Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nosebagbear

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

Nosebagbear

Final (173/38/8); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 19:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Scheduled to end 19:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Nosebagbear (talk · contribs) – Wikipedians, please may I present to you Nosebagbear for your consideration to become an administrator. When Nosebagbear first contacted me to discuss the possibility of becoming an administrator, I did a quick check of their history and could only ask one thing - "What's wrong with you?". In my eyes, Nosebagbear is a fairly ideal candidate, he meets my magic formula with ease. Although his account was created back in 2012, he started editing in earnest about 18 months ago, racking up 15,000 odd edits. He's managed to do a bit of content creation and even managed to get through a peer-review process (Fairness Project was marked as a Good Article by The Rambling Man).
But where Nosebagbear excels is being able to help others - his most edited page on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk by a long way. Having spent a bit of time on different helpdesks in the past, I can tell you they are places that we really need good people to help out. His CSD log deals with copyvios largely, which is unsurprising given where he spends his time, and seems to be accurate. I can only see giving him tools as a benefit to the project. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for this nomination, I accept. I have never edited for pay. I don't have any alternate accounts, and I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2019 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: There's three main areas that I plan to use the tools to help out:

• AfD - AfDs were the first "backstage" area of Wikipedia I really participated in and I've been active in both !voting in them (c. 750) and closing them. I learnt a lot through this route: both the various policies but also settling conflicts without personalising them. There's significantly more active non-admin closers even in the year since I started doing them. However this does leave the more controversial closes and handling deletions.

• AIV/RFPP - I'm quite active in recent changes patrol work, and a good number of admins handle huge numbers of block and page protection requests. However even slightly speeding up the responses by adding another admin can save a major amount of work for other editors.

• OTRS - I became an OTRS agent about 10 months ago. However a large number of tickets include queries on deleted content. Being able to view deleted drafts/articles and, where appropriate, undelete them, would let me handle a larger number by myself.

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

A: I really enjoyed writing the Fairness Project article, and then taking it to GA. I had no idea it would become so detailed when I picked it in WP:RA, but I learnt a lot in the process in areas I'd never considered. As one example, those interested can hear my not quite dulcet tones as I recorded a spoken version. I also have spent a good amount of work providing several hundred references to demonstrate notability for albums in various genres, such as thrash metal.

Outside of the above I enjoy helping explain certain aspects of Wikipedia to those thrust into it without prior experience. This is both in the fairly specific nature of the AFC helpdesk and the broader style of OTRS email response tickets. Both on and off Wikipedia itself, that's included everything from helping with huge, legitimate, concerns of article subjects; encouraging some new editors to give it a go themselves to handling negative contributors. The very changeable style encourages more tailored answers which it's been fun being able to give.

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: Most of my content editing is in non-contentious areas, so it's rare for me to be involved in mainspace content conflicts. I have been in a reasonable number of heated and even argumentative AfDs, a couple of which have spread the conflict into their originating articles. It's rare for this to cause me significant stress: either the arguments aren't personal, so I don't take them as such, or they are personal - in which case I'm generally not inclined to take ad hominem statements to heart. I try to do two main things to reduce the conflict in a situation: understand not just the position of those disagreeing but why they hold that POV, and try to make use of any shared ground. It's usually fairly easy to know what someone is asking for, but the reasoning gives the context that actually allows my response to be helpful and not counterproductive or condescending. Identifying any shared ground not only is an immediate plus but helps provide a basis in the rest of a discussion - it helps shift the focus to the result, not the individuals.

---

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

Additional question from Gamaliel

Question withdrawn

4. Do you think User:Fram is an example of the kind of administrator that you wish to emulate? Why or why not? Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC) This is an inappropriate question to be asking. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC) For what it’s worth, I concur with Reaper Eternal. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I also agree that this question is inappropriate. I mean... c'mon, really? ... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I redacted the ending portion of my comment here. It was unnecessary and it wasn't needed, and I apologize to Gamaliel for adding it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I figured the most important issue that's been facing Wikipedia for the last several months would be something worth asking about? Be glad to withdraw the question if Nosebagbear wants. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I wasn't trying to put Nosebagbear on the spot, I figured if you are going to be in a position to judge the behavior of other users, we should maybe ask about your judgments regarding other users? Don't care, feel free to remove, have fun. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Not so much putting Nosebagbear on the spot, but this wasn't about a user, but rather about the relationship between WFM and en.wikipedia. I believe using editors as examples is not a road RfAs should take in RfA discussions. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Reaper Eternal

5. So I took a look at your Fairness Project good article—it's quite nicely done! However, I do have one question: What makes "Ballotpedia" a reliable source? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A: When I was originally adding the Ballotpedia sources I read all the WP:RSN discussions on it, which roughly gave an original consensus of "definitely not for BLPs, marginally suitable as a tertiary source due to professional editorial staff", which roughly lined up with my own look at it. However, a more detailed consideration (which I absolutely should have done then) tells me that the professional editors couldn't adequately monitor the number of writers, making it a partially closed wiki, with the commensurate RS lack. Since the points I use it for are purely factual electoral statements, reliable primary sources (if I can't find the most preferable conventional secondary RS which includes it) would be better. Thank you for pointing them out - I'll get them fixed. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Joe Roe

6. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Tatović, the closing administrator opined that your earlier relist was an error. Do you agree with that assessment?

A: I think it was beneficial to extend discussions in situations like these - I highlighted the primary point of dispute and the one that was causing the different !votes despite agreeing that the individual met NFOOTY. I've seen similar cases where the original Keep !voters have submitted sources to support their presumption later on. I perhaps should have paid more notice that significant notice (most of a week) had already been given to those !voting Keep to provide additional support for their presumption upon request. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

7. Have any of your AfD closes ever been contested? If so, how did you respond? If not, how would you respond if someone asked you to reconsider a close, or took it to DRV?

A: I only recall one substantive contest of any of my Non-Admin AfD closes (before an update to AfD closer was bought in my UTC-clock adaptation reported an AfD at 7 days a few hours early, so I made a slightly early close, it's not recurred) as I've tried to stick very closely to only closing non-controversial closes per the warnings in WP:NACPIT. As such, if one comes up as a non-admin that wasn't against a very clear AfD consensus or deliberately harmful then I would have incorrectly judged it to be "uncontroversial", so I'd undo my close and leave it to an Admin close.

The one contested close was pretty early in my nac experience, about 13 months ago, for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad Ghost Productions, contested through a reversion of the redirect. I discussed with the individual the reasoning of why I'd redirected and if there were specific aspects of my closing reasoning that could be problematic. I also covered what the editor should do if they wanted to have the article recreated (either through finding new sources or through dispute of my close). Due to a couple of unilateral reversions I asked an Admin to check over the case and give some suggestions -. they protected the page against further reversions.

In terms of how I'd work with contested closes on more controversial (or just general future nac-closes) I'd respond in a rough method as follows (obviously some might be done together or skipped depending on what the editor says in their original query):

1. Make a thorough recheck of my original reasoning for the close
2. Explain my close reasoning and why I decided it that way, and ask the editor to indicate which bit of my close reasoning is an issue or if there's something I missed entirely (or new information has come to light)
3. If I think I'm incorrect (or potentially incorrect) I'd either reopen or potentially alter my close, depending on the case.
4. If I was confident in my original close then I'd explain the various options. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Jovanmilic97

8. Related to Question 6, what is your stance between WP:ATH and the relation to WP:GNG, mostly Q1 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ? If you were the closing admin on an AfD that had "keep, meets WP:NFOOTY and delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG" clashing opinions, what would you do in that case?

A: Taking this as an example where my above concern doesn't apply and there isn't another reason I might relist, then I'd probably act as follows, with a brief aside on the context clash decisions like this have to be considered in:

NSPORTS makes it very clear, with mention both in the base guideline and repeatedly in these FAQs, that an article based on NFOOTY ultimately must satisfy GNG. The RfC and other discussion is actually a little hazy on that, and even more so on what "eventually" is. That said, in lieu of specific guideline (or even firm in-discussion consensus) on the matter, an AfD runtime seems an appropriate "call to action" to demonstrate GNG is indeed passed. As such, I'd have to close as delete, though I'd be happy to provide it as a draft if asked.

