to de-escalate or frame the conflict in a less confrontational way. That said, I am glad that I didn't stop editing afterwards. Self-introspection can be hard, but I can confidently say that I have improved a lot in reflecting upon my own actions after that thread :)

---

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 Hammersoft

4. Thank you for standing for RfA! You've indicated in standard question 1 that you intend on working in WP:AIV and speedy deletion. Please take the following question as an opportunity to clarify, as others are bound to wonder why. This year, you've made just five edits to WP:AIV [1] and have tagged eight things for speedy deletion. This constitutes about 1% of your editing this year. Given the lack of activity in these areas, why now?

A: Thanks for this question. This is a part I have overlooked while drafting my answer and might have muddled the waters a bit. I want to be clear that although I do intend to take part in those areas, my primary goal for adminship is to help with vandals/CSD-able pages that I stumble upon while working on false positive reports. If I could edit the answer, I would switch the two paragraphs so that the emphasis is more clear.

Optional question from Schminnte

5. Thanks for running! Some attendees to this RfA may be hesitant to support a candidate with a couple thousand edits less than the oft-quoted figure of 10,000. I am not troubled by this personally and will likely support, but would you like to an opportunity here to quell this possible hesitancy?

A: This hesitancy is valid. Adminship is a reflection of trust and people often use edit count to assess their trust for a candidate, although to me it can be a bit disheartening if edit count is cited as the only reason. At the same time, I trust that the community can collectively make decisions that are best for the project. If the outcome suggests that I should get more experience with different parts of the project, then so be it. If this fails, I'll still contribute to the project, but I am unlikely to change focus, as I think the project needs more admins and editors that make quality, constructive contributions, and not people doing admin things with the goal of becoming admin one day. Admin tasks can get repetitive, boring, and have less impact than content improvements sometimes, yet we do them because someone has to do them and most importantly, because we believe in this project. And I believe in this project.

Optional question from Seawolf35

6. Thanks for running! As you are an EFM, you know that the role requires a great deal of care to not break a lot of things. (Something Reaper Eternal might like to speak on...) How would you say the care and experience needed for being an EFM lends itself to the areas in which you intend to work?

A: Making filter changes for me involves re-checking the filter change ad nauseam and making sure that it really works as intended. In AIV, double checking is really important to ensure that we don't block people that shouldn't be blocked. The first check would be whether the edits are actually vandalism, but the second (and third, and so on..) check is really important: Has the user been issued enough warnings? Has there been continued vandalism after the last warning? How recent are the user's last edits? If any of these checks are skipped, bad blocks would be made, potentially going against the fact that blocks should be preventative. For speedy deletions, the criteria that requires the most care, in my opinion, is A7. Indication of significance can take in many forms and sometimes it could be an award that the subject has gotten. It might be before I set up my CSD log, but once I thought an article had no indication of importance when it actually did, since it claimed that the subject was part of a significant event. It's good to be careful with these judgement calls and to err on the side of caution so I don't create extra work for others or turn away an editor acting in good faith.

Optional question from BeanieFan11

7. You have achieved one WP:GA and have written one article. What is your opinion on whether or not having experience in content creation is important for being an administrator?

A: It's important to know that first of all, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and what it is like to be an editor. Content creation is the most straightforward and arguably the easiest way to demonstrate that. For me, content creation helped me realize the significance of understanding other editors' perspectives and that behind the usernames there are real humans (though sometimes you can't really be sure), which doing uncontroversial maintenance tasks wouldn't have.

Optional question from Timothy

8. This is a followup of Question 3 above. You seem to have limited experience in (1)conflict resolution, (2)de escalation, and (3)consensus building. I think all these are important in any admin (I don't possess them myself, so I appreciate people who do). Can you address this lack of experience? If I'm wrong about your experience, please let me know.  // Timothy :: talk  20:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A. Thanks for this followup. My original answer to Q3 is probably the only conflict that escalated to the ANI level for me at this point. But looking back, there have been discussions from about a year ago like this and this where I could also have been more level-headed and understanding of others' perspectives. I certainly liked the discussions on here and here better. Tone and attitude is something that I have always tried to improve on, since it is so important for our project which communicates almost entirely through text. Although I find myself in less discussions recently, I still work towards having healthy and constructive discussions whenever I decide to leave a comment.

Optional question from Timothy

9. Could you describe your experience in identifying and dealing with sock/meatpuppets while patroling for vandalism?  // Timothy :: talk 

A: I've tried helping out in this area in the past and the impression that I've got is that SPI/sockpuppetry work is quite hard to do right without a significant amount of experience, care, and good judgment. SPI cases where the connection isn't obvious or when the filer isn't very familiar with the history of a sockmaster can take a lot of effort to deal with. For me, I try to stay away from non-obvious cases of sockpuppetry and focus on the substance of the edits. Sockpuppetry with civil POV pushing will, in my opinion, cause more disruption than sockpuppetry with vandalism, as seen on this page, and I am glad that we have a group of people here who are very experienced and know how to deal with that.

Comment: 0xDeadbeef, I appreciate your willingness to step up for this thankless job.  // Timothy :: talk  20:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from VickKiang

10. Can you please comment on [2] and [3], which seems to be a cut-and-paste move during an AfD discussion? I understand that this issue is a-year-old, but given that you have only performed two moves afterwards, I would like to double-check your understanding of such procedures. Thanks.

A: There are two primary problems with the actions I performed there. The first one is that while redirecting/merging are valid alternatives to deletion, they cannot be done while an AfD is open, where consensus still needs to be formed. There may be editors arguing that the article should be kept or deleted altogether, and changing the article to a redirect during the discussion would be ignoring others and disrupting the process. The second problem is performing a cut-and-paste move. We want to preserve the history of pages and cut-and-paste moves work against that purpose. Normally, the process would be to use the page move function so that the history of the disambiguation would be kept while moving to the main title, but it wasn't possible while the AfD template is in place, (and there is of course a good reason for that, to prevent a page move during AfD from happening) so I for some reason decided to do a cut-and-paste move. I suppose a BOLD edit replacing the article with a redirect would have been appropriate before an AfD was opened, but that clearly wasn't the case. Doing it while an AfD was in process didn't help and was just wrong.. on so many levels.

Optional question from Dolotta

11. Of the areas you plan to spend time as an admin, where do you have the least experience?

A: I feel inclined to say all of them, in terms of admin actions. I think there's a difference between making AIV reports and processing those reports, and the same goes for putting CSD tags on pages compared to actually deleting them. Because of that, I don't think someone with a lot of experience in making AIV reports will and should be able to process AIV reports at the same rate as them making AIV reports at the instant they become an admin. And to compare quantitatively, we might be fine with a prolific AIV reporter who has a success (as in, sactions actually warranted) rate of 95%, but an admin with a good block rate of 95% can be quite concerning. As for confidence, I have less of that on speedy deletions because while CSD tags can be contested and removed by other non-admins, deleted pages can only be reviewed by other admins most of the times. A problematic delete causes way more harm than a problematic tag, and therefore much more caution is needed for deletions.

Discussion

• Links for 0xDeadbeef: 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 0xDeadbeef 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. No concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   I was the editor who reviewed Rust (programming language). I found the article exceptionally well laid out, comprehensive and informative. Many GAs are little more than B-class articles with a review, but this one is of FA quality and it was my hope that 0xDeadbeef or Caleb Stanford or both will take the article to FAC in the near future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks!! Let me chime in and say that 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs)'s work on Rust (programming language) has been extremely dedicated and valuable to the page. Based on that work they would be an excellent admin. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

2. Support. I recall good things about DEADBEEF. SWinxy (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Positive experiences with this user. Nothing particularly alarming looking through deleted contribs, though the afd-based G4 tag on User talk:204.107.19.34/Gege Gatt right near the top did jump out at me. —Cryptic 05:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Of course edit counts isn't everything, but my rule of thumb is that an admin candidate should have generally 10,000 or above edits. 0xDeadbeef has significantly less than 10,000 edits. However, they is a technical expert, and has decent content creation experience. He has also created very few articles, but did 1 GA, which is IMO sufficient. (Incidentally, he also started the article for ChatGPT by converting it to an article from a previous redirect, albeit only creating a very basic stub.) I have also occasionally encountered 0xDeadbeef in AfDs and DRVs, and found their participation to be solid and policy and guideline-based. His CSD and PROD logs are fine, though the latter one is brief, and overall their knowledge of P&Gs are commendable in my opinion. The activity levels are fairly low for this year but his explanation is entirely understandable, and as long as he keeps up with P&Gs updated and complies with WP:ADMINACCT, I don't see a problem for an admin who might be frequently on Wikibreaks. So, overall this candidate is not a shoo-in, but I (weakly) support this candidate. VickKiang (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
5. support No issues. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 06:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support a highly trusted edit filter manager. That's enough for me. Lourdes 06:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Support. I've seen them around and never had any problems with anything they did, which is really the bottom line. I'm saddened and horrified that editcountitis has evolved to making 10,000 edits some kind of litmus test. RoySmith (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
8. Support: RfA is a gauge of trust, experience and temperament. While edit count may be a gauge of experience, it is an impractical and rough metric. More important here is their trusted experience as an edit filter manager. Deadbeef has my trust not to abuse the tools and behaves appropriately from what I can see. Their answer to my question shows a level head and ability to accept and discuss critism: two qualities I like to see in admins. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 10:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
9. Support Volten001 ^☎ 10:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
10. Support until a credible issue with temperament or competence is raised. Reviewing some of their edits and the ANI thread they mention, I can't see behavioural concerns (rather, it's others at that ANI thread showing temperament issues). The candidate is experienced and can credibly use the tools in technical areas or anti-vandalism. I would urge the candidate not to engage in any contentious blocks or contentious page deletions unless/until they can build up more experience in the area. — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
11. Support, low edit count does not mean incompetency. People have a life outside of Wikipedia, you know? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
12. Support. No concerns (well, experience perhaps). Trusted edit filter mgr. so this candidate is viable. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
13. Support: Several commenters are saying that it would be better if we had admin candidates with greater experience, greater edit counts, and so on: I concur, but given that the number of active administrators is declining each month and people who meet those criteria seem to be, for all sorts of well-documented reasons, reluctant to put themselves forward at RfA, we have to play the hand we've been dealt. In the context of needing more admins for the project, and the only objections really being matters of uncertainty rather than identified problems, I think giving this candidate the tools is the right call. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
14. ltbdl (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
15. Support, without hesitation, the candidacy of an experienced editor seeking to improve the project. 8,000 edits and two years is plenty of experience. As someone who myself has ebbs and flows in availability -- as do plenty of us -- I have great respect for being transparent about this and nonetheless working to the dedication of Wikipedia at all opportunities you can. The candidate is an edit filter manager, an exceptionally high-trust role that is in some ways higher-trust than adminship, and saw unhesitant unanimous support for the position -- EFM is as close to a gimme for adminship as there is. Vaticidalprophet 13:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
16. Support Having another technically minded admin would be a net positive, and they have a GA so I'm not that concerned about lack of content/experience.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
17. Look. I get this will probably end up ruling against me, but this user is a good technical editor who will help out the encyclopedia. It's not a big deal! Clyde _{[trout needed]} 14:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) & this. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 14:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

