Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ifnord

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

Ifnord

Final (33/16/3); ended 03:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Ifnord (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, It is my pleasure to nominate Ifnord for adminship. I came across Ifnord diligently working through recent changes patrol where they spend a lot of time. They first joined Wikipedia in 2005, took a hiatus after 2006, then returned back to regular contributing since 2017. When looking through Ifnord's activity, the old "no big deal" adminship mantra seemed to make the most sense. I do think Wikipedia is a big deal, and administrators can have a big affect on the project, but administrators also perform the core "janitorial" work that keeps the project functional and I think that is right where Ifnord fits in today - if granted adminship they would be able to be an even more effective custodian of the project. I certainly don't expect every administrator candidate (or even long time administrators) to work in every area the kit affords, so consider candidates that I think will use tools responsibly and not take risks they do not understand. I expect some opposition will be along the "not enough experience in x area" type, but that's OK - every single admin here has "not enough experience" in multiple areas. This goes for "not enough articles written" type of hesitation as well, but in working recent changes patrol extensively and in administrative-like functions such as NAC closings, Ifnord certainly has a lot of experience with "editors" - and I've found them to be consistently polite, inviting, and accepting of criticism. In summary, Ifnord is a solid maintenance contributor with a good attitude who will be able to help the project better with some more tools, please join me in support of their candidacy. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words and accept. I have never edited for pay or any other compensation; I have no other accounts which I have edited under; and I would be open to recall, I think User:Floquenbeam/Recall is an elegantly simple process and would abide by that. Ifnord (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Having seen such an uptick in oppose !votes, it appears unlikely that I would have the community's support for adminship. I'm so thankful for the kind words of many editors that I truly respect, and honoured that I was even considered for it. Rather than continue to take up folk's time, I would like to withdraw. Thank-you, all. Ifnord (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I was very humbled when xaosflux reached out to ask if I was interested in running. If such an esteemed editor thought I could be of more assistance by asking for the bit, I felt obligated to try. The vast majority of my work on the project is counter vandalism and I would imagine I would spent the most time on WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP, these being the notice boards I am used to posting to. I have also spent time at WP:AFD, I would imagine I would be there as well but cognizant that closing those is much different than simply !voting and I would avoid closing any of those that were not entirely self-evident until I had more experience as an admin.

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

A: Counter vandalism is what I've done the most of and what I feel the best about doing. Besides helping keep the inane, "pen!s", "poop", "hello/hi!" edits out, I really keep an eye on edits where referenced material is removed. I love referenced content, it's something that makes our project reliable, and I recognize how hard it is to find sometimes. I've worked on and off trying to start biographies of women who are STEM academics and have been stymied at times by the lack of references I can find to prove notability. Having someone erase referenced material, without discussing it in the article's talk page or even leaving a decent rational in the edit summary, is something I am proud to help prevent.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I put a lot of stock into WP:AGF. I find that if one reaches out and explains why proposed content changes go against our policies, without any comment on the editor themselves, the other editor will often at least pause their changes and enter discussion. For example, if someone proposes unreferenced changes, I will offer to show them how - or even do it myself, even if I disagree with it. I have been called a liberal/conservative or a hater/supporter on many topics; I take pride that I do not think anyone could reliable discern my actual opinions on the basis of my edits. If I truly felt stress at any interactions, I would take it as a sign that I should decompress from the project and return later.

---

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 ToBeFree

4. User:Floquenbeam/Recall refers to two historical processes, "WP:RFC/U or WP:RFC/ADMIN". Do you have a specific replacement for that passage in mind? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A: I very much liked the simplicity of their system, and the flexibility it allowed for concerned editors to spotlight those concerns. I would consider myself bound by the spirit of it; if four editors found any admin actions I made objectionable I would immediately cease any further admin actions and wait for a consensus on a widely read discussion such as at AN or ANI. If there was not consensus for me to remain an admin, I would resign.

Optional question from Andrew D.

5. Your account name has a familiar ring but I can't quite place it. Is it derived from fnord or what, please?

A: Indeed, it is derived from Fnord. I was quite taken with The Illuminatus! Trilogy in my youth and was prone to doodling it. I used it as a username but found it was often taken by others, so I thought it funny to try iFnord because, at the time, I was working exclusively on Apple systems and I thought to myself, "Well, an iFnord wouldn't have Windows..."