All of the above is subject to both IAR, sanity checks and so on, but I've interpreted this as a "clearcut" example. It does come with some concerns - if someone started referring every new NFOOTY-covered submission to AfD if it didn't clearly meet GNG then in effect that would be a single person destruction of an SNG as it would become irrelevant. Conversely, NPOL actually states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.", but which has interpreted in every single AfD I've seen on the matter as to mean "such people can still be notable if they meet GNG in a way non-related to routine political coverage".

There's definitely (way) more on the matter, but I hope that answers this specific question, at least, well enough. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

9. What is the meaning or origin of your account name, "Nosebagbear", please?

A: There's a bit of an aside below, the tl;dr version is that it's a variant of another encyclopedia username, but that doesn't explain it.

Well before I came to Wikipedia, I was a very active member at h2g2, a much smaller web encyclopedia with a bit more of a social aspect. I needed a username for it. In my family, there is a plush bear called "Nosebag" who (however old we get) is blamed for any entertaining piece of misfortune or mistake a family member makes. I found badgers curious creatures, so I combined them to title myself "Nosebagbadger".

When I originally came onto Wikipedia I thought a variant would be apropos, and given Wikipedia was larger, I thought "Nosebagbear" would fit. As to whether there's still entertaining mistakes and misfortune around me, I leave that to you to judge. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

9b. How did the administration of h2g2 compare with Wikipedia? Were there any aspects which you would recommend to us?

A: The h2g2 administration was both very friendly (almost universally) and extremely "silent". In the sense that it was quite easy to go enormous lengths of time without realising a participant was involved in administration (mods etc), even though a quick look at their userpage would tell you. It was also quite easy to get one on one tailored discussions about various aspects of the site.

In terms of what we could learn, much of this just could not transfer across. We're far bigger, and so 1-2-1 discussions with anyone about bits on the site would probably be non-viable (we'd be pinning down WMF members for long discussions about technical aspects and there'd be a queue behind us). We also run a much more transparent system on Wikipedia, and there's more controversy, which makes it harder for Admins to "hide in plain sight". The general friendly nature of almost all participants would probably be tricky to bring into being here - h2g2 was more social and didn't really have individuals using it for their own ends, neither of which would be something that could be readily changed here.

Administration needs to be tailored to the site it applies to, and I think importing any of the significant positives from h2g2 would either generate a negative or require a substantial theme change that there isn't currently support for here. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Amakuru

10. Aside from Fairness Project, which looks great, do you have any other examples of articles you've written, or content contributed, that you could point us to?

A: It's not to the quality of Fairness Project, but I think Measures for Justice is definitely worth a read, and a more recent example of my content creation. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question(s) from SilkTork

11a. You've been made an admin. You're going through AfDs. You come upon one which was listed for seven days; the arguments for and against were balanced, and not convincing either way, so it was relisted. It has now been ten days since relisting, and still the arguments are unconvincing, though the numbers in favour of keeping are twice those for deleting. When looking at the article you note that there are several policy based reasons for deleting, though these haven't been mentioned. What do you do? SilkTork (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A: I'd probably execute the same internal rule I use now - "If I'd rather !vote on it, then I shouldn't be making a close". I generally feel that in this circumstance I'd look it over and cast an appropriate !vote, as if I was harbouring thoughts about "well by reading the current consensus it should be in favour, but I could correct that" I'd be risking a supervote - I want to know I'm not casting a supervote, so far better just to contribute in a regular fashion.

I realise this could read as evading the question - I've not given you the appropriate admin action, which would be just a strict read of those !votes present that actually do contain suitable reasoning, which if truly lacking/still balanced might lead to an NC or a 2nd relist - though I'd attempt to avoid the latter since it would then be open for 24 days. However, I hope this is more helpful in telling you what I would actually do. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not evaded the question, you tackled it appropriately. For me, it's the most appropriate answer, and it's the one I like to see potential admins make. SilkTork (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

11b. I was just browsing your talkpage and contributions when I noticed that you joined the project in 2012 and made few and irregular contributions until April last year - since when you've been an active contributor. What happened last year to prompt that change in interest in Wikipedia? SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A: So as I mentioned in my username explanation, I've been active in an online encyclopedia for a long time - probably since 2005 or so. While I was active there, I would occasionally try to get into Wikipedia - however I found the sheer complexity of rules daunting, and in my original editing attempt, had similar concerns with wikitext. A couple of years ago, due to various changes I tailed off my editing at h2g2, but still wanted to participate in something similar. I did some more conventional edits on Wikipedia and enjoyed reading lots of the main policy/guideline pages which gave me a much better basis. With that initial "hump" avoided this time I was distinctly bitten by the Wikipedia bug. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Struway2

12. Two weeks ago, with this edit, you added unsourced controversial content to a BLP, sandwiched between an existing sentence and that sentence's source. Why would you do that?

A: So the changing to divorce was what I thought was a more clear phrasing of "wife at the time" (who I'd checked hadn't died etc) which already had a reference. This however was a major flaw on my side - even wordsmithing can be controversial, particularly with potential meaning changes and I absolutely should have checked that it was supported by the ref, the revert was legitimate. I can only apologise for that and thank you for catching it: I am aggressively strict on BLPs, but this was an error - there's nothing else I can say on it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for your explanation/apology. As you didn't actually make any change to the existing clumsy wording, I rather assumed that you'd simply forgotten to include a source for the content you added. Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Amakuru

13. Just as a follow-up to question 12 above, and thanks for your honesty in admitting the error. But I find the edit you made to that article oddly specific, if the only rationale for it was gnomish tidying up of the language in the previous sentence. I can find no reference online to any divorce between Roger Johnson and his wife. Assuming that this isn't a personal or confidential question (in which case don't answer it), on what evidence did you write that he divorced *in 2015*?

A:

Additional question from Levivich

14. Will you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If so, under what criteria? If not, why not? Thanks.

A: I looked over the various criteria used by different Admins for recall, as well as the reasoning in other recent RfAs for not wanting to add themselves. I'm generally inclined to add myself to the list, though I would want to ask several others on the list what they think about pros and cons for their stated method. Lar's method, used by multiple others, sets it out in detail offers different routes that can be taken, vs more direct ones which, if met, go directly to either RfA or a resignation. My current inclination for the base method would be a method of "net" petitioners over a couple of weeks, then I'd go directly to RfA (or resign).

Additional question from Tryptofish

15. I raised a concern in the Neutral section, and it occurs to me that I ought to give you an opportunity to respond to what I said. I would find it helpful if, in your reply, you could also comment on whether you feel that there is any relationship between that incident and the possibility that WMF Trust & Safety might usurp civility enforcement from the community. Thanks.

A: I'm not sure whether this question refers to the WMF taking consideration of cases away from the community or the WMF providing the underlying rules used (a unified code of conduct).

On the premise of the former, which I think most likely, the WMF indicated they'd be inclined to act in such if communities weren't keeping up to basic standards and in cases of private submissions for harassment and similar.

In terms of basic standards being met, I don't think in this specific instance there's a link since, as you say, several Admins did disagree with me and did act on it as an attack page. But your concern is, completely rightly, with me - so cases where someone (and, potentially in the future, an Admin) feels that a case doesn't meet a fully actionable level, while the victim does.

Certainly if this was an ongoing issue then it could be, though I did hold the opinion I gave sincerely - obviously I can't see it now to see if that still holds up or would change with hindsight. One !voter below made a relevant piece of advice, to paraphrase, just because I wouldn't consider it an attack page if aimed against me, doesn't mean that others (like yourself) should need to put up with them. I'm not sure how much of the potential usurpation is based on rule levels, implementation etc, but I do know that it has the silver lining to being a big push to community to assess the handling of concerns like this - including myself. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from AmericanAir88

16 Hello NBB, I have always had a great experience working with you, especially at AfD. AfD closures are a key component of adminship and the ability to determine consensus is essential. Could you please explain your reasoning for "Keep" on AFD1, AFD2, and this nomination. I am curious on how you decided your votes. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A: So regarding AfD1 (Jipping), I added a source to defend a key point in the nomination, but wouldn't have been enough to defend it on notability grounds by itself. I did my own consideration of some of their publications in line with criterion 1 and the specific criterion notes (1), and came to a rough decision that it was just over the margin, but only just (hence the "weak"). I was unsure about criterion 7 so noted he might pass it but didn't factor into its weighting. I'm not a great fan of actually needing to use NACADEMIC#C1 - I feel it's a necessary notability criterion, but it has a lot of disputable points within it.