18. Support. Going to do fine. Trusted, motivated, technically capable, good temperament. Needed.—Alalch E. 14:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
19. Tentative support. Two years and 7500 edits is enough to show experience and commitment. Demonstrated willingness to help, hasn't broken the wiki yet, seems to have head on straight. Has both some technical experience and some content experience. All that together actually inspires more confidence than "playing the MMORPG well", and ticking all the boxes on the ever-lengthening, conventional path to adminship. That said, candidate seems to have less demonstrated experience dealing with en.wp *people and personalities* rather than *just edits themselves*, and the former is important in an admin. And while self-nomming rather than soliciting (and waiting for) a nom from established users is perfectly fine, it does mean no-one is vouching for their interpersonal style yet. So waiting to see how they participate here in coming days, and what others say about their interaction style, before I firm up the "tentative". Martinp (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 24 hours later, removing the "Tentative" since answers to questions have demonstrated reasonable communication style, and comments from others have reassured me that his interpersonal style is acceptable. Martinp (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I try to revisit contentious discussions which I joined early to see if anything new has developed. 3 days later, I see no really new points and much more consensus. In particular, the !votes by Extraordinary Writ and Red-Tailed Hawk (100+ votes below mine here) are aligned with my thinking.Martinp (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
20. Support Not a donkey, has a clue. I don't see the issue with a relatively low number of edits, and an admin with experience on the technical is IMO just as helpful as one who focuses on content creation. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
21. Support - satisfied by clear explanations to questions. Blythwood (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
22. Meets my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
23. Support Thanks for volunteering. I want to note that editcount really only tells how much (semi)automated editing or gnoming a particular editor does. Being a "low"-activity admin is also completely fine; all editors are not retirees with infinite time on their hands. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
24. Support There has been enough history of activity to show the candidate has a clue. And that's enough. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
25. Support, when a good player turns up best to have them on your team. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
26. Support: Not my typical support, as I usually want more content creation. However, the successful major contribution on a GA is enough as a proof of comprehension. Everything else looks good. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
27. Support: I've had a very good time working with 0xDeadbeef on a number of technical things that require an understanding of article work (e.g. HaleBot, database reports). I've found them to be quite reasonable + methodical in their thinking and think they would make a good administrator. It would be trivial for them to inflate their edit count with semi-automated/automated tools, but they worked on proper bots instead. Those edit counts should also be factored into what people evaluate IMO. Legoktm (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
28. Support. Per nom and Martinp's response to Cullen328. If they end up only resolving one admin-level mess per arbitrary-but-subjectively-lengthy period of time, well, that's still one more mess cleared per arbitrary-but-subjectively-lengthy period of time than would have happened without them. And in all other respects I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
29. Support I'm not one who believes a candidate should be an image of perfection and be entirely well-rounded. If tools are needed for a specific duty, then so be it. Their bots have helped quite a bit on WP and that's not reflected in their edit count. Noah, AA^Talk 16:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
30. Support (Serious bit) Though the edit count is low, the work is solidly positive for helping Wikipedia and there is an absence of recent bad judgement or arbitrary decisions. (And now what you're expecting) BUT, while I support this candidacy I am once again outraged by a lack of Plantipedia editing. I'm halfway tempted to run myself... In place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall edit plants and despair! 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
31. Support Trusted EFM and is a net positive to the project. Seawolf35 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
32. Thank you for running. On the plus side we have: self nomination, high edit count (more than I had when I became an admin), has been here a while, has technical skills. Don't see a lot of negative things at the moment. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    Strong support per Ceoil. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

33. Support I have seen them around and I’ve had nothing but good experiences with them. Their edit count is a little low for a mop but that is excused when their bot contributions are added in. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
34. Support for a candidate who, IMO, is a net positive. Their mainspace edit count could be higher and I'm not wild about the username :-), but they have a position of trust already and any help with the mop is better than none. Miniapolis 17:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
35. Support – fair points in the opposes, but overall a net positive — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
36. Support: Bot operation is hours and hours of editor time poured into something that nets virtually no edit count bump on the main, but it is policy-focused experience with the project. Just because the candidate doesn't do a job where they make three edits every time they bust a small-time vandal from recent changes, or every time they promote a DYK hook, doesn't mean they don't have enough experience. I, for one, was quite surprised to learn that the candidate hadn't cracked 10,000 edits yet, given that I've always found them to be polite and well-versed in policy :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
37. Support - A good and trusted editor. Net positive. Adminship is not a big deal, people should be allowed to self-nom. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
38. Support - If you count his bots, he has more than 10K edits. DeadbeefBot has 7K not counting the other bot listed above that he is a co-maintainer of. He seems reasonable enough. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
39. Support This may end up being moral support, but the quality of engagement in this project should be more important than sheer number of edits. --Enos733 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
40. Support editors who devote time to the back of the house are just as important as those who have 5 or 6 GA's or FA's and 10's of 1,000's of edits, they're just not noticed as much as content creators and we could use more admins from this tranche of editors. Good luck! Josey Wales ^Parley 18:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
41. A trustworthy and competent editor who possesses very useful skills with edit filters and bots. Though I am sometimes swayed by arguments on edit count or content creation, the amount of level-headedness and competence that I have seen so far from Deadbeef has made the opposes unconvincing. The Night Watch (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
42. Support. I've always liked 0xDeadbeef. I think they have grown and learned in a lot of ways since first joining the project. Edit counts do not matter to me, and I don't think they should. Deadbeef could easily make a bunch of semi-automated bot edits on their main account if they wanted to boost it. However, I don't think we should encourage that sort of thing.
    I will also say; anyone trusted enough with EFM should seriously have more consideration than 0xDeadbeef is currently receiving. EFM is not cheap. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    I am double as confident in my comment after reading Suffusion of Yellow's support below. WP:EFN might as well redirect to their talk page considering how influential they are in the edit-filter space. If they say Deadbeef is a good for admin, then I'd say that's an endorsement that has the most sway to me. If I saw SoY in the oppose section, I'd probably have changed my vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

43. Support I have vague recollections of non-ideal interactions from a while back (2 years?) and positive things after that. I would like to see a bit more experience and time-in-service, but things seem quite positive for the last year and nothing the opposes have raised concerns me enough to oppose. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
44. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
45. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
46. Support – I was not expecting the new section I added to my RfA criteria about editcountitis a few days ago to be applicable so quickly, but I did put some thought into it. I think it's a good idea to be mindful of what exactly we're asking for with these expectations. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
47. Support. A few thoughts. First, WP:NOBIGDEAL is policy. Not an essay. Not a guideline. Policy.
    Second, the most common reason people are !voting is due to concerns about lack of experience. At any other venue, vague statements alluding to hypothetical concerns would be summarily discounted. 10,000 generic edits is completely meaningless. Edits are a measure of how many times someone has clicked Publish changes. Take this edit from the GA he wrote. He added the following wikitext in a single edit: Rust uses [[linear types]], where each value is used exactly once, to enforce [[type safety]]. This enables [[software fault isolation]] with a low [[overhead (computing)|overhead]].<ref name="BeyondSafety"/>. If he had instead added each sentence in a separate edit, does that make him 0.0001% more suitable to be an admin? No.
    As for tenure, it is what you do with your time that matters; quality, not quantity. 18 months is plenty.
    Finally, we seem to have an aversion to "learning on the job" when it comes to the mop. Sure, he might not get everything right the first time, but much more important is your ability to learn and take criticism. I also trust him to know what he does not know, and seek help where appropriate. The best evidence I can give would be his EFM. Seriously, the ability to do, well, what EFMs can do is no small responsibility. I would ask anyone considering !voting oppose: in what specific, articulable way will 0x getting the mop make the encyclopedia worse? HouseBlaster^talk 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
48. Support much has already been made about the edit count on both sides of the voting blocks so I won't touch that, just noting I'm in favour and don't agree with the 10,000 limit when a main guiding principle is quality over quantity, but I am very eager to have an admin focused on backend, a very much needed position! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
49. Support per Legoktm. Wikipedia needs more admins with technical know-how, but yet, the majority of the community is stuck on some sort of need for a nominee to have 20,000+ edits, 5+ years experience, 43653665 FAs, 10,000+ edits a year, and participate in 1000+ AfDs with a 110% "correct" record. Definitely not part of that crowd, and that's refreshing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
50. Support I'm seeing several users point out lack of edits and/or lack of content creation. However, no-one's providing diffs showing you have a misunderstanding of policy/guidelines or are otherwise incompetent to become a sysop. To me, competence is more important than edit count. Technical skill is an obvious plus for an RfA candidate. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 20:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
51. This falls into the category of RfA that I normally would neither support nor oppose, because I'd be fine seeing the candidate become an admin but wouldn't see the point in adding another support. Here, though, the poor reasoning of the opposes sways me to support. Activity seems fine; no one's shown that the candidate misunderstands blocking or deletion; and 1 GA is, fun fact, 1 more than 3⁄5 WP:RFX300 candidates had at time of RfA. ("average RFX300 candidate had 3 GAs" factoid actualy just statistical error. average one had 0 GAs. GAs leek, who lives in cave & writes over 10 each year, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.) My basic question when considering an RfA candidate is "If someone tells you to stop doing something stupid, will you?", because I'm sick of admins who reject accountability. From past interactions with 0xDeadbeef, though, I am not concerned about that. The other main thing I care about is understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and  Rust (programming language) satisfies that. So, not the strongest support I've ever cast, but a support nonetheless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    For a while I was confused why somebody using Rust to program means they understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first. Then I realized you were talking about writing the article about it. Anybody, I'd think somebody with their username would be writing in C or assembler or something like that. Isn't the whole idea of languages like Rust to hide that crap from you? RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    @RoySmith: I don't know about Rust, but in Python
    

    >>> 0xDeadbeef
    3735928559

    A decimal number which uh... actually exists as a redirect! Fascinating. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    In the C language, NULL is defined as 0, but this is a valid address on many architectures, and access to a NULL pointer can therefore result in unpredictable behaviour. We therefore load that address with 0xDEADBEEF, which is easily detected in the program or, failing that, in the dump Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Being an odd number, it's also an illegal address in some 16-bit architectures, so you get an immediate address exception. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    The constant 0xDEADBEEF is often used so that when you are reading hexdata you can find specific locations more easily because the eye lands on it well. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