Optional question from JBchrch

6. Under which conditions or in what circumstances is it acceptable to remove content that is sourced to reliable sources? JBchrch talk 18:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A: While I am generally opposed to the removal of referenced material, there are cases where it is appropriate. If the content has no relation to the subject of the article, it should be removed no matter how well referenced. This is often the case when someone is trying to advertise a product or company, crowbarring in a mention when it's really unrelated. Similarly on BLPs, sometimes people try to either promote or disparage the subject while providing no real information. I also see detailed instructions on how to do something sometimes creep into articles. No matter how many user guides and reference books one quotes, we are not wikiHow.

Optional question from Lee Vilenski

7. Hi, thanks for running. You use Twinkle a lot for your editing, so much that it's actually 75% of your edits (according to [1].) Statistics don't mean everything, so at what time would you use a non-semi-automated message to a new user? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A: I do like the fact that one can add text to a warning template with Twinkle. I often use that to really specify why I left the warning, such as for removal of referenced content, "Please discuss your proposed removal of referenced material on the article's talk page." There was a spoof warning box, on a humour page that I cannot find now, that really impacted me. It was an oversized template that listed policy after policy - a huge wall of text. It would be really overwhelming to a new user (or anyone else, frankly) to see. The idea was that we should not rely on warning templates exclusively, and I agree. Sometimes one has to simply type out the whole thing, "Hi, I noticed you were trying to add some material to an article. Without a reference to back it up, it's an opinion not a fact. If you know somewhere where this is already printed, I can help add it as a references..." I don't want new users to think that Wikipedia is an automated AI, (most) of us are real people who care about the project and want to help.

Optional question from Elli

8. I haven't seen your name around a lot (and that's fine), but one place I do recall seeing you was this ANI thread. Would you open a similar thread today if you came upon a similar situation, and if not, what would you do?

A: That was, without a doubt, my biggest regret here. While doing patrolling, I noticed an editor had removed over a hundred articles on short animations claiming they failed notability. The first one I looked at had multiple references which supported the notability, as did the second. When I engaged with the editor, asking them to revert or discuss, they disagreed with my assessment. I believed that if the first two clearly met notability, they had the onus to WP:BEFORE each one, instead of rapidly deleting them en masse. They disagreed, saying I should go through each one. I spend a lot of time reporting at WP:AIV, and while I don't believe any admin ever said it to me, I have often read a canned note that says something along the line of, "Not blatant vandalism, consider taking this to ANI." So, that's what I did. I thought I was simply running it up the flagpole for other editors to weigh in. I had spent little time in ANI prior to that and did not realize what kind of environment it was. Even with someone I completely disagree with, I would not have wished this upon them. While I knew there were a range of options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, I thought ANI was one of them. It is not. I regretted it then and still. The silver lining is that I did learn and grow and I am deeply appreciative of that editor for accepting my apology for the listing.

Optional question from Extraordinary Writ

9. I was sampling some of your article creations, and many of them seem problematic from a copyright perspective. For instance, Betty Pfefferbaum (2021) states that "Pfefferbaum assisted in mental health clinical and research efforts related to the 1998 United States embassy bombings", which seems to be taken verbatim from this source. Diana Perkins (2021) states that "Perkins’ primary research interests include early identification and treatment of schizophrenia, emphasizing treatment of the prodromal period and early intervention of the first episode of schizophrenia", which seems to be taken verbatim from this source. Finally, Correctional nursing (2018) appears to take a significant amount of text from this source; this was not addressed even after a DYK reviewer pointed it out. How would you reassure potential !voters who are concerned about your knowledge of our copyright policies?

A: I understand much clearer the copyright policies now. At the time, I did not think I was committing plagiarism because I provided full credit as to the source and did not think I was violating copyright as I took only a sentence out of a much larger work. But this is less the law of copyright and more the copyright policy at Wikipedia. Using a sentence was wrong then, and now. Simply put, no text should be copied and pasted into any articles. I have committed to ensuring that any information I take from a source is completely rewritten prior to insertion. Simple rewording is not sufficient, it must be completely new. If the wording of the text is important, then it must be encased in quotes. I have always tried to comply with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, but one doesn't know what one doesn't know, I try to use it as a growing experience to become a better editor.

Optional question from DanCherek

10. Thanks for offering to serve. I like your answer to question 9. Would you be willing to revisit each of your articles and rewrite/remove any infringing text to save time for other editors?

A: Absolutely. I would have liked to go back immediately to the articles quoted by Extraordinary Writ, but I didn't want anyone to think I was trying to hide or bury my mistakes. I was planning on hitting those immediately after this RfA. Regardless of the outcome, I do commit to going through every article I created to ensure there's no violations.

Optional question from FormalDude

11. What is your stance on WP:NONAZIS, and do you believe it should become a Wikipedia guideline or policy? Why or why not?