AfD2 - I'm afraid I don't recall enough about this article to be able to give the context and reasoning behind my !vote. I'm concerned about giving a retroactive reasoning for why I'd say something like this without knowing what I thought at the time.

Babina - for this one my reasoning actually altered somewhat as the AfD progressed, both as some potential sources were found and through some good discussion with one of the participants. I started with what I believed to be a reasonably comprehensive BEFORE check and couldn't find enough significant RS secondary content to warrant its retention under NFILM (or for that matter, GNG). While some sources were noted I felt that they didn't really cover the film itself in enough detail and were mainly about its creator - usually referred to as WP:INHERITED.

Another editor rightly pointed out that while INHERITED is usually accepted, it's still an essay, and there's another part of NFILM that writes in an exception (which is nothing odd - NMUSICIAN does the same, amongst others), but my interpretation of that was that following that criterion still didn't make sense to leave it as a free-standing article, though a !vote that came in very shortly before the close had a link to an article on the creator that had been created just before - so I'd have redirected if I'd had a chance to see it. So there was enough to require me to alter/tweak my submission reasoning but I didn't feel a straight Keep was sufficiently warranted (not that that would altered consensus in any way). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Barkeep49

17. What question would you like someone to ask you and what's your answer to it? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

18. What is the difference between and Indef block and a ban .Can a individual admin or arb ban a user ?

A: A block is the actual technical prevention of an individual being able to edit Wikipedia; a siteban is the prohibition made against an editor editing Wikipedia (TBANs, IBANs etc being more specific prohibitions). An indef block is one given without a specific end-date, but is instead open-ended - it can be appealed. Beyond the differences there, an indef block without a ban, or other specific conditions, could be appealed and considered (and unblocked if appropriate) by a single Admin

Neither individual admins or arbs can siteban users - the community and ARBCOM (as a whole) are the biggest sources of sitebans of enwiki users, but the WMF has their remit (global with one exception) as does the wider community on global bans (though that would only be an immediate substantive change to enwiki if they hadn't already been one of the required local bans), and Jimbo's. I suppose in theory it could be interpreted that a single admin who was a checkuser who identified and confirmed an example of WP:THREESTRIKES is sitebanning an individual, but that's a delegated act as it leads to the sockmaster being "effectively site banned by the Wikipedia community" - just actioned by the CU. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Interstellarity

19. Would you be interested in helping out at the Teahouse or the help desk? If so, how would you use the administrative tools to work in those areas?

A: Helping out at the Teahouse/Help desk is definitely worth doing and I do sometimes do so, but I often find that there isn't a pending backlog of questions when I look over the last few days worth. There are usually a couple of non-answered questions (particularly in Helpdesk) but are often on technical aspects that I don't feel adept to answer. The lack of backlog is a fantastic marker for the hosts - I'm not sure if it's just a sign of when I do my looking (around 6-9 BST) and I was able to broaden my checking I could help more. If I was going to use the administrative tools in either area they'd need to be in areas that I otherwise possess or will acquire experience in, so queries about things like REFUND, misplaced AIV concerns etc would be a logical starting area. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Robert McClenon

20. As an administrator, you will have the power, and occasionally the duty, to block users either for a time period or indefinitely. What would be your criteria for deciding that a user should be blocked either indefinitely or for a period of longer than one week? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A: The large majority of (non-soft) indef blocks are given to registered users who are purely vandals and/or sockpuppets. Both of those cases are relatively simple, once identification has been done, though there's some flexibility on the number of warnings/incidents I would need to show that the account is indeed a vandal account, e.g. an account that had a single edit that vandalised some text without aggravating factors I wouldn't indef. There are other clearcut examples like an editor making a threat of harm where an indef (not to mention a referral) would be obligatory.

So the consideration of length becomes trickier when it's not either a vandal-exclusive or clear-cut straight block.

The primary key point is that our blocks are designed to be preventative. So for me to make a long-term (indef or otherwise) block would need reasoning that convinced that not only had someone done something wrong, but a) Wikipedia risked further damage if a block wasn't made and b) a shorter-term block wouldn't suffice.

Four main things come to mind as broad aspects to consider, which should cover most cases:

1. Severity (both in type of problem and if it was a major/minor incident of that type)
2. Frequency
3. Perception of user
4. Block Evasion/Recidivism (the latter being re-offending after a block was lifted)

A single error would need to be very substantive (either brightline crossing or close) to warrant more than a week, whereas repeated incidents are worse than the sum of their parts because it suggests the user is not going to learn from their actions and stop. The perception of user is particularly key with relevance to how they've engaged about the issue - are they aware of its severity and problem? Are they engaging with steps to prevent it in the future, alternately, does their communication suggest issues will continue in the future? And finally, block evasion is a clear killer, but recidivism requires nuance: time since off-block, was the issue a similar type to previous ones, etc.

That's all with relevance to registered accounts. Even static IPs get reassigned and we are ever more on dynamic IPs. There's various things to consider here, quite well laid out by WP:IPBLENGTH but limiting time in order to avoid collateral damage is the key criterion. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Upsidedown Keyboard

21. If a contributor was to impersonate an Administrator, what would be the appropriate course of action?

A:I'm interpreting this as a user with an otherwise okay username who is otherwise impersonating an Admin (using an Admin infobox, telling others they're an admin etc). If it was a purely username issue, then it would be either under WP:MISLEADNAME, WP:SIGFORGE depending on style of impersonation, which depending on the nature of the issue would involve communication, waiting/checking context, RfC, reporting to to UAA, as appropriate.

TALKNO is pretty brief on the matter so I'd go as follows: firstly I'd have a look over their other edits and posts - the ANI/SPI discussions I found with "impersonation of an admin" as a claimed issue all had significant other infringements which led to them being blocked on those grounds. Slightly overlapping with this I'd do a check to see whether they were clearly acting in bad faith or whether AGF applied - such as if a new editor who had the infobox on their userpage but wasn't trying to force a discussion result "I'm an admin and I'll block you" (etc). I've not had involvement in handling an impersonation case, so emergencies notwithstanding, I'd prefer to ask a couple of more experienced editors/admins who I can discuss the best solution.

In the GF case I'd raise the issue and the confusion that could ensue on their Talk Page and ask if they can remove it themselves.

In a case where there was sufficient vandalism that it could legitimately fall under the AIV remit, I'd raise it there, with a note and diff on their impersonation.

In a clear bad faith case primarily based on the impersonation, it would need intervention both wherever the impersonation was occurring (such as notifying other participants that the individual is not an Admin), and depending on scale, user engagement and withdrawal of impersonation would either be handled by user warnings and talk page discussion or it would need to be taken to ANI. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Nosebagbear: Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Nosebagbear 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. Support Seen him around the place a lot, always helpful and seems to have clue. Surprised I'm first, guess everyone's at the screaming match next door.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

   zOMG you’re not an admin already? - meets my criteria, would be a net positive to the encyclopedia with a mop. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Moving to oppose. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Support. Just about the model candidate for admin, IMHO. Huge benefit to the project to make them an admin. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support I legitimately thought you were an administrator already. I'm happy to support and am looking forward to seeing you help the movement in an administrative capacity. Best, Vermont (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. Has been on my list of editors to investigate as possible admin candidates; glad to see they're here already and I'm going to be spared the trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

   The diffs Tony highlights below are quite concerning. Consider my support "qualified", if it matters; and Nosebagbear, I trust that if you receive the mop, you will take care to refresh your memory about relevant policies before taking any actions in areas you are unfamiliar with, especially but not exclusively with respect to blocking other editors. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

7. As nom Worm^TT(talk) 19:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Support With the level of maturity and the breadth of experience Nosebagbear has, I thought they were already an admin! So I'm very glad and excited to support them. I know they have what it takes, they have a clear need for the tools, and they are clearly qualified. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Support Level headed contributor who understands the project and will be an effective sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Support - I see nothing wrong with this user that makes me think that they would not be a good admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
11. Support net-positive to the project. Will do well with the tools. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
12. Support Could use the help at AIV and RFPP, and their OTRS work would would benefit from having the tools. ST47 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
13. Support No concerns.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

    Actually Tony’s oppose does give me a concern, but I’m staying here for now. I trust Nosebagbear will thoroughly familiarize themselves with the blocking policy because it’s pretty basic stuff that we don’t ban people for edit-warring. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

14. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
15. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
16. Support per Worm That Turned. Mkdw ^talk 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. Levelheaded editor. – Ammarpad (talk)
18. Strong support: that the user needs the tools for OTRS, and is trusted enough to have been granted OTRS permission, is enough of a reason for me to support. The thorough experience of the user in admin areas and the comments of those above is already enough for my support to be strong. — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
19. Support, good impressions so far--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
20. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
21. Support, I've seen them around at AfC, NPP, and OTRS, and have always been impressed with their contributions. No concerns. – bradv🍁 20:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
22. Support, seems clued in and hasn't done anything unconstructive. Please be restrained in use of the tools. You can speak your mind, but avoid punching down. That's my nutshell advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
23. Support per my past interactions with them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
24. Support Seems like a good candidate. No red flags. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
25. Support I've seen Nosebagbear around at AfD quite a bit, and I think he will be a net positive as an admin. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
26. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
27. Support precious sarcasm fair play --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
28. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
29. Support. No issues. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
30. Support – No concerns. – Levivich 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
31. Support - No evidence to suggest that they would abuse the trust of the community. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
32. Support - every contribution I've seen has been positive, I'd trust them with the mop. creffett (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

    Adding: I've seen TonyBallioni's comments, and while I agree there are issues, what I've seen of Nosebagbear is an editor who is willing to admit that they're wrong. That's more important to me than having every policy memorized. I would recommend NBB spend more time reading policy, but I stand by my original support. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

33. Support - Trustworthy person, no reason to oppose. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
34. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
35. Support - skilled and patient. User talk page archives are filled with courteous responses to all manner of new users, while also standing firmly to basic Wikipedia principles. Thanks for stepping up! MarginalCost (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
36. Support Always struck me as a good egg, makes helpful and clueful comments in discussions across the board. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
37. Support - I have noticed Nosebagbear around a lot. (A lot! They seem to be everywhere!) They are active in a wide variety of WP areas, seem well-versed in policy and interact well with editors through OTRS participation and the Help Desk. I believe Nosebagbear will do well as an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support, even though some opposers have clearly shown Nosebagbear is less than "well-versed" in all policy. However, I believe all administrators require some training on the job and I believe Nosebagbear to be the kind of editor who will take their critique on board, proceed with caution and ask for advice in areas with which they are less proficient. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

38. Support - I have no concerns and am willing to let them wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
39. Support I thought they were an admin. WP:NOBIGDEAL Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
40. Support, very good work all around the project. GAB^gab 00:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
41. Support Good candidate. I hope it pans out. scope_creep^Talk 00:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
42. Per nomination, answers to questions, and everyone above - can't think of anything else to add. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
43. Support WP:TTWOA. Clear need for the tools. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
44. Uhhh... what? I swore you were an admin already. Obvious support. Home Lander (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
45. Support No concerns raised in RfA by other users, nor in check of user's history. Very productive contributor. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
46. Support - how can anyone possibly resist seeing that user name with a turquoise highlighter around it? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
47. Support Good answer to question, good content work, and neither I nor anyone else so far has found any serious issues with his editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Re-affirming my support. I firmly disagree that knowing the checkuser policy is required for adminship, and he's shown no interest in being involved in edit warring, so I'm unconcerned by that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

48. Support - good answers to questions, impressive AFD work. I’m sure you’ll do very well. Good luck. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
49. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Support The reasons for the request are reasonable, and I couldn't find any reason to suspect they would abuse the tools or their position. — Ched (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    I'm going to have to withdraw my support here. The issues around Q12, BLP, + the fact that they work the help desk and could potentially influence others to induce errors with their BLP understanding, + lack of response to Q13, etc., and other issues brought up in the oppose section leave me feeling uncomfortable in supporting. I seriously doubt there's any ill intent, but as this seems likely to pass, I'd urge the candidate to go slowly. I won't go so far as to oppose, but as I've said, I simply can't support. — Ched (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

50. Support No issues or concerns that they will abuse tools. TurboSonic (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
51. Support Like a few others here, I thought the editor was already an admin. --Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
52. Support. Very impressive AfD record. His !votes almost always match the outcome, but not so often that you'd worry he's just following the crowd. Indeed, in the sample of discussions I looked at, Nosebagbear's comments were always thoughtful and detailed, and he regularly returns to engage in discussion and revise his opinion in light of other's arguments. Where his !vote and the outcome does differ, he shows a bias towards retaining content, which is always encouraging for someone wanting to work in deletion. I found three recent(ish) instances of articles he nominated being kept ([1][2][3]), but in each case he took the opposing arguments seriously and gave a considered response. In terms of closes, I'm seeing a little relist bias, but that's not uncommon with NACs, and I'm satisfied from his answers to my questions 6 and 7 that he has a reflective approach to closing. His work at AfC also shows patience, good communication skills, and empathy for novice editors and content creators. I'm very confident Nosebagbear will use the tools sensibly. – Joe (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
53. Support will be a good addition to the cleanup crew . FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 04:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
54. Support Seeing this RfA made me smile in an otherwise stressful time. You'll do a great job. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Reaffirm my support. I respect the opposes below, especially Tony's, and honestly thought for a while about whether to move to neutral because of it. However Nosebagbear is clueful and handles criticism well. I don't think they'll be perfect, but I do think they'll admit their mistakes and fix what needs fixing. Fundamentally, I don't believe they'll misuse the tools so I'm staying here. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

55. Support I am not seeing any red flags, has a clue, no evidence of being a jerk, happy to pile on Find bruce (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
56. Support Although I've had little interaction with the candidate, I have seen them around and noted their words seem well thought out. Some good indicators at a glance and there are no red flags. Kosack (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
57. Support I have come across this user a few times a the help desk where they have made intelligent and helpful comments. Their answers to questions are ideal. Good luck, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
58. —Kusma (t·c) 06:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
59. --JBL (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
60. Support - No brainer, seen at the Help Desk, always helpful. Will do great with elevated privileges. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
61. Support I know him through his contributions at the AfD. I trust their judgement and feel they will be a good admin. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
62. Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Support Candidate has good temperament and tenure and is an overall excellent editor. Based on some additional comments by other editors I'm temporarily moving to Neutral but will probably revert to Support at some point. Chetsford (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC); edited 04:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

63. Strong support No concerns whatsoever. Count me squarely in the, "I just assumed they were an admin already" camp. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
64. Support per WTT. Cursory review has turned up nothing besides what the nom describes. Magisch ^{talk to me} 08:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Weak support I am unimpressed by the content creation, but everything else seems in order. My view is that those that don't understand the difficulties of content creation (particularly in contentious areas) make poor admins, prone to make poor decisions when real content creators are involved. One reasonably-sized GA doesn't mean an editor will make a good admin. Will keep a close eye on this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC). Moving to neutral based on TonyBallioni's oppose and my existing concerns. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

65. Mild support The diff provided in Q12 gives me pause - my cursory Google search didn't point to sources for that addition. However, the nomination seems fine and the candidate seems to have a clue. (Also, Q9 is unnecessary.) Airbornemihir (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    I kinda like Q9b (props to Andrew Davidson) and its answer (props to the candidate.) I also feel more certain about my support !vote after reading the candidate's honest answer to Q12. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

66. Support: Seen "Nosebagbear" a couple of times in AFDs, always seem quite sensible in his/her interpretations of guidelines/policies. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
67. Support, easy decision. Will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
68. Support. I've been impressed with them in my interactions around the project and I'm impressed with the answers to the questions above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
69. Support Competent, well-intentioned, not a jerk, unlikely to abuse the tools. A comment about Q3 and Trypt’s current neutral: Like me you seem to be missing the gene that allows you to take personal attacks to heart, which is an excellent characteristic for an admin, but it doesn’t mean others should have to put up with them. --valereee (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support; the gaps in NBB's policy knowledge are a concern, but clearly demonstrated willingness to admit error/accept advice addresses those concerns for me. I believe that NBB, no matter how this turns out, will take these well-considered opposes by well-intentioned editors as very helpful clues about where their weaknesses are and how they can address them. --valereee (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