52. Support. To me, the only issue that arises from a lack of experience is a lack of competence. I disagree that 0xDeadbeef lacks the competence necessary for an admin. While it would be nicer to see a little more activity, they are not inactive, so it does not sway me to the oppose column. They will be a net positive. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
53. Support I would urge anyone whose opposition is purely based on statistics to reconsider, and look at the full picture. My experience with 0xDeadbeef has been nothing but positive; he is, above all, cautious. That is why I encouraged him to request EFM rights in the first place. And I wouldn't be here if he had caused any problems. Yes, the lack of experience at AIV and CSD would be a problem for the type of person who blunders into an area and decides they understand it fully after five minutes, then claims at the inevitable ANI thread that no, they really meant to do that, you are all wrong, why are you ganging up on me? But that's not 0xDeadbeef. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
54. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
55. Support- no objection.MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
56. Support per Steel1943: people are definitely attaching too much weight to edit count, and there is this unreasonable expectation of perfection at RfA. As long as they'll improve the project, that's good enough. – Isochrone (T) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
57. Frostly (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
58. Support I like the self-nomination - it shows chutzpah. Also, thanks to his expansion of my redirect, it looks like I created the article on ChatGPT. I'm awaiting my check from Elon Musk any minute now. Spicy (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
59. Support Good attitude: "Admin tasks can get repetitive, boring, and have less impact than content improvements sometimes, yet we do them because someone has to do them and most importantly, because we believe in this project. And I believe in this project."--agr (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
60. Support Drives NixOS and programs in Rust. 0xdeadbeef is technically competent enough to weild EFM which already effectively provides a proxy for the blocking functionality (and non-public content viewing privileges) provided to administrators. Not only that, the fact that they run bots, and help out in technical areas in a competent manner speaks volumes of their suitability for administrative roles, over some raw number like number of edits and/or arbitrary content creation thresholds. -- Sohom (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
61. Support - net positive edit count is not the be all end all. Lightoil (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
62. Support 0xDeadbeef looks like a technically proficient Wikipedian who could use the tools to help the project in a variety of ways. I don't find the opposers' concerns of a "low" edit count convincing. GrammarDamner how are things? 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
63. Support Not convinced by the opposers' rationales; I have no doubt they would make a good admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
64. Support There's enough content work. User is highly specialised in technical areas, with a clear need for the tools. The only thing that's lacking is the nomination statement; if the applicant had had some help in that area from experienced hands, this RfA would have a much smoother ride. Schwede66 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
65. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
66. Support - I'm not convinced by the opposers. I know some people don't wanna hear this but I think one of the reasons why we have an administrator shortage right now is the unrealistic expectations/criteria some people have. "Oh you must have 10K+ edits or 50+ GAs or whatever arbitrary criteria I can think of." I'm also not convinced by the breaks in activity to hold back Deadbeef from adminship. If anything, admins should take more breaks. I've seen too many examples of admin burnout/flameouts and I think frequent breaks can alleviate that. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
67. Support Leijurv (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
68. Support I agree that edit count is not a concern, and JCW555 above is exactly right about needing admins - just yesterday Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-10-23/News and notes gave a great overview of this issue --DannyS712 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
69. Support. Not my kind of vote but I've thought about this for a while. While many are opposing due to the low edit count, that's not the main reason why the candidate should not be given the mop. Most of us (even admins) also have more important things to do in real life than spend time here right? Deadbeef has worked in various areas and I see potential in this user with the mop. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
70. Support I've looked at the opposes and I don't really see a good argument there. While I haven't had many encounters with 0xDEADBEEF, all of them have been positive, and I think the good article nomination is a good sign. Loki (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
71. Support I default to supporting unless there are good reasons to oppose, and I don't find the oppose reasons convincing. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
72. Support Have full trust they will use the tools well based on seeing their work around edit filters. I think we need to have a lower bar for admin activity if we genuinely want there to be more admins. Galobtter (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
73. Support I'm impressed by their answer in Q6, and I also have no legitimate reason to believe they would not perform at least adequately as an admin, if not well. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
74. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
75. Support. The point of a lengthy tenure is so we can get an idea whether a candidate is competent and trustworthy. But if they can demonstrate that sooner, I see no need to make them wait. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, and I'll just add that I don't understand what the growing obsession these days with being nominated is all about. Want to volunteer to serve as an admin? Fine, what's wrong with that? (And the "must be nominated by an existing admin" thing just makes the whole thing look more like an 'old boys club'). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    My only concern is that 0xDeadbeef got a few opposes by saying things that I wouldn't have advised him to say in a nomination statement. However, that's got nothing to do with being an admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, a bit of coaching can help. But in a lot of ways I prefer to hear a candidate's uncoached take on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

76. Support largely per Tamzin. I have 150,000 edits, but I hardly think that makes me any more suitable to be an admin that OxDeadbeef. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
77. Support Fully qualified candidate. Sufficient content creation with taking Rust to GA and keeping it there by continued maintenance. Easily has the technical chops to make good contributions. As for "lack of anti-vandalism experience", he looks perfectly qualified to me, unless you somehow think "i was writing being gay is weird asf it shouldn't exist no matter what and wikipedia should stand for it" is good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
78. Support Ivan (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
79. Support – Perfectly qualified – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
80. Support Has a need for tools; won't abuse tools. I could not be less swayed by the oppose commenters whose only criterion is edit count and seemingly want to equate being an admin with holding an unpaid second job. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
81. Support. I am satisfied with their knowledge of policies and guidelines and impressed with their ability to quickly learn from mistakes. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
82. Support - Edit counts only account for so much, as this edit I made is the result of hours of research and writing but only increases my edit count by 1, whereas churning through something like Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles I've easily racked up hundreds of edits in that same amount of time. While edit count is a good general ballpark guide for experience, what you do is more important than how many times you've hit "Publish changes". With that in mind, 0xDeadbeef is a net positive to Wikipedia with technical experience and I think giving them administrative tools would only increase the benefit they bring to Wikipedia. More importantly, we all make mistakes and the answers to their questions show they they recognize when they've made a mistake and are willing to learn from and not repeat it, and I'd rather see an RfA candidate that has a demonstrated history of that behavior than a candidate who seemingly hasn't made a mistake, because there's no indication of what they'd do when they end up making one. - Aoidh (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
83. Support as he's a trusted user and has some good knowledge on maintaining edit filters. I agree that despite his edit count might be significantly low than expected, I have the confidence that he won't mess up and/or abuse the mop. 64andtim (talk to me) 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
84. Support. I'm satisfied with their answers to questions and unconvinced by the opposition. They do great work in the technical areas without losing sight that these exist to support the encyclopaedia rather than being the project's purpose in themselves. We need more admins with those attributes. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
85. Support. EFM is a high-trust position, and the candidate's work at EFN shows that they have the aptitude for and interest in administrative work. Rust (programming language) shows that they know what is needed to write and maintain a high-quality encyclopedia article. As others have pointed out, they listen to others and learn from their mistakes. Given all this I think they'll be a good administrator. Wham2001 (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
86. Support – Much of my reasoning was summed up by HouseBlaster. Basically, someone please show us what the candidate in 3 years, ~8000 edits, running DeadbeefBot (~7000 edits), and being an active edit filter manager, has done wrong. There should be some positive evidence here for opposing. Anything will do: civility issues, demonstrated lack of competence in some important area they work or want to work, meddling in content-related subjects or issues they don't understand (this last one is a highly underestimated problem endemic to WP, especially among non-admin 'established' or 'experienced' users, so if you can show an example of that I'll definitely switch to oppose), just anything tangible that could indicate the candidate will make a bad admin. In the absence of hard empirical evidence like that, vague apprehensions, largely caused it seems by a lack of personal interaction with the candidate, though legitimate and a good ground for further scrutiny, simply do not suffice as an oppose rationale wholly unto itself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
87. Support. I'm satisfied with their answers to the questions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
88. Support - we need more admins like this! Impressive resume. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
89. Support - Haven't seen any reason to oppose. I'm wary of an oppose section that's almost entirely quantitative. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
90. Support. The work they're already doing requires very significant trust and "clue". It's largely technical, but I don't see any tail-wagging-the-dog here. While I tend toward the "10,000 edits" camp myself, the bot work makes up for it, both in the time spent building the tools and in the productivity on the project they've resulted in. So far, I find the answers to the RfA questions satisfactory, and I don't find anything in this editor's history that is troubling me. I would like to see more content work, including creating articles, but that's not a make-or-break; some editors really are focused on the infrastructure, and that's okay (hell, I get accused of that myself).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
91. Support - My reasoning can be summed up by WP:NOBIGDEAL. To expand on this, I think I was initially hesitant to vote support because of the comment by Ritchie333 about this user self-nominating. However, as the other supports have noted this user is EFM manager so could already break the wikis in a silent way. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
92. Support - After some research, this is what I found. Cons: Low edit count (relative to current RfA "standards"). Less than 1% of editing toward AIV (area of intended admin work). Pros: The candidate is trustworthy on the site. The candidate has shown proficiency with WP HTML coding and content creation, as well as WP policy and conflict resolution. I have been active on WP for almost 16 years. I have seen editors and admins come and go, many times over. I have confidence the candidate will learn the tools and use them well. I foresee a Crat Chat; however, based on my experience with this project, he/she will be a net benefit with minimal risk. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
93. Support, rather later than I meant to. I recall reviewing the candidate's contributions some time ago, and thinking they'd be a good fit with a little coaching and some distance from the ANI incident they mention. Finding an experienced nominator might have made this process smoother and less stressful for them, but it doesn't actually affect their suitability. I'm seeing multiple areas where they could make productive use of the tools, the critical ability to course-correct, (just about) enough familiarity with content, and self-awareness about their limitations. Activity levels are aren't of concern to me unless they're so low that the editor looses touch with community norms; I'm not seeing that here. Also per Aoidh, Boing, and Ritchie. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
94. Support I'd just about finished a longish comment as Neutral, but in the end scrapped it. After reading many threads on the issues with RFAs and diminishing admin numbers, the solution is WP:NOBIGDEAL. Here's a editor in good standing who already deals with technical areas, and there are many established admins who can advice if specific areas knowledge is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
95. Support Has a clue, has been already trusted with significant responsibility, has content experience, has ability to learn and reflect. ResonantDis_tortion 18:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
96. Support. I don't see any reason to oppose, and it's my understanding we need more admins with these kinds of technical skills. I'm concerned by the edit-count-based opposes. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
97. Weak support. Weak because I would really like to see some more mainspace experience; as an admin you'll be called upon to deal with all sorts of situations and it's a lot easier to empathise with a frustrated content creator or identify a civil POV pusher (for example) if you have some experience of dealing with these things yourself. But support because ultimately I think Deadbeef would be a net positive as an admin; they seem to have the temperament and certainly have the trustworthiness. And, I hope, the sense to know when they're out of their depth. The opposes are unconvincing; arbitrary edit counts or numbers of AIV reports mean nothing. Making smaller edits or making thousands of meaningless, repetitive edits to boost an edit count over 10,000 for its own sake do not make one more experienced. We're not yet at the point where beggars can't be choosers, but we do need more admins and rejecting good candidates for being imperfect isn't going to help anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
98. Support I was going to oppose based on lack of content creation but I stopped short after reading support from Ritchie333 and RoySmith, Aoidh and Banniefan. I do like that the candidate is often first to ivote in AfDs instead of waiting until the outcome is decided. I also like that they are able to contribute in a specialized area of the project. I have not seen any evidence that the candidate will not protect content and content creators; and that is always my concern. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
99. Support Despite the low edit count and account age, I'm very happy with the technical work they do around Wikipedia, which gains my support. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
100. Support. Sure. Also, appreciate the username. Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
101. Support Is civil. Has real life. Good qualifications. NBD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
102. Support A net positive to the project as I see it.   Aloha27  talk  22:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
103. Support No concerns, technical work makes up for the edit count. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
104. Support Perfectly competent. DFlhb (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
105. Support - My RfA criterion calls for 6.5k edits. This is why. By all accounts this is a highly competent and trustworthy editor who is admin material. While the user is clearly more focused on the technical side, they have received rousing endorsements for their quality content development skills. Answers to the questions are good, and the user has a good attitude. I am furthermore not concerned with their commitment. The user has acknowledged that their activity levels are and will be limited, but they are still sufficiently active and have never given us a reason to think that they will not remain committed or active going back to the beginning of their involvement. I understand the edit count hesitation, but given that that is apparently the only issue, I’m happy to offer my unreserved support. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
106. Support has more than enough experience to be an admin. Clear net positive. Gizza (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
107. Support They are a net positive, and the fact that they have EFM and operate a bot shows that they are clearly competent and trusted by the community. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
108. Support: switched from oppose (see below).