A: The emphasis on achieving consensus on Wikipedia has changed the way I look and react to disagreements. It works. I explain it to people as ideas should be examined by everyone, in the cold light of day. With enough close examination, people will come to the correct conclusion and be able to change a truth into a Truth. One Truth is that people should be judged on their actions and not the colour of their skin, their belief in a devine, or who they choose to love. A minority will disagree with that, just like a minority will say the planet we live on is flat. The Earth (approximates) a sphere, that is the Truth. Just as we should not promote the idea that the Earth is flat, so too we should not promote prejudice against any person for who they are instead of what they do. If someone is promoting prejudicial material, the community should act on that basis. They are not shunned for being an "-ist", they are shunned for their actions. I have full confidence in the community for recognizing aberrant and prejudicial content, we can point to that without the need for adding labels to the people doing it. I have no opinion on WP:NONAZIS being a formal policy or not, in practice I believe the community will remove offensive and prejudicial content well before the person identifies themselves as such.

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

12.I have also gone a bit through your article creations. In the vast majority they were created as stubs of a few hundred bytes and a considerable amount of them still remain stubs. Optical reader doesn't even have a source, R v Mapara has one phrase. Why did you choose not to expand the stubs you created?

A: Both of those articles were created by me, as a brand new editor, in 2006. After 15 years, I do not remember why I created them. But, currently, I try my best to find references and content to fill as best as I can. If I cannot, my hope is that someone else can pick up the torch and expand on it, so we all get to learn more. In Expert wizard amendment, I was fascinated that a legislator was perceptive enough to note that mental health "experts" often are used in court proceedings offering opinions as scientific fact. Even more fascinating was that no other legislator paid any attention to the process and it almost became law. I could not find anything more to add, but my hopes is that someone may have ties to either the former senator or to the New Mexico senate and be able to dredge up some more content. Isn't that the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia? We all share what we can for the benefit of us all?

Optional question from Sdkb

13. Thanks for offering to serve. If you become an administrator, will you assign yourself the autopatrolled user right?

A: No, I would not.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. It looks like Ifnord can meet those requirements. Plus, I trust the nominator in question and hold them in high regard. Rlink2 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Not a jerk, has a clue, need for the tools. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Support - I've seen Ifnord around the place for years, have always respected their approach. Happy to see this, no concerns. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Support — B203GTB • (talk) • 18:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
7. Support Sure, why not? Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 18:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
8. If Girth Summit supports them so fulsomely, then so do I. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
9. Support >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
10. Support. A happy circumstance to visit the pedia and see this process commenced. I don't see any issues myself. Glad to endorse Ifnord. Solid candidate, trusted. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
11. Support. Nice to see a public nomination process too (User_talk:Ifnord#Blueshift). 15 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
12. Support. Good editing history. Sea Cow (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
13. Support Per my nomination statement. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
14. Support. For some reason I thought they were already an admin. bibliomaniac15 19:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
15. Support Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
16. Support—Kurtis ^(talk) 19:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
17. Happy to support, though I thought they were lowercase-L fnord for the longest time... GeneralNotability (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
18. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
19. Support A quick look at their page and contributions seems okay to me. Worth my support. Volten001 ^talk 21:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
20. Support The opposes, of which only one has any "substance", do not sway me and should not sway you either. This is a good editor who will use the tools diligently and make a positive difference to the project. Ask, why not? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
21. Support. Ifnord has clearly shown a good track record of editing for admin-related tasks (particularly with article protection and the admin notice board). Talk page discussions also show polite discussion, and an emphasis on explaining reasoning clearly and simply. The ANI discussion mentioned by Elli is clearly a one-off. The fairly recent copyright issues with articles produced (raised by Extraordinary Writ) have concerned me a little. I have also seen other articles with copyright issues using Earwig's Tool ([2][3]). This mainly concerns me as Ifnord would likely be significantly involved in admin work assessing articles for copyright issues. However, I see no evidence of this in Ifnord's other work (I thought about this a lot, and have concluded that it is not enough to vote neutral rather than support), and there is clear learning from these article creations. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
22. Support - having just read Ritchie's essay, I am unconvinced. Ifnord is a fine contributor, even if they have not done any substantial article writing. We are editors first, not writers. Editing is a much broader category that includes trimming, cleaning, and protecting articles from vandalism. If someone wants to focus on janitorial duties and countervandalism, I say, more power to 'em! Literally, in this case. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
23. Support Creating articles should never be the defining standard for adminship. Their editing history, they way they communicate, that matters to me. I see someone here that will make good use of the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
24. Support Good user with a good track record, definitely has the clue needed to be an effective and responsible admin. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
25. Support. Has clue and is not a jerk. I fully expect that giving Ifnord the mop will be a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
26. I think Ifnord will be a good administrator in their areas of interest. DanCherek (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
27. Support. He has a clue and a good track record. The need for more mops is in my opinion critical to the project and the ability to wield one properly is my #1 criteria. A demonstrated affinity for creating new content is much lower on my list. Le Marteau (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
28. Support per Ganesha811. I see Ifnord around often at Recent changes, and they're definitely ready for the tools. Quid Est Squid (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
29. Support I don't think extensive content creation is needed to prove their ability to provide useful service at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP, which is where Ifnord plans to focus. I've encountered Ifnord frequently on my watchlist and appreciate their anti-vandalism efforts. Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
30. Support as my default position, and I don't see anything concerning enough to move off of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
31. Support both actual and moral. This looks like a well-qualified candidate who has hit a couple speed bumps. If this RfA is ultimately unsuccessful I would encourage the candidate to take a deep breath and consider that none of the objections raised represent an insurmountable impediment to adminship. Content creation is a common criteria looked for by some editors. And a copyright screw up, provided it is not part of a pattern of behavior, is also not the end of the world. We have all made mistakes. This one may be just a bit too recent for some. The remedy is to take 12 months or so, work on content and make it clear that copyright is both understood and respected. Then come back. However this turns out, your work here is appreciated. Hang in there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
32. Support Although content creation is important for Wikipedia, but admins only use them in reviews and delete articles (a good respect for counter-vandalism) Thingofme (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
33. Support. A good candidate. We need more admins and I am convinced he will do a good job. --Bduke (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose doesn't seem to have created any substantial content at all. The closest I found was Template:Did you know nominations/Correctional nursing which was rejected for being inadequately sourced, with some evidence of close paraphrasing. Per my essay, I require evidence that you can produce content before being able to police it, especially when the small amount of mainspace contributions are rejected for containing potential copyvios. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333: Are you specifically talking about not having substantial content reviews or are you talking above problem with npov or sourcing of something like that? Ifnord has created 54 articles although some of them are in doubtful condition, e.g. China Dolls where the latter half is unsourced and the sources that are there are limited. Is that kind of stuff your talking about, specifically? scope_creep^Talk 20:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