70. Support, always seemed to be on the mark with the contributions I've stumbled across. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
71. Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
72. Support. Need more admins. And bears. Haukur (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
73. Support following review. The opposes and neutrals do make me pause, but the ANI thread from six months ago looks like an opinion that turned out to be incorrect, while the Roger Johnson issue looks like a one-off error, assuming something was in a source when it wasn't. The issue was caught and Nosebagbear apologised for his mistake, which shows he's got the right temperament to be an admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
74. Yes. A thoughtful, reflective, polite contributor who appears to have the right approach. I looked at the concerns, but, like Ritchie, I see these as minor mistakes which are unlikely to be repeated. SilkTork (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. Every indication is that this editor will make good admin. In contrast to the one opposing vote, I find the answer to question 12 refreshing. We don't expect our admins to be perfect, but rather to acknowledge errors and attempt to not repeat them. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
76. Support Trustworthy editor and nom, good answers to questions, and I like what I've seen around here from the candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 13:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
77. Support Well-rounded, experienced, and trustworthy candidate; will contribute well to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
78. Support per their contributions, CLUE, and the answer to Q#12. (Please note this is not a pointed counter-vote to the (currently) lone opposition). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
79. Support . I communicate regularly with Nosebagbear and he is a pleasure to work with and fully competent to be accorded the bit. Q9 has nothing to do with RfA and is a time waster while Q12 is not, and should not be a deal breaker. Nobody is perfect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
80. Support. See no problem with this candidate. It is unlikely that they would misuse the admin tools. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
81. Support. Good track record of contributions. Deryck C. 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
82. Support good content creation, good advice at AFC helpdesk, good NAC closes, and valuable work in other areas, no problems at all, in full support Atlantic306 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
83. Support Seems to be a sensible person who will make a useful addition to the admin team. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
84. Support in a heartbeat. If I'd known this was happening, I probably would've offered to co-nominate. Great editor who will be a fine administrator! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
85. Support. Thank you for volunteering and stepping up to make Wikipedia better. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
86. Support --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
87. Support Helpful to other editors including me. Interstellarity (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
88. Support No concerns. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
89. Support - Excellent candidate, My only issues here are the tenure (would prefer more years under their belt) and the ANI comment but both aren't really a big deal atleast not that big of a deal to oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
90. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
91. Support - Strong candidate IMO and doubt very much this candidate will break the project. Give the mop!   Aloha27  talk  18:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
92. Support Based on the questions and answers I expect them to be a good, if not perfect, admin. At the least, I expect them to solve problems and avoid causing drama. What I have seen of Nosebagbear at AfD has been civil, though I can't recall if I have been at loggerheads or agreeing with them. Rockphed (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
93. Support - Seems like a net positive from where I'm standing. Satisfied with answers to questions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
94. Support - I usually don't participate in these as I generally don't have any idea who the nominee is.. this time, I have seen Nosebagbear around and I believe they would be a good admin. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
95. Support per questions and answers. ConstantPlancks (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
96. Support clean block log, 18 months activity (6 months longer than the de facto minimum for a new admin), and per above. ϢereSpielChequers

    Expanding - I have reviewed the Oppose section again. I could understand concern if a checkuser or one going for checkuser rights didn't know that checkusers won't link logged in and IP editors. I'm not concerned that an RFA applicant didn't know that, and I'm happy with the way that this RFA candidate recently learned that nuance of checkuser policy. ϢereSpielChequers 06:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

97. Support I thought that Nosebagbear already was an admin. I think they'll use the tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
98. Support As some of the opposes have noted they have been actively editing for less than the two years that I generally prefer. But they have well over the 10k edits I look for and I'm not seeing any other issues. Their record suggests plenty of clue and good will. And they check all the other boxes I typically look at. Looking forward to their joining the team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
99. Support - a good candidate for admin. JohnThorne (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
100. Support – the incident described in question 12 was an instance of poor judgment and has been acknowledged as such. It is nowhere near enough to disqualify a person for adminship. As for the TOOSOON supports, I appreciate that the community's standards have shifted somewhat since I was unanimously adminned after less than a year of registration, let alone active editing, but perhaps we'd have less of an admin shortage if we'd shit back a little. Steve Smith (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
101. Support - This is a cliche, I know, but I'm actually a little shocked that this person is not currently an admin. I have seen them around actively contributing and helping other users and I definitely see why they would be a good asset to the project if given the administrator user role. I reviewed the reasons for opposition and the questions and I didn't see anything that was too problematic or that would cause issues later on down the road. Definitely a good choice for a new admin. Michepman (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
102. Weak Support - the whole situation surrounding Question 12 is a bit concerning, but in all honesty the editor has apologized and admitted their mistake. Nothing else catches my attention, so my !vote lays here unless something truly concerning comes up. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
103. Support. Great candidate, outstanding editor. Will make an even better admin. -- œ^™ 04:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
104. Support. Seems fine to me. Deb (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
105. Support Meets my RFA criteria, the concerns from the small number of Opposers aren't significant enough for me. Iffy★Chat -- 09:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
106. Support - Net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
107. Support - Good track record and there is nothing to indicate that the user will misuse the tools. Some people claim that the user has too little experience (in terms of time active), but I politely disagree with this. William2001^(talk) 13:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
108. Let's see it happen. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
109. Support Looks good and likely to be a valuable fresh induction to the admin corps, N.J.A. | talk 15:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
110. Support - Some valid concerns raised below, but no indication of anything that couldn't be learned as an admin. Seems to have a good temperament for the role, and has a use for the tools. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
111. Support - I agree with Ajraddatz that several opposers brought up some concerns regarding experience that had me leaning against, but further study and thought brought me to the support side. As a former OTRS worker, I know what a commitment that is, and their good work across the board is impressive. And the temperament, as mentioned above, appears levelheaded. Thanks for the offer of service, and best wishes! Jusdafax (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
112. Support - I have read the Oppose comments. I disagree with those who think that content creation is an important precondition for adminship. I also disagree that being mistaken about the details of how severely users are sanctioned for various conduct violations is disqualifying, as long as there isn't a concern that the user will indef a user who should be blocked for a time. As to that concern, I will ask a question. In the meantime, support. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
113. Support – I can appreciate the content and the toosoon arguments, but (as Robert McClenon notes just above), I think that good adminship is more about some inherent behavioural qualities. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
114. Support I understand the concerns about length of service but also note that the candidate made 136 edits before shifting into high gear 18 months ago. I like their willingness to admit errors and learn from that. Otherwise well qualified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
115. Support. I started out in the Neutral section, saying that I hoped not to stay there too long, and I'm glad to move to support per the answer to Q15. I appreciate that reply very much. The reason that I brought up the WMF in that question is because of the claim by some WMF people that we at the English Wikipedia have become too accepting of incivility, making it an unwelcoming culture for some potential editors, and that the WMF staff might have to take over civility enforcement for us if we can't do it ourselves. Consequently, I hope that admins will show some sensitivity to incivility and some empathy for those on the receiving end, which is far preferable to a WMF takeover. In part, I wanted to see if the candidate would dig in and defend the earlier comment, or whether they would show a willingness to take others' opinions on board. I think the answer hit it out of the park. Thanks! That's the kind of attitude that I want to see in an admin. As for inexperience, I'll chalk up that earlier comment to that, but I don't see a present-day problem, and the candidate clearly does have plenty to offer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

     Following up, I want to acknowledge that the concerns raised by Tony and others are legitimate concerns. I am also, however, satisfied about the candidate's ability to acknowledge and learn from mistakes. So I've asked myself whether it would be better to ask for a second RfA in the future, or to go ahead now in the belief that whatever might be learned between between now and the next RfA has either already been learned during this one, or will be learned, with due caution, on the job. I've decided for the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

116. Support No temperament red flags, seems thoughtful, we need more admins. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
117. Support. Qualified, no obvious red flags, no big deal. Guy (help!) 22:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
118. Support - Great candidate. Opposes are pretty unfair. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
119. Support - I appreciate your willingness to admit and take responsibility for past mistakes.--agr (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
120. This is a little too soon, but it's not far off. I'm willing to take the punt that it is less risky for wikipedia for the candidate to spend a few months learning on the job than it is to reject this RfA and perhaps never see a renomination. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
121. Support. My interactions with this user have been positive. And while it's not exactly the same as your username, note that the coati is called the "nose bear". It's not a bear, of course, and it's entirely possible this was a mistranslation at the resort I was staying at. They did, for example, claim spider monkeys were 15 meters tall. --Yamla (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
122. Support I find the arguments about a lack of experience unconvincing. W42 02:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
123. Support Candidate is forthcoming about issues raised and takes responsibility accordingly. Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
124. Support. No lack of experience here. Sometimes veteran editors seem to forget how little time it takes to get a decent Wikipeducation. Not long. Nosebagbear is an excellent editor who will make an awesome admin! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 06:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
125. Support, have seen them around afd for quite some time, looks a sensible editor who will not abuse the tools. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
126. OK apparently 1.5 years is too little editing for the tools, alright. Let Wikipedia die a slow death if that's what you guys expect. feminist (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
127. Support. Good Q1. AfD stats are good. Some concerns raised by opposers require pause, but I consider them all mistakes that are not permanent irretrievable flaws. No concerns about trust or temperament. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
128. Support. I cannot find arguments about lack of experience and i read all of Question answer, i think he had RfA for Worthy.--Nahal^(T) 11:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
129. Snow support per username. Who could turn down a cute teddy we can blame for everything that goes wrong? Srsly answers to questions, esp ability to admit mistakes, nom by WTT, and record here an hhg2g convince me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC).
     