     I came to think my reasoning for opposing (again see below) was faulty, if this editor likes working on the backend (and as others have mentioned these individuals are in need) and project would benefit from them having access to admin tools, then not having a lot of front end editor interaction isn’t really a negative.

     Plus I can see having a roadblock put up before what you enjoy doing, just because you can’t do everything in the time you have available would be discouraging, an unrealistic expectation, and risk losing skilled editors.

     I also like their straightforward answers to the questions posed.

     In the end I think this adminship will almost certainly end up benefiting the project, and delaying it wouldn’t.

     @0xDeadbeef: Best wishes in your future work.  // Timothy :: talk  02:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

109. Support - Despite some of the community suffering from severe case of Editcountitis, I believe 0xDeadbeef is a great candidate for admin. Operates a bot, and his edits show their professionalism and integrity. This user also seems to clearly like the backend work, and Wikipedia definitely could use someone like them on that front! - Brat Forelli 03:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
110. Support. This person seems like they would make a decent administrator and they do not seem to have done anything tremendously horrible to disabuse me of this notion. Usually when a RfA has more than twenty opposes, there's some kind of seriously disconcerting dirt being dug up, but I do not see this here: just a bunch of people saying ten thousand isn't enough. Well, okay. Is this truye? Today I was going through a list of fully-protected redirects that might not need protection anymore, and saw the admin attached to one of the protections was Master Jay. Here is my popup for them: administrator, 6215 edits since: 2005-10-25, last edit on 2023-09-12. That's a whole novella about a bygone age in and of itself, isn't it? They were desysopped for inactivity a little bit ago, and had been an admin for about 15 years prior to that. 6,215 edits: no noticeboard threads. No arbitration threads. Who here remembers the "Master Jay incident"? Nobody, because there wasn't one, for a decade and a half, even though they got the mop after a 58/17/4 at 3600 edits. In this case we have somebody who is motivated, competent, and willing to do a difficult job: my objection is "none, thanks for volunteering". jp×g 03:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

     No intent to cast aspersions on MasterJay, but in fact there were several discussions surrounding this mop, which used considerable community resources for not much benefit (except serving as one impetus to update the inactivity rules): Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 40#Resysop request (Master Jay), Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 44#Resysop request (Jackmcbarn). There may have been more comments in those threads than MasterJay has made since his resysop request in 2019. To be clear, I do not think that case is comparable to this one. Dekimasuよ! 04:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

     A long argument, which they didn't really participate in, about activity requirements for administrators did take place on WP:BN; but not an incident in which their actions caused serious harm. But to pick entirely at random, here are the three successful RfAs closed on December 23, 2007: Masem (9300 edits), Jj137 (12000 edits), PrimeHunter (edit count not mentioned a single time during an unopposed 71-vote RfA, but Xtools gives an absolute maximum of 2+2+2+2+3+4+3+68+120+126+233+90+124+133+553+500+519+387+320+348+462+700 = 4701). Two of these users are still active administrators, and one of them subsequently became inactive (without suffering any controversy as far as I can tell). Maybe I am a gigantic idiot or something, but this just doesn't seem like an apocalyptic scenario. jp×g 05:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

111. Support - Having read through the arguments of both sides, I find myself more convinced by the ones supporting the nomination. While I understand the hesitancy associated with giving someone potentially inexperienced with administrative roles lifetime tenure (barring any potential ANI scandalfest), the candidate seems like a level-headed individual with a lot of trust from others in the community (as gauged from this EFM request). I find it unlikely that they will abuse their tools given their history. Their ostensibly low edit count doesn't seem like much of a problem to me, as it's hardly an issue to double your edit count with AWB and a large enough redirect tracking category backlog. ArcticSeeress (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
112. Support. I'm much more concerned with being competent than prolific. Someone with EFM permissions has already been given a substantial degree of trust and responsibility, so that's very much a mark in favor. I also like the clear willingness to own up to, and learn from, mistakes—we all make 'em, the real question is what we do afterward. Overall, I think this editor will be a benefit to the project with the tools, and while I've read the opposes, I don't find that any convince me to think otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
113. Support As a regular patrolling admin in addition to being an active content creator and editor, I very much appreciate the value of the edit filters, the creation and maintenance of which is beyond my present ability (and likely to always be). And as SMcCandlish notes, there are few tasks outside of adminship which require that much trust. I also note that in addition to Rust, the candidate's mainspace work shows to me, the awareness of editorial policy an admin should have. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
114. Support EFM permission and good record goes a long way to showing suitability for adminship. A trustworthy user with technical competence will be a valuable admin. Has shown a need for the tools and the temperament and ability to use them well. User:Swarm expresses these considerations quite well. User:Lourdes's comments to opposers are especially pertinent in this type of candidacy. Trustworthy, skilled, good temperament, net positive. Donner60 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
115. Support: managing bots, an impressive AfD record, an impressive anti-vandal with a GA. Knows their limits, and when to take time. What not like! FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
116. looks ok.--RZuo (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
117. Good luck! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
118. Support: While I do not know DEADBEEF personally, their ability in maintaining several bots and their honesty makes them a great candidate for adminship. Being upfront is an amazing quality to have; and whilst, like many have stated, your activity levels have been falling, it is a very unreliable metric and the number of edits you have made on Wikipedia should not increase or decrease your chances: wherever it be 1,000 or 100,000: if the capability to be a reliable and trusted editor is shown in those edits, I have no problem with it. - McBuggie (in case my username gets changed after this is written; McBuggie) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
119. Support. User clearly has strong technical knowhow (EFM in particular is a clear sign that they're both skilled and trusted), and while they're not a prolific content creator, bringing even one article to GA suggests that they have a good understanding of the concerns that go into creation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
120. Support - content creation is a good thing, but so too are technical skills like managing bots, which are so important to keeping Wikipedia running. I think we need a mix of skills in the admin pool. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
121. Support given the overall trust from enough editors, successful time as an EFM, and evidence the editor has actually learned from past experiences. Also seems like they will, like many admins that are less visible, know to stay out of places and are careful about flexing the admin positional authority in areas they are less comfortable/experienced in. Skynxnex (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
122. Support. I don't think being an admin should be an especially big deal, and being an edit filter manager is evidently already a significant role related to anti-vandalism. That and maintaining a bot don't show up in simple edit counts. SilverLocust 💬 15:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
123. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
124. Support Has a clue so I'm confident giving him the tools will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
125. Support after Lourdes bribed coerced CONVINCED me.^{[just kidding]} The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
126. Taavi (talk!) 16:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
127. Support – 0xDeadbeef is already trusted with the edit filter manager permission; I believe that the mop will be useful for him, and that he is clueful enough to proceed carefully in the areas where he is less experienced. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
128. Support – always late to the party. all the good reasons were already taken.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
129. Support: I feel that while the concerns raised below are valid constructive criticism, we have had a track-record of too harshly opposing RfAs on myopic grounds. The fact that a user has an interest (and experience) in one area of adminship and not another should not be given as much weight as it has in the past. While the intentions are certainly pure, and I do share some of the concerns below, I do not believe that those concerns outweigh my support for this candidate, especially in a time where administrators are needed. I trust him to improve his skills and wield his mop lightly while learning about its proper uses. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
130. Support: Will be an asset to the admin team and has significant experience working with the edit filters and operating bots. I have no concerns. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
131. Has a clue. Not a jerk. No big deal. GMG^talk 22:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
132. Support I'm rather dismayed at the simplistic view of edit count in some of the opposes, I see good answers to a lot of the questions asked, and overall see a candidatethat seems honest and clueful. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

     You seem to have less than 10 featured articles. I'll see you at ArbCom. Good day to you sir. Good day. GMG^talk 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