   I read your essay. I get it. scope_creep^Talk 20:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Ritchie. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
3. --Mateus2019 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
4. I am unfortunately unable to support due to the answer to my Q6. This question was prompted by the answer to Q2, which seemed to object very strongly to the removal of referenced content. Removing referenced content is a completely normal and integral part of the editing process. Editors regularly make judgement calls about what information should be included in or excluded from an article. Some editors label themselves as exclusionists. The rulebook is actually pretty radical in this area and states that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (WP:ONUS). I generally think that admins should have some quality content creations, but I was open to consider the arguments in Xaosflux's nomination this time, provided that my worries about Q2 could be adressed. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. JBchrch talk 21:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

   While that could be considered an issue, I would personally argue that we have WP:BRD for this very reason. Unless the nominee has hinted they are going to ignore consensus (which I doubt either the answers to Q2 or Q6 could be construed as), I don't see an inclusionist admin that prefers to retain reliably sourced material as a problem. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

   I truly don't believe that the candidate would ignore consensus, and I really don't care if they are inclusionist or exclusionist (I only brought that up to illustrate). I don't want to be blunter than necessary, because I don't want to make this process more taxing than it is, but I asked the candidate a straightforward question and unfortunately the answer was IMO not consistent with the rules or the practice, and that's something that's important to me. JBchrch talk 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