130. Support. Level-headed, and persuasive in their arguments. One of the few people that, on the rare occasion I'm on the other side of the fence, I stop to rethink my position and why. I would completely trust with the tools. Ifnord (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
131. Support No red flags. The opposes based on the candidate's only slightly imperfect knowledge of WP policy seem a bit extreme. Opposing a candidate due to only 1.5 years of activity is something I will never be able to support ... that's ages longer than a good candidate would need to get the lay of the land around here. Temperament or civility problems could be disqualifying, but none have been brought forward. Vadder (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
132. Support IMO, 1.5 years is plenty of experience. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
133. While acknowledging valid concerns expressed by Tony and others, adminship has always involved a fair amount of on-the-job training. Obviously you don't like to see a loose grasp of certain processes, but I feel the candidate has the good judgement to ease into the role, reviewing any yet-unstudied policy pages before acting and seeking second opinions where necessary. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
134. Support: would be a net positive; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
135. Support TonyBallioni's oppose is concerning, but worst case scenario is Nosebagbear imposes a bad block which is overturned later, and that's not bad enough for me to oppose. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
136. Support I'm confident that giving him the tools will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
137. Support I have noticed Nosebagbear around doing good things, and have no concerns. Some have said that he does not have enough mainspace experience. I think what really matters, as is true of any job, is having the potential to do well and having demonstrated a the disposition that is necessary to realize that potential. Juliancolton sums that up nicely above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
138. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
139. Support Tony has very valid points; so do some of the other opposes. I'll advise Nosebagbear to spruce up his command over policies, guidelines and implications. If you want advisory services, I'm always available. Most importantly, Nosebagbear won't undertake any negative actions and seems to be amenable to talking to more experienced people for support. They are trustworthy. I think that's more than enough at the moment. Lourdes 03:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
140. Support Struggled with this one for a bit. When I saw the RfA, my initial thought was a clear support based on how I've interacted with them in the past. After reading TonyBallioni's oppose, I nearly switched to oppose, then was going to talk myself into neutral, but I'm satisfied Nosebagbear will be a quality administrator, and the mistakes that have been brought up here so far can be remedied fairly easily. While I find Tony's oppose especially concerning, but I don't find any of the other opposes persuasive - the length of tenure's enough, the edits to mainspace are enough (especially for someone active at AfD), I'm not all that fussed about the relists that have been brought up. I think giving Nosebagbear the mop will be a clear net positive to the project. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
141. Support Diligent contributor in various areas; good judgment; good temperament; careful and will no doubt be careful in keeping up to date or refreshing memory as to policies and guidelines; co-operative; good answer to q15 as noted by Tryptofish; should do a little more content work but not a big drawback that would prevent support now in part because of AfD participation; will help in areas currently prone to backlogs; net positive; trustworthiness established. Donner60 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
142. Support, while several points made by opposers have some merit, none are a deal-breaker for me - I'm not seeing anything that is suggestive of future problematic tool-use. Likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
143. Slightly wobbly support. Tony's oppose did make me pause a long time over this, but I value more a candidate who regularly learns from their mistakes than one who can cite policy perfectly in every situation and I believe you have that. We will, of course, now blame you for everything that goes wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
144. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
145. Weak support I've seen Nosebagbear around, and didn't have any concerns when I first loaded this page. However, after reading the Q&A some concerns have been raised. TonyBallioni seems to sum up my concerns pretty well. Though, I'm still on the side of weak support. —comrade waddie96 ★ [ talk ] 16:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
146. Support - no concerns except he's a bit inclusionist. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
147. Support - Happy to support this candidate whose contributions I have found solid and helpful. SportingFlyer, supra, summed up my thought processes. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
148. weak support The issues raised in the oppose section were enough to get me to dig in a bit. I agree those *are* issues (as is Q12 and maybe Q13). But a random selection of edits made me believe that you are a solid editor who will likely make a good admin. Just be sure to take things slowly when it comes to blocks and the like. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
149. Support The AfC Help Desk can be absolute cesspool in which real new editors trying to contribute are outnumbered by people trying to create spam, promotional, and autobiographical articles. Any editor who can survive that environment without becoming jaded and unhelpful certainly has the temperament to be an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 14:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
150. Support I've been favorably impressed by NBB's overall conduct and work at en-wiki and OTRS. Most new admins do have somewhat of a learning curve as they acquire more experience. I know I did. The key is, do they have the requisite temperament and awareness of their own limitations to use the tools responsibly and without doing harm to the project? I believe NBB does, and so I hope to see him in the admin ranks.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
151. Support. The candidate has an appropriate temperament, and is responsive to feedback and constructive criticism. OTRS would benefit if the candidate were able to handle deleted content. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
152. Support. I have noticed and read Nosebagbear's contributions to many discussions, and have been consistently of the opinion that they have been reasonable and balanced in their arguments, and polite in their language. I expect them to do an acceptable job and not break anything irreparable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
153. Support trustworthy candidate. Polyamorph (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
154. Support: Clearly has his heart in the right place and seems reasonably capable. Should have more tools to make Wikipedia better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
155. Support Oppose arguments are not enough for me and, as I have been telling in the recent past in RFAs, Wikipedia is in bad need of fresh admins.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
156. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
157. Support I always thought they were a admin. Good candidate, no reason to oppose. Masum Reza^📞 01:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
158. Support- no concerns here. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
159. Support:A little concern over the lack of experience. However the candidate is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
160. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
161. Support more than qualified. I like the part where user admits to making a mistake. It's the ones that cannot admit a mistake, wheedle around a discussion about a mistake, and cannot utter the word "sorry" without choking that we must watch out for. On a fully off topic but not really remark, I am experiencing burnout. I see signs of burnout at a systemic level. We need more admins to carry the load.-- Deepfriedokra 17:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
162. Support Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
163. Support No problems supporting this fine candidate. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
164. Support I'm most familiar with their work at AfC - reviewing submitted drafts and answering questions at the AfC Help Desk - and at AfD. They're not soft on deletion, but have demonstrated a willingness to speak out against declines/rejections/deletions when, instead of being based on policy and guidelines, they are more a product of deletionist groupthink. While doing that, they remain civil, de-escalate conflict, and readily admit if they're wrong. These qualities would make them a fine addition to the admin corps. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
165. Support I have found this editor, in interactions mainly at AfD, thoughtful, respectful and encouraging. I have considered the Oppose votes, and I think that the candidate's readiness to admit mistakes and learn is a bigger positive than any concerns such mistakes might raise. I think they're exactly the kind of person we need as admins, and I wish them well as they take on admin responsibilities. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
166. Support Appears to be a net positive to the project for a position that's supposed to be no big deal, anyways. A trusted user, with no major concerns here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
167. Support Sufficient experience; net positive. schetm (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
168. Support NBB will do great with the mop. They will be a net positive to projects such as AfD. Editors such as Ritchie make a strong opinion for support as do my own interactions with NBB. His answer to my question 16 demonstrates a user who knows how to back their claim, but know when they are wrong. Arguments brought up from opposers such as Tony concern me and are valid, but I believe that NBB is a user who learns from their mistakes and can use that as a learning experience. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
169. Support mostly per Tryptofish. CThomas³ (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
170. Support per Worldbruce and the well detailed answers to some quite nasty questions. Minima© (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
171. I know nothing about this candidate and other than the incident referenced by TonyBallioni's oppose have AFAIK never interacted with them. This is purely to cancel out the "has only 5700 mainspace edits" oppose, which goes above and beyond even the most extreme inflation of RFA standards—we're selecting people to have a few extra permissions on a website, not recruiting Space Shuttle pilots here. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
172. Support. I have never personally interacted with the candidate, but I have encountered them numerous times in Articles for Deletion, Wikipedia-talk, etc. I don't believe the candidate will misuse the tools, so NBB has my support. Utopes (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
173. Support – Will be a net benefit. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - sorry but the actions related to Q12 and the response are concerning. If that hadn't been raised it would have been a clear support. GiantSnowman 11:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose having checked their Xtools edit count. Despite having registered in August 2012, they only really started editing in April 2018. Less than 1.5 years of active editing is too little experience for an admin in my opinion (BTW what's up with WP:SLEEPERs suddenly running for admin?) They have moderate experience at AN and ANI, mostly doing clerking type of edits and comments there. But their most edited article space talk pages (or the lack of) at Xtools is telling - they don't have experience with content disputes. --Pudeo (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose on a Too Soon basis. Pudeo is correct, serious WP participation started only in April 2018, so insufficient tenure for the toolbox at this time. I don't know that the pejorative word "sleeper" is really an appropriate word to use here as he does, plenty of people register an account and make a couple edits and then only later "discover" Wikipedia. It sometimes isn't instantaneous and the participation pattern has been solid since then. But there really does need to be a protracted record of positive participation. Give it another year. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose - on too soon grounds as per Pudeo and Carrite. Hlevy2 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per the learned opinion of my dear friend Puedo. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