133. Support, particularly given technical skills and demonstrated judgment as an EFM. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
134. Support, meets my RFA criteria. I don't think they'll abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
135. I am not impressed by the opposers. His access to the tools would certainly be positive for the project. --Victor Trevor (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
136. Support The work that the user has done in WP:NPP is very helpful and their ability to make/run bots effectively is very helpful. Will be a great admin. TartarTorte 23:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
137. Stephen 00:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
138. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
139. Support. Nice to see that User:Legoktm has finally found someone to help run his bots, as he's taken on quite a few that were abandoned by others. You're just too clever to not be an admin. Since nobody else has done it yet, I have to link to the article about your username, 0xDEADBEEF. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
140. Support. Very happy to see this. The user has substantial technical competence and has been very helpful with the edit filters. I trust that they will use the tools well, and I fully buy the argument that the candidate's contributions to bots and technical spaces should be taken into consideration when evaluating their experience. As such, relying on edit count alone will yield a misleadingly low reading into this candidate's experience. Opposition on the basis of lack of quality content creation isn't unreasonable per se, but the GA plus all of the edit filter false positives work persuades me that the user is familiar with content creation; the user's extent of experience with how content is created on Wikipedia isn't a blocker for me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
141. Support Wingwatchers (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
142. Support. Experienced enough, in my view. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
143. Support --Minoa (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
144. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
145. Support - They definitely have a clue, especially on the technical side of things. Answers to the questions above tell me they are level-headed and will be trusted with the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
146. Support - You shouldn't need to make 2000 edits a month and spend 8 hours a day here to be an admin. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
147. Support—I find the opposes completely unpersuasive. 100+ edits in a month is plenty active enough for adminship. Quality > quantity. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
148. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
149. Support, quite satisfied with replies to questions asked. No issues with the request. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
150. Support Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
151. Support. Has given reasonable, thoughtful answers to the questions (I feel inclined to say all of them, in terms of admin actions. I think there's a difference between making AIV reports and processing those reports, and the same goes for putting CSD tags on pages compared to actually deleting them. is one of the best answers I've seen in response to the "what areas are you not confident with" question) and has been trusted with EFM already, a permission which they seem to use sensibly and productively. I also wish to object to the "only has N edits" opposes. Ultimately it doesn't matter how many edits someone has made, but the impact they have made with those edits, and their participation in and benefits to the Wikipedia community. firefly ( t · c ) 14:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
152. Support I am hesitant about the low activity level in the past and hope that specialist knowledge will compensate that. And why not? The Banner talk 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
153. Per Spicy, and I will note that even if they don't have the highest edit count or "content creation", 0XDeadbeef's work has been helpful to content creators per User:0xDeadbeef/Shiny#A barnstar for working so that others can work better! from SandyGeorgia. Finally I will say I am happy to see the bounce back in the votes here and I think it is nice to see the community finally starting to lower the bar at RfA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
154. Support Tails Wx 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
155. Support seems like they can handle it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
156. Support Upon a closer look, 0xDeadbeef appears to have no issues with judgement nor patience despite the concerns I had beforehand regarding self noming and not waiting for Ritchie333 to help them out. Plus their technical skills will be a great addition to the mop corps. My concerns about the lack of experience in countervandalism were unfounded as well upon a closer look; 0xDeadbeef's work in the past with edit filters make me confident that they have the knowledge necessary to combat vandalism. Besides the number of admins is sinking lower and lower these days, and we desparetly need more admins here. #prodraxis ^connect 15:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
157. Support spryde | talk 15:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
158. Support no issues and I for one think its refreshing to have a "younger" admin ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
159. Support. Most people with 8,000 edits aren't ready to be admins, and it's usually easy to find diffs showing that lack of readiness. I've been waiting to see if those diffs will turn up, and they haven't: the only serious concern is edit count, which without more is almost never oppose-worthy, in my view. Some people are ready with 8,000 edits. Some are ready with 2,400 edits. If someone isn't ready, there'll be plenty of non-statistical evidence to prove it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
160. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
161. Looks good to me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
162. Support Not around so much myself anymore, but somehow stumbled on this RFA and have had a look at the !votes and then at this candidate's record. My feelings about adminship criteria have changed over the years; my instinct is to support candidates who show generally good judgment, have the right attitude about the role of an administrator, and express requisite caution before "diving in" such that the tools will be a net positive. I was a new administrator once, and the candidate is right—reporting AIVs is different than blocking people, etc. etc., and as long as a candidate knows that going in and shows a capacity to learn, arbitrary edit counts, experience criteria, etc. fall away for me as something that should matter. And that Hawkeye7 vouches for the editor's main content creation work gives me confidence that the candidate gets what we're doing here enough to give him the proverbial mop and bucket. Happy to support. Go Phightins! 00:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
163. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. So what if 0xDeadbeef's activity is declining? That is not a reason to deny someone the mop. At worst, their tools will be removed for inactivity later. Content creation is a bit dodgy but eh, there's a GA. --(Roundish ✡t) 01:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
164. Support Anyone who can handle the care and feeding of edit filters without breaking the encyclopedia can be trusted with a dang mop. Joyous! Noise! 02:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
165. Support net positive. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
166. Support The Rust article shows a clear understanding of content creation. Concerns about only 10k edits or only a few years of experience don't make sense to me. How many editors stick around for 5+ years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjjiii (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
167. Support trustworthy user Polyamorph (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
168. Support I am convinced they will be a net positive for the site. The concerns about few edits and lack of GA creation don't convince me. The only criticism I may share is about the self-nomination (compare Ritchie333's first comment in the "general comments" section). Renerpho (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
169. Support We need more admins, and this one seems to be a net positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuxtaposedJacob (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
170. Support - seems trustworthy. Really sad to see the "not enough experience" opposes based on edit count and time as an editor - I became an admin at around the same time into my wiki career and with about the same edit count. Those kind of arguments are one of the reasons we struggle to get enough admins on the project. 2 years' experience and 8,000 edits is more than enough to draw an opinion from, we shouldn't need more than that to assess whether or not someone is worthy of our trust. Apologies for the rant but that behaviour gets my goat. WaggersTALK 14:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
171. Support - Although I haven't had any interactions with the candidate that I can think of, I don't see any immediate red flags. The edit count does not concern me. Sure, there's room for improvement on the content creation side, but having one GA is not really a reason not to support. On the other hand, 0xDeadbeef's work with technical topics, as well as his demeanor, far outweigh any concerns I have about edit counts or content. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
172. Absolutely. Also a chance to counter some truly petty opposes in the section below. — Fox 19:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
173. I prefer quality edits that build over quantity edits of, say, maintaining the MOS, or even reverting vandalism exclusively. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
174. Support. I looked at this RfA the day that it opened, and thought about giving a "moral support" for the self-nom, because I figured there was no way this would pass. But I decided instead to look back in a couple of days. I probably just have faulty memory, but I think it's very unusual for a RfA to turn around the way this one has. Anyway, here is my rationale. I've now read everything in this RfA and done some digging on my own. My recollections of seeing the candidate on my watchlist include no red flags. I can see some validity to the not-yet oppose arguments. Based on the links the candidate gave in the answers to questions, and following back from those (including this: [4]) I do see a lot of instances of bad judgment as a new user, and it wasn't that long ago, and that does reduce my enthusiasm. Then again, new users can learn (I know that I did). When I see the record with technical work on filters, along with the content work on the GA, that reassures me a lot. And when I see praise from other editors who worked with the GA, along with the praise from Sandy that is linked in Moneytrees' support, that makes me pretty confident that this is someone who understands content disputes, and whom I can trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
175. There's a lot to think about here, but I'll support per legoktm, wbm, and leeky. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
176. Sup to the port because this editor definitely deserves it. While they seemingly have a small amount of edits, familiarising myself with their contributions proves the saying "quality over quantity". In other words, they certainly have the experience and need for administrator tools. I really like their response to the questions asked above. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
177. Support as their edits are clearly a (net) positive help to maintain the project. If their 8k edits mark them as possible admin material now, then waiting another two years for them to double their output will not allow us to take additional advantage of their skills in the mean time. Although I consider the risk of negative future actions to be very low, if things were to unexpectedly go awry, there are measures to deal with that too. Also, even though I believe that adminship can "be a big deal", it is not a job, and we should not insist that a new admin must work tirelessly every day at it. Admins with a lower contribution rate can still be of value to the project. Thanks to 0xDeadbeef for stepping up and volunteering for the mop, Loopy30 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
178. Support: Net positive. Doing valuable work besides article creation. Keep it up as an admin. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
179. Support I think the editor will make a good admin. 01:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
180. Strong Support The concerns regarding CSD do not concern me as you cannot unlearn the criteria in less than two years. I was initially worried by what I thought was going to be !vote-changing to match consensus at WP:AFD. Instead, I often see you being the first participant and changing the outcome of existing discussions. This proves to me that you will be impartial with the tools. The lack of tenure is also not worrying enough to weaken my support. Hang in there! You got this! Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
181. Support Net positve. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
182. Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
183. Weak support largely per HJ_Mitchell. You don't need 100,000 edits and a string of FA's to do basic admin tasks but there has to be some minimum of content experience, and I'm not convinced this candidate has it. On the other hand they seem competent enough on technical issues and have support from many excellent editors, which narrowly tips the balance. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
184. Support Good score. 910 out of 1200. Mox Eden (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

     @Mox Eden, if that was the criterion then by all rights I should be an admin (1105) — Qwerfjkltalk 14:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

     @Qwerfjkl, get yourself nominated, then. Mox Eden (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

185. Support. Quality over quantity. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 13:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
186. Support we have a highly technical editor who has a clue. I would heed other's advice to make more article contributions and or at the very least, go to great lengths to avoid even optics of misusing admin power when making content related decisions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
187. Strong support contra those such as Zoglophie who are opposing purely based on illogical factors like edit count. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

     Um. That is not really friendly . . . Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

     I apologize if I come off as uncivil or overly unfriendly; was not trying either way. I have no doubt that the opposes I reference are made in good faith. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

     No worries. I just had to be sure. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

188. Support. The editor is clearly a net positive to the project. Edit counts are just one of the factors. Everybody has agreed that a high edit count does not necessarily show quality work, but the reverse must also be true - a low edit count does not necessarily show inexperience. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
189. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
190. Support I've seen them around and seems to do good work, particularly as they have a strong technical bent which will be a welcome addition to the group. I checked the editor over the weekend and though the record isn't as strong as some other candidates that are applying at the moment, there is real quality here. I think the editor will make an excellent admin . scope_creep^Talk 07:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
191. Support I mainly know 0xDeadbeef in their work co-maintaining HaleBot, a bot whose reports I rely upon. Every time there has been a problem, they have been very helpful and responsive. I realize that their resume may not be ideal but from our interactions, I trust they will not rush into areas where they have limited experience. Since it looks like this is a pass, just know, 0xDeadbeef, that you can always contact another admin for a second opinion. No one is an expert in all areas of the project, whether they are an editor, admin, bureaucrat, checkuser or arbitrator. Especially as you are just starting out, rely on your strengths. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
192. Support Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
193. Support · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
194. Support - Tenure and edit count are not purely an indicator of experience. The candidate has written a GA class article, demonstrating their competency in editing standards. Technical knowledge beyond the usual editor is shown in their ability to create and use bots, they communicate in a civil manner, and have experience in adminy areas. Candidate is clearly able to make some use of grounds to support their pursit of adminship clearly outweigh the grounds to oppose. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
195. Support – They seem to have done good work so far, and no evidence that they will go on to break Wikipedia as an admin. Mgp28 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
196. Support. The tenure and edit count isn't a concern for me. Assessed, holistically, the candidate is widely trusted, has created good content, and has technical skills that would be useful. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
197. "Only 8,000" edits and 2 years of experience is absolutely enough to be an administrator. Part of why the RfA system here is so problematic is because people are so focused on edit count and time experience rather than the actual quality of the work that has been done by the nominee. And in my opinion, 0xDeadbeef has done some great content and technical work. I have no reason to oppose this. --Ferien (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

     I'm sure part of the reason there are so few RFAs is because potential candidates know they're going to have to answer dozens of questions in great detail, and be expected to have experience in areas they wouldn't touch as an admin anyway, then get told by strangers they're not valuable enough to do the unpaid work that they're offering to do for the good of the community.