5. Oppose – While I appreciate the candidate's answer to Q9, in my view anyone with copyright problems as recently as six months ago shouldn't be an administrator. Nonetheless, thank you for volunteering. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose Full disclosure, I was the editor who was the subject of the ANI thread mentioned in question 8. I want to be clear that I am not opposing based on that event. It was regrettable and both Ifnord and I could have handled it better. I accepted his apology, offered an apology of my own, and we moved on. That Ifnord reached out to me to make amends is something I respect and I think is a good quality for an administrator. That being said, the concerns that have been brought up about copyright greatly concern me, and reluctantly I will have to oppose at this time. I would like to see several more good article creations or expansions (good as in well written, not necessarily Good Articles) with no copyright violations before supporting Ifnord's candidacy. Copyright is a major issue and I expect any administrator to have an excellent grasp of it, and I just don't see that right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
7. Oppose While it may be the case that, for RfA candidates, creating articles should never be the defining standard for adminship, the real lessons of creating content are not (only) that they are put under the pressure that comes with the territory (whether, N, V, or at AfD etc): the ANI thread of Q8—of four months ago—suggests a failure to understand our most basic notability guidelines, and while it is an excellent thing that the candidate has learned from the experience: November. Concomitantly, per Q9, as noted by ExtraordinaryWrit do not instil confidence, as yet, that copyright—one of our most important policies, and one with legal implications—is fully understood. Combined with the fact that these issues are in articles on living people—another fundamental policy. Again, if these issues were years old, I would laugh them out of court, as it were. But they're all from a few months ago; and I understand much clearer the copyright policies now. At the time, I did not think I was committing plagiarism would be rather more reassuring if it was demonstratable before an RfA rather than having to be stated during it. Unlike Ritchie333, I don't demand that would-be admins have written GAs (or FAs, for that matter); I do want what they write to be in line, and in accordance with, basic policy. All the best, SN54129 23:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose Concerns with recent plagiarism incident. I can't stress enough the importance of taking copyright seriously. Even after reading the candidate's answer to Q9, I'm not convinced they understand why their behavior was problematic. Given that these issues date back to 2018, I'd like to see more time spent making contributions that don't contain copyright violations. -FASTILY 00:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
9. Opposeits not just the two articles I mentioned, many others were created as stubs of a few hundred (often below 500) bytes. Then there is the copyright issue. I don't really see it as worthy of an admin. Editor yes, but admin, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose per the copyright issues (and it's not just copyright, it's a plagarism issue) and the lack of content creation. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose due to lack of work in creating content. I couldn't really find anything substantial. An admin is expected to have at least created some articles. Personally, I would like to see a couple of GAs at the minimum as it indicates familiarity with many article content policies. Copyright and plagiarism issues mentioned are also egregious for an admin candidate so this is a definite no-go for me. Noah^Talk 00:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
12. Oppose due to the plagiarism and copyvio concerns brought up above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Giraffer and per lackluster answer to Q9. I'm glad that the candidate now knows that even directly copying a sentence is against our copyright policy, but that is a lesson instilled in my high school students (some of whom are 14 or 15 years old). I need a little more from an admin. — GhostRiver 01:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
14. Oppose per the copyvio problems. As someone who actively tries to delete copyright from Wikipedia, I do not think it proper for someone to become an admin when they violated the copyright policy but a half year ago. I could write these off if the candidate had produced more original content. Heart ^(talk) 02:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per copyright problems. Cool guy (talk • contribs) 03:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
16. Oppose mostly per GhostRiver. Q8 and Q9 worry me. While one can certainly learn in that time span, they haven't really demonstrated the learning in a way that makes me confident they can be a good admin. casualdejekyll 03:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: I agree with Ritchie333's essay on content creation, and, while there are plenty of stub/start articles created here, there's not really much above that. Ifnord has created plenty of content, but none of it appears to have made it to GA-quality. I also highly trust the nominator. I don't see any reason to truly oppose the request, but I'm not quite in full support. Bsoyka (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Some good things here, but I find the moderately recent copyvio issues to be concerning. Hog Farm _Talk 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Moral support: Ifnord definitely has the right temperament, and lots of experience in some of the murkier and more draining areas of Wikipedia. To have that level of experience in those areas is commendable. I also don't quite agree that a GA is an absolute must for the adminship. However, I think that if the candidate were to take a topic and really put in the expansion/creation work necessary to bring the article through the quality review process successfully, it would demonstrate real growth in the copyright area and improve the candidate's well-roundedness. That hand-in-hand lack of what Wikipedia is really all about—original, quality content—is a little off-putting for me. But I don't think the mop is too far away, and I look forward to supporting their next RfA, if they need and should choose to run. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• While I can definitely understand the reason given in the answer to Q10, additionally keeping WP:NOTCOMPULSORY in mind, and noting that any decision made now will be perceived as wrong by multiple people: There are copyright issues, pointed out publicly and specifically, in current revisions of articles? Don't expect them to remain for a week to be replaced afterwards. I guess if I have to look at them for too long, I'll remove them without replacement. The information can still be re-added in rewritten form. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Huge thanks to Bilorv who took care of the Correctional nursing article. Yeah, waiting for a week is unrealistic for specific copyright issues that have been directly pointed out. You can fix them during the RfA, that's not "hiding mistakes". It's saving work for those who will otherwise do so before the week ends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2022 (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.