   FYI, this is a pointy vote after an exchange on Gamaliel's talkpage. --Pudeo (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose as per Pudeo. The editing history does not support the request for adminship.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose Two reasons. Firstly overuse of sockpuppet investigation, in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TORPIG/Archive. Sockpuppet investigations are for very serious cases. Other cases are judged solely on behaviour pattern (f.x. how similar the edits are) (see checkuser policy and m:Privacy policy). Second, regarding deletions, I doubt this answer follows wp:rough conseus.--Snaevar (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose I was going to sit this out, I respect WTT and while my observations of the candidate gave me the impression they don't really understand much about policy, I was willing to let that slide as I didn't really think they'd be actively harmful to the project and a lot of admining can be learned on the job. The SPI Snaevar cited where they request CU to connect an account to an IP concerning, because this is pretty basic and I'd expect someone going for administrator to know this, especially as they'd already been told it in the past.
   This made me look further and I found this comment from earlier this month where they said that they thought most users were site banned for violating 3RR. This is the exact opposite of true: 3RR violations are usually 24 hour blocks with an immediate unblock on "I won't do it again". When queried on this by Iridescent their response was also concerning saying they were under the impression 3RR at AE can lead to site bans. AE admins cannot issue site bans under DS, and in fact, admins cannot ever in their individual capacity ban a user. Basically, we have two fairly simple policy mistakes in the last month: one on the blocking/banning policy, and one on the privacy policy. Both of those policies are things that I would expect any administrator to at least know the absolute basics of, so unfortunately, I can't support this candidate. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Tony and the general lack of experience. Nihlus 03:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Regretfully, I'm feeling WP:NOTQUITEYET at the moment, mainly per TonyBallioni. And thanks for the answer to my first question, I can see you clearly know what you're doing in the content creation department and many thanks for the well written articles you've created. I'm somewhat concerned about the insertion of the line about a BLP footballer divorcing his wife in 2015, since I can't see any evidence it's true... But perhaps your answer to my Q13 will clear that up. As Tony says above, though, I think you just need to spend more time familiarising yourself with the basic policies governing the administrative side of the project. CheckUser intricacies are one thing, but not knowing the difference between a siteban and a 3RR block is fairly fundamen really. You're clearly a very competent editor, who has the project's best interests at heart, and whether you pass this time or not you will definitely be a great admin one day. I would personally just suggest waiting a bit longer and contributing some more in all the admin areas as a nonadmin contributor until you have all the policies learned, at which time I will be happy to support. Best of luck!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose Sorry, not enough relevant experience yet, as evidenced in the comments above, which confirmed my own impression. -- Begoon 09:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose This candidate has only started seven articles and only has 38.2% of edits in main space. An administrator needs more experience building an encyclopedia. This candidate needs more experience - As Pudeo calls out, the candidate has only 1.5 years of active editing.. combine that with virtually no articles created, and basically 1/3rd main space participation means the candidate should get more main space experience. Lightburst (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

    Number 12 highlights one reason why an administrator needs much experience in the building in content creation. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Does Wikipedia have any guidelines regarding experiance for admins? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

    I am not aware of any guideline. Most editors have their own criteria. For me, the purpose of an administrator is to protect and assess content and protect content creators. Because of this I think an administrator should have experience creating content and working on content. This candidate does not pass my criteria. I fail to see why the candidate needs the tools, and as TonyB points out, the candidate's understanding of policy could mean the admin tools are not used properly. I am also troubled by how many administrators oppose this candidate. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

13. Oppose This is per TonyBallioni and Puedeo; the former especially, unfortunately, is effectively shorthand for StrongestPossibleStrictestSolidestOpposeEver. However, only at this juncture. On a lighter note, WP:NOTYET obviously applies. Good luck, ——SerialNumber54129 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose per WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:NOTQUITEYET as pointed out by above opposes. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 20:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose (moved from support) I’m usually all for giving benefit of the doubt for users that want to be admins, and I didn’t initially see any issues in my initial judgment of NBB’s contributions. However, TonyBallioni’s and Pudeo’s well-written rationales both give me cause for concern. I have no doubt that I would support NBB in a future RfA once they take the advice from other editors here, properly get themselves up to speed on WP:ARL, and get some more time and experience with the project. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
16. I'm sorry, but I don't think you are experienced enough at this time to be made an administrator. Salvio 07:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose per TonyBallioni. Praxidicae (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
18. Oppose I'm afraid, as per TonyBallioni. Though, like others above me, I ear toward WP:NOTQUITEYET and hope to see you again at some point in the future! Curt ^内蒙 18:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose, mostly per Tony. I'd encourage Nosebagbear to gain more experience and to become more familiar with the details of policies, guidelines, and procedures. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Tony, the editor's miniscule history around here and the actions brought up by Q12....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose, per GiantSnowman and TonyBallioni. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
22. oppose regretfully though. The candidate is on correct path, but I believe they need more experience. WP:NOTQUITEYET is applicable. Many editors get confused between a ban, and a block; the confusion is not a big issue for me in general. But when you are discussing about a policy involving them, then the confusion is not a good sign. Their this, and this comment confused me. Their misconception(?) that 3RR leads to a site ban (or even an indefinite block) is my biggest reason to oppose. Their other contribution is very good. Like Amakuru said, the candidate is very competent. I dont expect an editor to be prefect, and Mr. Know-it-all; adminship has a very big learning curve. But I still think candidate needs more experience. I will be more than happy to support them in an year or so. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Tony B. and GS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Tony Ballioni, Q12 and lack of general experience. Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
25. Oppose I'm troubled by the issues raised in Q12 and the lack of answer to the follow up question. Perhaps adminship is slightly too early, anyway. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 12:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
26. Regretfully, because I do think that if this were listed a few months from now I'd be firmly in the "S" section. I expect this Rfa to succeed, so this is probably merely a gesture. I sincerely hope that my concerns are ill-founded, and NBB is an outstanding admin. I must in good conscience place my name under the "O" section, though, due to general lack of experience and even moreso lack of mainspace experience. Please do take it slow at first if your Rfa succeeds, and read the administrator's reading list, and be prepared to listen and learn from more experienced admins. KillerChihuahua 12:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
27. Oppose, with regret. I think that 1.5 years of active editing can be perfectly sufficient before requesting adminship, with proper experience. However, the issues raised by Snaevar and TonyBallioni indicate the candidate's misunderstanding of some pretty basic policy issues for the moment, and that a bit more experience is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Mostly per Pudeo and TonyBallioni. This is obviously a well-intended candidate, but they really have minimal experience in dealing with content disputes, while seemingly are very interested in getting more involved in that area; reading through their notable but rather painful attempt at mediating in Talk:Mark Lindquist (which spilled into a regretfully inconclusive AN/I report over rather triviality) suggests to me that the candidate have difficulty in both critically assessing arguments and articulating their opinions in a precise and easily understandable manner to resolve disputes. Combined with basic policy misunderstandings pointed above, this is not someone I would like to have as an admin voice in any dispute, sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
29. Regretful oppose. Like others, I find the overly harsh misinterpretation of policy brought here by TonyBallioni, and the BLP-violating edit in Question 12, concerning enough to oppose. I did a search on the latter and found no basis in sourcing at all for the candidate's edit; the response to the question shows them not realizing the gravity of the change even when the issue was raised at RfA, and both of these errors are from the second week of last month. Since the candidate does not have extensive article-writing experience to offset these issues, I do not believe they should be entrusted with the buttons yet. As a further note, the first diff regarding 3RR that TonyBallioni cites is very hard to parse; if this RfA does succeed, I urge the candidate not only to look up policy and guidelines first (they change more often than one might think) but to write more simply and clearly when explaining things in disputes and on editors' talk pages, as one of the things admins have to do most often is explain the way we do things and what the problem is. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