     I say this as someone who has never interacted with the candidate: it would be a shame if they were not accepted as an admin because of a couple dozen oppose rationales that range from "flimsy" to "paper-thin". Kicking222 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

198. Largely per theleekycauldron. But I do hope that deadbeef will start it slow with CSD and AIV. Otherwise, no major concerns. Good luck! NotAGenious (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
199. Support The name rings a bell, our paths probably crossed during some anti-vandal work. To their edits, we can add their work as an EFM and bot operator. EFM and bot operator require trust and I'm happy to trust 0xDeadbeef with the admin toolkit as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
200. Support. Bold self-nomination, has demonstrated trust with tools, reasonable answers to questions. Notta jerk. My limited experience with the candidate has been positive, and I'll assume good faith their future edits will continue to impress. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
201. Support Has more GAs and edits filters better than me. An organization needs a diverse set of job skills, not just one (article writing).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
202. Support per everyone above. I also appreciated your assistance with getting CherryBot unblocked. —darling (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
203. Support. No concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Have some more experience as an editor for becoming an Admin. Edits like 7000 are too low for any candidate to have a Mop. Edit count reflects the time you have devoted in this Encyclopaedia, and I believe you should come here again after some time. I opposed Shushugah's nomination for the same reason. zoglophie^•talk• 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

2. It pains me to !vote against a bona fide self-nom by an editor in good standing, but I just don't think 8k edits and 2y of activity, with only one article creation, is enough. I get that numbers don't tell the whole story, but I want admins to have more depth and breadth of experience, even if they intend to wield their mop only in very specific areas. Otherwise I've no fundamental objections, and could well support a new nom in due course. Sorry, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose at this time although I think this editor is a net positive and I would be willing to support in the future if some things change. With less than 8,000 edits, I would be cautious in general, but the downward editing frequency trajectory concerns me very much. The COVID-19 explanation for reduced participation seems incongruous. We all know that 2020 and 2021 were the worst years of the pandemic, but this editor had only eight edits in that time frame. They burst into action in May of 2022, with a dramatic 1090 edits in a single month. That was 26 months after the pandemic hit. Since then, their editing frequency has declined pretty steadily, with between 160 and 170 edits a month in recent months, and even fewer in earlier months this year. Their 2022 edit count was 5880, but in the first almost ten months of 2023, their count stands at 1382. Frankly, I consider it a bit strange for an editor whose participation has been declining pretty steadily for a year and a half to ask to be an administrator. On the other hand, we need more administrators. If the consensus is that what I see is a worrying trend is OK, then fine. But I am unconvinced at this point. Why select an administrator who seems to be on a rapid path to disappearing from Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Not trying to badger, but I note other opposers are referencing this one. While Deadbeef's edits have declined vs 2022, I would call the pattern since then "variable" rather than "declining steadily", and given the last few months I'm not sure I see any "worrying trend" towards "disappearing from Wikipedia". (People can form their opinion based on the monthly data at [5]). More importantly, I think this oppose highlights a frequent tension between those who see admin as "job", that should entail regular, ongoing participation; versus those like me who view it solely as a "mark of trust", confidence the admin will Do Good at whatever intensity level they participate going forward. Now, if there's reason to believe a candidate is wasting our time since they're likely to truly disappear soon, tripping our inactivity triggers or becoming quite disconnected from the community and then stepping on toes when they reappear, that's a problem. But if they participate more some months and less others, and mop up messes whenever they stumble across them, to me that's a net positive. Martinp (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Martinp: Maybe not trying to badger, but putting all your triggers in scarequotes gives much the same impression. Serial 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Appreciate you speaking up, given it clearly rubbed you the wrong way. Apologies for that; however, no *scare*quotes intended, just quotes. I come from a field where precise attribution of statements being reacted to is important (versus gestalt reactions or--more insidiously--arguing vs a strawman), and it was intended in that way. Usually I operate in a context where one can mark up and respond to individual words as a comment without using quotes as punctuation, and without it carrying connotations of triggers or rhetorical posturing, but wikimarkup is more limited. (I caught myself putting quotes around the word triggers just now, but removed it...) Martinp (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Martinp: I tend to use {{tq}} to avoid the scare quotes thing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose I appreciate your upfront honesty that you "enjoy being helpful with my limited free time and would like to contribute whenever I can" - so looking at your specific edits to see what you focus on is a more useful metric than the number per year. Given this, five edits to WP:AIV, eight speedy deletions and no proposed deletion this year is simply far too low, if you wish to "help out in administrative areas". More AfD votes would also be appreciated, I feel - especially outside your immediate areas of knowledge (programming languages?). Maybe focus your edits in these areas using your limited time, and consider it a NOTQUITEYET? Turini2 (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose per lack of content creation: only one GA (and DYK) for Rust, and Xtools analysis shows only one mainspace page created, a stub Rust for Linux. Also, as highlighted by Hammersoft in Q4 and Turini2 above me, a lack of recent activity at AIV and in CSD, which are areas the candidate has expressed an interest for working in in the statement. JavaHurricane 08:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   I must admit to being confused by the large number of supports, some of which appeal to the reduction in sysop numbers leading to crises especially in administrative work. I would like this claim to be backed up by data-based evidence, for instance that there is a significant increase in backlogs of late due to the reduction in the number of sysops. I have not been editing much in the last few months myself due to being busy, but I've followed onwiki discussions a lot, and as far as I've seen, the backlog situation, for one, has felt no worse than before.

   Also, with a crat chat looking likely from this stage, I feel I must elaborate on my reasons for opposing. In abscence of evidence to the contrary, I feel that a smaller size of the admin corps, with a higher standard expected from them, is preferable even - due to the extraordinary soft and hard powers sysops possess on Wikipedia, which itself has a significant position in the real world. In light of these powers, such as those given by WP:CTOP and WP:EDR, which very much make adminship a very big deal, I find it difficult to support giving the kit to a candidate for adminship unless they have demonstrated competence in dispute resolution, content work, understanding of the P&Gs and also some experience with understanding how to participate in and close a discussion, besides the usual jobs like antivandalism. The candidate has expressed a desire to work at AIV, where according to Xtools they have made below 50 edits (a competent and decently active RC patroller, in my experience, would make more reports in a couple of days); and at CSD, in which they have made around a hundred taggings, going by the CSD log (again, an active and competent patroller of the AfC and NPP queues would make more taggings in a couple of weeks). This track record is simply not on the level where I can accurately assess the capabilities of the candidate in these areas. Combined with their lack of content work and experience with dispute resolution in content, I cannot assess their judgement in these matters well enough to be sure that they would use the mop well. And being sure here is, in my view, necessary, because adminship effectively is a lifetime appointment and difficult to revoke.

   The relatively low activity is not an issue - it is enough IMO to assuage any ADMINCOND issues, and is more than overcome by the significant technical work the candidate has done. But without a track record which can allow properly judging the candidate's temparament in dispute resolution and the areas they have declared their intention to work in, I cannot support the candidacy. Simply because no issues have been identified yet does not imply that a good temperament exists - the latter would need a decent track record to be checked, one that does not exist here, at least as far as I can tell. I would encourage running again in a year's time, once the candidate has gained enough experience and a significant enough track record. JavaHurricane 09:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

   Just responding on your request for more data about backlogs. I don't think it matters if the backlogs have gotten any worse. I would argue that the existence of administrative backlogs implies a need for more administrators. Problems don't need to get worse before we can solve them. (And I realize that one more admin is not going to make an appreciable difference; the point is the principle.) HouseBlaster^talk 11:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

   A good point. JavaHurricane 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   Struck the oppose, partly per Tamzin's support - my expectations were clearly contrary to the reality that you can be an excellent sysop without having written a ton of content. And having thought about it further, I think that the experience as EFM discounts any concerns over not having that much experience in RCP/CSD - if you can operate filters well, you obviously know what counts as vandalism/disruption well enough, and I can trust you to use the mop properly. No real grounds, therefore, remain for me to oppose on. My best wishes for 0xDeadbeef for their work going forward, and congratulations for them a few hours in advance. Good luck! JavaHurricane 10:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   Moved to neutral For a candidate with a low edit count, I would want to see especially strong evidence of expertise in the areas you wish to work in, but 8 CSD nominations this calendar year and 46 lifetime AIV reports is far too little for me to be able to support. Regardless, thank you for volunteering. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Weak oppose as seems like WP:NOTQUITEYET and doesn't meet my own User:Kj cheetham/RfA criteria, especially in terms of general experience (not just edit count) and content creation beyond Rust (programming language). Seems to be a net positive with activities done so far though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Striking own oppose. Clearly trusted by the community, but I'm going to abstain rather than support. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

5. Oppose pretty much per Cullen. While tenure/edit count needn't count on their own they are reflective of experience. They also suggest future participation. Which should be going up, rather than down, in order to even request tools, let alone receive them. WP:NOTQUITEYET applies though. Serial 10:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
   There's something slightly odd,as someone suggested above, about the chronology. They claim that the last time they had any free time to edit was during the pandemic; yet they didn't (hardly). While there was a massive number of people who found themselves with less time, then this obviously doesn't apply. Especially as also noted above, they hit the ground running in their editing when the world was getting to grips with itself again. Not saying there's anything particularly sus, but, odd. There seems to have been a miscommunication somewhere. Serial 13:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Per above, lack of recent experience in the areas the candidate has stated they would be working in as an admin -FASTILY 10:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose for lacking enough experience, as most of the above think. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Editor administration requires editing experience. Pldx1 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose. The overall edit count doesn't bother me so much as <2.5k edits in mainspace and only one stub created, which does not seem enough experience to fully understand all the policies relating to speedy deletion, an area in which they want to work. ETA: Also concerned about "to help with vandals/CSD-able pages that I stumble upon while working on false positive reports" in answer to Q4; CSD-eligible pages should almost always be tagged for speedy deletion, not just deleted. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose Not opposed to any future runs for adminship by the same user, but I am rather concerned by the lack of experience and the lower edit count. WP:NOTQUITEYET. Plus I'd want to see a bit more mainspace work as well as a bit more work at AIV and CSD where they intend to work on as a sysop. I also have some concerns about levelheadedness and patience given what Ritchie333 stated about them. #prodraxis ^connect 12:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Changed to Support #prodraxis ^connect 15:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

10. Oppose Thanks for running! And the self-nomination is cool. But too new and not enough experience at this point both for the job and also for us to fully know who we'd be promoting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
11. Oppose Not enough experience at the moment, but would not oppose another run - in say 12 months time. David J Johnson (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose I would like to see more experience under your belt, but do congratulate you on standing for nomination. With your positive attitude, it would go far in helping build a better Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    I would encourage you to come and help in the Articles for Deletion forum, you can get a good feel for reliable sourcing, dealing with less than welcoming individuals and it is a good introduction to the nitty gritty stuff behind the scenes that goes on here in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Not enough activity or commitment for the future. Although for some reason self-noms seem praiseworthy to many editors, I don't understand why and am not a fan.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    Hey Bbb23, he's a good guy, as you were when you gave the most important addition to our BLP policy ever. Do reconsider please.... Best... Lourdes 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

14. Oppose I wasn't going to say anything, but given how surprisingly long this RfA has gone on for I feel like I must urge closure relatively soon given that 10,000 edits is a bare minimum and to avoid giving the candidate any more stress. I'd suggest coming back with more experience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think your call for speedy closure is warranted here as there are plenty of supports and opposes with valid points. On the topic of stress: We cannot be the arbiters of the nominators emotions (any potential clairvoyance notwithstanding), nor should we act on their behalf. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    The editor was not calling for an early close, ArcticSeeress, and as they are an administrator, we can probably assume they know better than anyone that such an event is as rare as rocking horse dung. Your views on stress remain your own, of course. Serial 19:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Well, if that's not what given how surprisingly long this RfA has gone on for means, then I for one would like to know what it is supposed to mean as it is not clear to me. The only other possibility I can see is that they are expressing surprise that this RFA hasn't failed horribly, when it is currently strongly trending in the other direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how else to interpret I must urge closure relatively soon as anything but calling for early closure. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    To be fair, the support percentage was 50-55% around the time this !vote was posted. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    ....barely twelve hours in though. I do thank @John M Wolfson: for striking those portions of their comments though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

15. Oppose Don't care about the content creation; the overall edit count,length of tenure, inactivity in areas of potential interest/action, however, are a concern. I daresay a future run might well pass and gain my support (though i fully understand the reluctance of editors to come back here), but i cannot support this candidacy currently. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Cullen - one for the future. GiantSnowman 18:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    GiantSnowman, my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider. Lourdes 05:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Any reason why you've queried my comment (and those of a few others I see) but not all? GiantSnowman 17:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Of course GS. Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand based on the points I have written below to Timothy. Thanks GS in advance. Lourdes 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks - I respect you and your passion for his candidate, but cannot support. However, it looks like it will likely pass anyway, in which case the new admin will have my full support! GiantSnowman 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

17. Weak Oppose. NOTQUITEYET is the conclusion I also reached from the above and a decent little review over the last hour or so of the candidate's contributions and interactions on the project so far. All discernible indicators point in a positive direction when it comes to Deadbeef's competence and and on-project bearing, but the tenure (considering the intersection of relatively low edit count and real time with the project), combined with their somewhat focused areas of contribution leaves me wit the impression that they simply do no have the minimum breadth of experience in disparate areas that I find vital for someone to be entrusted with the administrative tool package.
    Now I'm not someone who hyper-focuses on any one particular area when it comes to RfA. In rare instances I've even been compelled to support candidacy for those with fairly week content work bona fides all around. But here there's just not enough overall work in enough areas (content, technical, and process all added together) for me to feel confident of readiness for the bit. There are just too many aspects of how this project operates when it comes to policy, procedure, consensus formation, dispute resolution, and disruption busting that come only with experience and putting aside any one metric here, I'm just not seeing in the contribution history or the responses above the strong evidence of the depth and variety of experience necessary to overcome the concerns I have from the edit count/tenure alone. I'll reiterate though that a second run in a year or three would almost certainly see me !voting support, as I do have an overall good impression of Deadbeef's dedication and mode of interaction here from today's review. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose Just too soon. Only a third of their edits are to mainspace articles, and ~10% of those are for a single subject. There does not seem to be much experience in any of the areas that would inform the use of admin tools. The area that they are most active at - editfilter reports - seems only tangentially related. And, other than being very active during COVID, the level of involvement seems very minimal, and the tenure as an editor is very short. I just don't think that this adds up to the experience and participation levels that would warrant the tools at this point in time. Banks Irk (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Switch to support (see above)#Oppose: I think this editor just stepped forward too soon, but I could be convinced otherwise. I just don't think this editor has the experience to be an admin. Limited participation at ANI, Low participation at AfD, one article created, limited editing,[6]
      • Edits in the past 24 hours 34
      • Edits in the past 7 days 58
      • Edits in the past 30 days 243
      • Edits in the past 365 days 2,441
      Also not seeing evidence of skills in conflict resolution, de escalation, and consensus building which I think all admins should demonstrate (none of which I possess, not throwing stones).
      Has a good record of rvs, and expressed an interest in patroling vandalism, clearly like working the backend of Wikipedia which is all good. Just need more mainspace experience and interaction with editors.
      Good editor just needs more mainspace and editor interaction experience, Cullen makes good points as mentioned.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

      TimothyBlue, hey. Administrators could have specialisations in various areas. While most administrators would not have either skills or competence or even the gumption to handle the technical parts of the project, we have one editor here who has all three and is a rare gem of a find for our backend support. We can keep saying that we need more editors with GAs/AfD experience etc as candidates; but the fact is, we say that because we know that if we were to write that we need more editors with edit filter skills, bot making competence... we won't find any. Requesting you to reconsider. Thanks, Lourdes 05:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

      I have been thinking about those exact points, and their answers to my two questions also makes me reconsider.  // Timothy :: talk  00:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

19. Extremely reluctant Oppose per WP:NOTQUITEYET. Definitely a net positive and I could easily see myself supporting down the road. My main reservation is that if you're going to ask for the tools with a somewhat lower than average edit count, you really need to have some background in admin related areas that demonstrate a good grasp of P&G. I reiterate that this not a hard no, or even something where I have concerns over temperament or other issues. This is easily fixable over the next 12 months with a few thousand more edits and a little more work in admin/background type area. Please see my criteria for RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    I am just a random person and someone roughly 2 times younger than you, but I read this and I wonder - do you really want to reject such record? 0xDeadbeef is someone very dilligent and knowledgeable on backend activities, and that is perfectly fine and sorely needed these days. For me it feels like we require every admin to be a jack-of-all-trades and have impressive experience on every front, which not only seems disheartening but unrealistically harsh. Thank you for hearing me out, good sir! - Brat Forelli 06:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

20. Oppose: Needs more seasoning - and a nomination would have reassured me more →StaniStani 06:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
21. Oppose at this time. Appears to have a good temperament for adminship (and probably for conflict resolution), but I am not convinced that knowledge of policy and guidelines is sufficient at this time. A preliminary check showed declined A7, a copy-and-paste move performed during an open deletion discussion (the copy-paste is here because of a round-robin history move later on), and an AfD nomination without any WP:BEFORE (opinions vary on the necessity of performing such a check), etc. These are the sorts of gaps in knowledge that can be solved over time, but there are not so many intervening edits here that I am comfortable with the overall command of WP:P&G. Dekimasuよ! 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    All of these edits were made around a year ago. Everybody makes mistakes, but what matters is how you learn from them: are there any more recent examples of misguided taggings and bad AfDs? Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    It's also worth pointing out, in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungry for Music, as well as being over a year old, only one editor commented after three relists, and on reading the comment, 0xDeadbeef agreed with the analysis and withdrew the nomination. Making mistakes is okay, the important part is admitting them, which is what happened here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Also declined G12 (copyright) on Draft:Henderson County Bridge this Jan; the log only covers c. 100 CSD taggings. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

22. Oppose - per WP:NOTQUITEYET. Not here long enough just yet, but absolutely re-apply. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
23. Oppose for now. I'm not concerned about technical aspects, but the editor has obvious deficiencies in the policy area, which has already been mentioned and exemplified by many others here. While edit count is no measure of skills or character, it is the only available proxy of Wikipedia experience (and no, coding a bot is not what I call Wikipedia experience – otherwise every MediaWiki programmer would qualify for an admin). Yet, I wouldn't like to rely on a well-wishing but inexperienced admin who doesn't have a good grasp our policies and way of working. In short, WP:NOTQUITEYET – please participate in various admin venues, make another 5k non-automated edits, and then reapply. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
24. Oppose practically zero mainspace article creation,editor without any history of article creation shouldn't be given admin rights. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Kashmiri. Jerium (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
26. Personal oppose - I recall only a single interaction with the candidate that left me with a poor impression of their reading comprehension, argumentation skills, and sincerity in their responses. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    @Mr rnddude: Please provide a diff of this interaction in support of your personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    In the context of an RFA, that does not constiture a personal attack. Nor does me saying that Bbb23 should not attempt to stifle the frank expression of views in this way. Yes, a diff would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    Probably Special:Diff/1104311191. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    It's the thread, rather than that specific comment. I didn't provide a link to it, because I didn't recall which RfA this back and forth occurred on. I can demonstrate all three issues with reference to a single point in that discussion: Even presuming en.wiki is desperate for more admins, it certainly isn't in need of more inactive or semi-active ones which Deadbeef claimed ... does not make any sense. Really? This is elementary school level English. Though that specifically is more insincerity as I don't believe Deadbeef failed to comprehend the meaning of the statement. If the community wants more admins, it just wants more admins also demonstrates insincerity, as nobody is seeking more admins just for the sake of providing hats for editors to wear, and I do not believe that Deadbeef genuinely thinks they are. There should be a reason for why we would only want very active admins in your argument is poor argumentation. It does not follow from 'en.wiki does not need more inactive admins' that 'en.wiki needs only very active admins'. It's been a year since that exchange. I'm surprised I remember it so vividly, perhaps because of how obtuse it came off. I've forgotten far tenser exchanges with editors that have happened since then... Mr rnddude (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (Addendum: I retracted a portion of my comment as I did in fact respond to it. I didn't respond to their false equivalence between admins and editors in the follow-up. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC))

27. Oppose per NOTQUITEYET.Intothatdarkness 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose Strong Oppose per Mr rnddude, and Bbb23's silliness in defining a personal attack. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

    I understand opposing for the same reason as another editor but the second part seems rather ridiculous since it doesn't relate to anything the candidate did or didn't do. Noah, AA^Talk 01:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

    That another badgering comment dismiss as "ridiculous" my disdain at Bbb2's comments above reinforces my position, if this is the kind of company. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

    If you had a problem with Bbb23's comments, then you should have taken it to the RfA talk page or their talk page. Taking out your frustration regarding another editor's actions on the RfA candidate is honestly inappropriate. Noah, AA^Talk 02:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