    I'm supporting because I'm an optimist, though Yngvadottir makes a strong point that is worth your consideration. Explaining things is the most important thing an admin can do. You should explain at least 10 times as often as you have to regretfully block a user. Jehochman ^Talk 00:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

30. Oppose Lack of experience, which I think is the primary cause of the issues mentioned above. I have no prejudice towards a future rfa if this fails and good luck if this passes. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
31. Oppose - looking at all the questions and answers and history I can't support at this time. I have doubts about policy understanding and experience. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
32. Oppose Unfortunately, per Tony, some of the candidate’s impressions about how we operate are rather off-the-wall and just wrong. It’s clear they’re still learning about some of the more basic areas of adminship, which is fine, they’re just too new at this time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
33. Seems like someone who would be a good candidate eventually, but it's too early. This editor is still learning our policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
34. Oppose Since there are no way of removing administrators, I will not support any new ones. Creuzbourg (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

    That is untrue, as has been pointed out at your identical vote at GermanJoe's RfA - admins can be removed by the Arbitration Committee.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

    Also see the positive response to Q14 re WP:RECALL. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

    If we do not have any new admins, we will burn out the ones we have. In any event I agree with Pawnkingthree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

    If there truly was no way to remove administrators, this list of admins removed for cause would be much shorter if not empty. We also lose admins through inactivity and compromised accounts. ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

35. Oppose, regretfully, as I also share the view that the candidate is not there yet. Thank you Tony for giving a good example of this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
36. Oppose Not yet. I see a long list of administrators who oppose the advancement of this candidate with good reasons. There seems to be a lack of BLP experience, a lack of content creation, and admin Tony's point regarding the candidate's lack of experience or comprehension of policy. I see no reason why this candidate should have the tools, and plenty of reasons to pause. I am sure the candidate is a decent Wikipedian, however we should wait until they get more experience. WP:NORUSH does not only apply to content. Candidate also appears to refuse to answer question 13...why? Wm335td (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
37. Oppose Lack of experience, and Q12 is too concerning. BeingofUniverse (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
38. Oppose (changed from Neutral) with regret because of the mistake described in Q12 and of the lack of response to the follow-up Q13. Nosebagbear admitted that the mistake was a "major flaw", as indeed it was. To make such a flaw during regular editing is not good. To make it during the period of heightened awareness when preparing for an RfA indicates potential for disturbing mental lapses. Best not to be operating heavy machinery if that might happen again. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral pending answers to future questions from editors. Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen quite a bit of good from this candidate, and I probably won't stay here, but I do want to bring up a concern early in the RfA in case other editors have seen similar things. Earlier this year, the candidate stepped into an ANI discussion I started (and which did not involve him), and said this: [4]. In that thread, I had reported an attack page about me. Multiple other admins determined at the time that it was an attack page, and it was speedy deleted (and the other editor was later placed under a 1-way IBAN with me). But the candidate, in contrast, brushed off the complaint, as "not reach[ing] the level of an attack page". That gives me pause, because the comment wasn't helpful and we want admins to recognize these things for what they are. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving to Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Minimal content creation. Minimal evidence of BLP knowledge. Reasonable AfD record. Result: No strong opinion. Collect (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral (moved from Support) temporarily to allow time for additional questions to be answered before committing. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Neutral my concerns re: content creation and TonyBallioni's oppose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Neutral I see a lot of good things. The one-off BLP situation is concerning, and is a mistake, but everyone makes some mistakes. I don't think perfection is required to be an admin, and I think that the reaction to it is what matters here, and a sincere apology (like yours) is a good sign that you handle conflicts well and demonstrates accountability. However, I find the rationale behind TonyBallioni's oppose to be persuasive; not enough for me to oppose, but enough for me not to support. I wish you well, and if this RfA doesn't pass (which does not appear to be the case at this point in time anyways), I think a future one that addresses the concerns in the opposes will result in more supports. Clovermoss (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral I've come across Nosebagbear and I've seen good stuff but I can't for the life of me remember if there was anything that was problematic (which is annoying me). Reading through other comments and combining with my sometimes faulty memory I think I'm at WP:NOTQUITEYET. I'm not certain enough of my judgement to put in either a support or oppose. But wish Nosebagbear good luck.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral I think this is a reasonable candidate who would be a net positive, if this request succeeds, but I can't outright support, for reasons which I honestly can't quite pinpoint. Something just doesn't feel quite right. Strikerforce^Talk 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Neutral. This candidate seems to be a decent editor, but I am held back from supporting by the concerns raised in oppose votes above. I think some additional time as a regular editor would serve this editor better than immediate adminship. bd2412 T 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral rightnow per concerns of TonyB. Agree with Carrite that sleeper is a perjorative term at best. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral because of the mistake described in Q12. I am prepared to see the candidate succeed because of his open admission in response. However, I remain concerned because of the lack of response to the follow-up Q13 from Amakuru. Whether that statement and date were inserted in the BLP from personal knowledge, inaccurate research or a momentary brain glitch, it was not a good mistake to make, especially two weeks before his RfA. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Worm That Turned: please would you disclose the date that the candidate first contacted you about RfA? – Fayenatic London 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Fayenatic london, Middle of August - why? Worm^TT(talk) 19:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks. In that case I'm changing to Oppose. Nosebagbear admitted (Q12) that the mistake was a "major flaw", as indeed it was. To make such a flaw during regular editing is not good. To make it during the period of heightened awareness when preparing for an RfA indicates potential for disturbing mental lapses. – Fayenatic London 09:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• @Gamaliel: I'm sure that Nosebagbear has also stopped beating their wife, but since you clearly believe that to be within the realms of legitimate enquiry, you should probably be aware that it demonstrates an egregious failure of good judgment for one possessing advanced permissions. ——SerialNumber54129 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  The question you linked does not appear to presuppose anything. (Tho I agree with Jehochman about it.) --JBL (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am sorry you cannot see it. It is of no major consequence. ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Candidate needs to sign his acceptance after this line "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for this nomination, I accept. I have never edited for pay. I don't have any alternate accounts, and I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information."Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Pharaoh of the Wizards: You've said this on a couple RFAs now. I thought that Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information requirements applied only to arbitrators, CheckUsers, and oversighters? MarginalCost (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  In simple terms every candidate has to sign and accept the nomination for the RFA and the candidate did this after I pointed it out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That line about I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information was added by the candidate as he is a ORTS volunteer in this case.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• The topic of Fram should not come into anybody's RfA except Fram's. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 It's a shame someone had to bring it up especially in a question of all things. –Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 I agree. At best it's a frivolous question. Deb (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

---

1.5 years is quite a long time if you are active. I don't think Nosebagbear is the type to jump into Arbitration Enforcement on day one (and, just to be controversial, we have had such bad decisions there in the past, that it might not make things worse). Wikipedia is a complex ecosystem, not many people have a good overview of the whole thing, including experienced admins and functionaries. The important thing is to understand as best you can the parts you are involved with. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC).

---

Just pointing out that IMO Q14 by Levivich is inappropriate. It gets asked occasionally but as recall is a totally voluntary process, it should have no bearing on a user's suitability for adminship. History has shown that it's also a Catch22, there is no right answer. For further discussion (if necessary) please start a thread at WT:RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2019 (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.