    Wow. Moving now to 'Strong oppose, if this is what the candidate's friends look like. Ceoil (talk)

    So you’re strong opposing because of a completely separate administrator’s “silliness” and a “friend”‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  of the candidate rubbing you the wrong way. Bbb23 actually opposed too if I remember correctly. This is why RFA is a nightmare. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

    The fact they moved to "strong oppose" after an unrelated editor called their actions inappropiate says it all. I cannot believe how petty and hostile this place is. Brat Forelli 11:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

    Quite a few others moved to Support after a fellow admin wrote to them that they owe her a favour and should switch votes (see Talk). So, the place is not simply hostile; it's getting close to a joke, a marketplace, almost like a modern-day parliament. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose withdrawn, after convincing supports above, from people that know a lot more about admining than me Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

28. Weak oppose. I know it's hard to create new content, please try at least, and come back again and I will support in the future. Andre🚐 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Too few edits, content created, and an overall lack of experience right now. Like Oaktree, I'd encourage you to contribute in AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
30. Weak oppose with moral support — I am sadly opposing, I have had positive interactions with 0xDeadbeef, and they are definitely close to getting a mop, but I am going to weakly oppose for the lack of content creation. I don't really think edit count is a requirement being that it's an arbitrary fluctuating figure that is easy to increase using AWB or Huggle. I am providing my moral support to Deadbeef as they are a great editor, they just need a little more content creation. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 08:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
31. Oppose - not very impressed by the actual track record, as opposed to the promises. As above, more experience first. Ingratis (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
32. Oppose after much pondering and some reluctance, per Not quite ready. Needs a bit of seasoning yet (Policy and contentious areas/interaction), though his technical work is appreciated. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
33. Oppose as not quite yet. In the future I can see myself enthusiastically supporting, and I don't think 10k edits are by ANY means an RfA requirement, so the different profile from the norm is certainly a refreshing & appreciated change of pace. That being said, the drop-off in mainspace edits in 2023, specifically the 12% of edits in mainspace this year, does not inspire long-term confidence to building the encyclopedia as of now (totaling 180 odd for the year so far). From the looks of it, solid work is being done in the edit filter department, so at that rate I'm sure 0xDeadbeef can be an excellent admin in the future. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
34. Weak Oppose. Per NOTQUITEYET. Kierzek (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
35. Oppose The candidate's brief time at the project, no matter how technically adroit, still activates a comfort zone warning for me. The recent RFA of leakycauldron shows that calls towards "try again soon" are not unreasonable.  Spintendo  02:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

    Did you mean theleekycauldron perhaps? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

36. Oppose Not enough edits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning support. Be active without tweaks recently will turn this into support. -Lemonaka‎ 11:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I have concerns about the lack of experience in fields like AIV and XfD, but being a trusted edit filter maintainer with valid reasons on that front to be an admin bumps this to a neutral instead of oppose. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Neutral: concerned about AIV/CSD usage, and a bit more content creation experience would be good (they've created one stub, besides expanding their GA). I'm not asking for a suite of FA's, but a little more would be great. Experience-wise, they only have 2500 edits in mainspace, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but...
   On the other hand, their work as an edit filter manager seems great, we need more maintenance admins (more anything admins, really), and there don't appear to be any actual major issues. So I'm on the fence. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Neutral, no major issues but I can't support a candidate saying they want to help out with CSD if they haven't done much CSD work, we need to be sure the CSD are going to be applied properly. That's my only concern and I'm certainly not on board with the perpetually levitating bar about how many edits and how long a tenure is required to become an administrator. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Neutral: Deadbeef is a great editor on the technical side of Wikipedia, but I am concerned about the low involvement in the areas they wish to work, as others have mentioned above. I also find Richee’s comment below a little strange and not confidence inspiring. The only 1 GA doesn’t bother me at all, the shortish tenure is fine, but I would prefer a higher edit count. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Well Illusion Flame, if you remember, when I had extended strong, belated supported to your efh application, my view was based purely on the outstanding trust you had/have started garnering. Your involvement at the ef desk also supported that. Due to this exposure at efm, I know that you duly understand what effort goes into maintaining edit filters. Again, with all confidence, I can say outright that I know you will also most probably be an efm in less than a year. With all the understanding of what this status constitutes, why would you be neutral to a fellow efm? Just asking. (And also, see Ritchie's comments above in the support section). Requesting you to reconsider. Warmly, Lourdes 05:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

   Lourdes, I was already regretting not supporting here, let’s do it! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

5. Neutral: great editor, though low involvement in some essential areas they have expressed desire to work in. on the fence mostly due to the low mainspace edit count. no real issues though. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

   Oh, come on Dreamy, don't let me believe I wrote the poem for nothing. Lourdes 05:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

   Maybe I should add some thoughts. I was looking at this RfA and was unsure of where I wanted to vote on a first look because of Ritchie333's comment below, so went neutral for the time being. I will now take a further look and comment either way. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

   Neutral per Illusion Flame. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

   Hi The Corvette ZR1, Illusion has changed his !vote. May I request you too to reconsider your stand in this light? Thank you in advance for considering this, Lourdes 11:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Lourdes I'll consider changing my !vote, but I have a big exam today. I'll let you know, maybe in 4-5 hours? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

   Ok @Lourdes, so I change my mind. That's another oppose support in the bag! The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

6. Neutral (moved from oppose). Some of the comments — particularly those from Legoktm and theleekycauldron — have made me reconsider my oppose. I still agree with the points I made in it, but some persuasive counterarguments have been made, and I don't feel comfortable standing in the way. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Neutral: Cannot remember coming across this editor. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
8. Neutral. It is very rare that I participate in an RFA other than to support, but I am genuinely concerned about the limited main content creation here. Wikipedia is, at the end of the day, an encyclopedia, and substantial encyclopedic content creation presses an editor right up against issues that enlighten their ability to carry out administrative functions. BD2412 T 12:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
9. NeutralI am not familiar enough with procedures to give a positive vote, but there is also nothing I found that would make me Vote negative --Cupkake4Yoshi (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• A while back, I was in discussion about adminship with 0xDeadbeef. I have an outstanding email from them that I haven't looked at, simply because I've been busy doing other things (as it says on my talk page, "this user is busy moving house") and I can only really commit time to comply with WP:ADMINACCT at present. Consequently, I'm disappointed that 0xDeadbeef decided to self-nominate, using answers that wouldn't be what I would have written about them - I think their skills and talents lie in the technical script-writing side of things, like Cyberpower678 and Pppery, rather than specifically AIV and CSD, which they've already been criticised about for having a lack of experience in that area. I still haven't had a chance to do a thorough deep dive into contributions to write a convincing nomination statement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

---

• I think many of the opposes, based on a lack of experience in admin areas etc are quite reasonable, but I'm somewhat confused about opposes based purely on activity levels/edit counts? What's the worst case scenario, we elect an admin who isn't so active? I guess since I'm an admin who is now very infrequently active, I can sympathize with that more, but I think the criteria for being an admin shouldn't have be "spend multiple hours every single day on wikipedia to show consistent activity", which is naturally going to strongly limit the pool of admins. Galobtter (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I guess it's hard to judge character, temperament, quality of work - without enough information or edits to go off? I completely agree that we don't need admins who are 24/7 on the site - I'd much rather have someone who focuses their limited time in a certain area. My issue is with the lack of experience in areas they say they'd be interested in (AIV and CSD) - potentially a slightly misguided approach to nomination! Turini2 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

I don't get all this talk about "must have 'x' edits at AIV to understand anti-vandalism". Firstly, I believe I had zero edits to AIV when I passed RfA, but that doesn't seem to have been a problem in blocking obvious vandals. Secondly, have a look at 0xDeadbeef's contributions to the Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports where edits like this, this and this (identified as vandalism) and this (identified as good faith) clearly show they understand what vandalism basically is. And that's in the last 48 hours! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. Normally I would expect an admin candidate planning to work in AIV to have an experienced antivandalism record. But 0xDeadbeef has made 545 edits to the edit filter false positive page. There are extensive edit filters on vandalism, and of the first 100 filters ranked by ID, 19 are basically entirely about vandalism (per a command f search) and many others are related to promotion and LTAs, both being what AIV deals with. EFMs need high familiarity in these filters, and as such, I find it unlikely that someone highly competent in edit filters would be worse when handling AIV. VickKiang (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Regarding how well a candidate knows our WP:PAG, I think it's silly to require that they know everything. I've been an admin for a long time. I certainly don't know every PAG. I know the ones that directly relate to the areas where I work, and even there, I often dive back into them to make sure I'm doing something right. The important thing to look for is that somebody is willing to admit they don't know something and do the research before acting, or at least admit they made a mistake and cheerfully revert what they did wrong. You can teach facts. It's much harder to teach aptitude and attitude, so those are the things you need to concentrate on when evaluating a candidate. This is equally true IRL as it is on wiki. RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Doesn't edit counting cut both ways? If we shouldn't judge someone as "experienced" from an abundance of edits, we shouldn't judge someone as necessarily "inexperienced" by a count below an ad hoc threshold. There seem to be a lot of opposes that are justified by "only X number of edits, come back later". That doesn't hold much weight, imo. Someone can have 30,000 edits full of dummy actions and minor syntax tweaks while another person has 5,000 edits of substance and tackling tough discussions. Which is really the more "experienced" editor? -- Veggies (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

---

• Hopefully, this RfA will change the culture of discouraging self-nominations, requiring multiple nominators, the nominee to "humbly accept the honor" (of an unpaid, volunteer job), and ≥50,000-edits-is-my-minimum for a sysop. Quality > Quantity. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I view this remark as the primarily fuchsia residence of a flower arranger. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Numbers can be easily manipulated for whichever goal a person is going for or metric they want to hit. The most important quality is an even temper as evidenced by their interactions over the last two or three years. The reason we don't hand the mop to just anyone is because they're also a bit of the Almighty Janitor. They get the keys that can let them into any office in the building and if they're sneaky they could get up to a lot of nonsense that would drive away good Wikipedians before they're caught doing something blatantly wrong.

Most, but not all, people who are up to something don't have the patience to pull an IceWhiz. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

---

There is also User:Deadbeef, another user with >9,000 edits named after 0xdeadbeef (according to their user page). Are the two names similar enough to cause confusion? User:0xDeadbeef warns on their user page that the two should not be confused, but I am not sure if that's enough. The other user does not do the same. Renerpho (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho: The other Deadbeef is not as active anymore (last 50 edits go to 2015). They are already at the top of Editors who may be confused, so I don't think anything more needs to be done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused - what a great page! I find I am prominently placed in one of the longer entries, which is right, as I often am confused. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 29 October 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.