Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sro23

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

Sro23

Final (277/4/0); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Sro23 (talk · contribs) – Hello community, I am Sro23 and you may know me from my work as a sockpuppet investigations clerk. For a while now, SPI has been suffering from severe backlogs and not enough admin clerks. I enjoy supporting the encyclopedia in a behind-the-scenes manner, and me having the tools would lessen the burden on other administrators. I have been asked to consider RfA before, and I hesitated because I had such little faith in myself. However, in the past half year or so, I believe I've improved as an editor, and as a result, my confidence has grown. Now, I feel I'm ready. Sro23 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2018 (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: Currently I feel I'm not much help when a case involves deleted evidence that I can't see; the ability to see deleted content would help me immensely at WP:SPI, as would the ability to merge SPI case histories when necessary, and the ability to block sockpuppets. I also intend to assist with the backlogs at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. My plan is to take things slow, and if I ever feel unsure, ask a more experienced admin for advice.

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

A: The majority of my article creations are humble stubs/start class, but I'm proud of every one and had fun writing them, too. If I had to pick a personal favorite of my contributions, it would probably have to be my work on Death Note (2017 film) back when it was still in draftspace. I think my most valuable contributions are my removals of BLP-violating content, which left alone could have the potential to cause real life harm. Knowing that I helped someone else gives me a sense of satisfaction.

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: Yes. I wonder if it's even possible to be an active editor without experiencing wikistress or finding yourself in a conflict at least once. Of course when emotions run high, it's difficult to think clearly and the temptation to revert instead of discuss arises. I will use the dispute I was in with another user at Talk:Lake Mungo (film) as an example. Even something as minor as an article's punctuation can lead to heated debate. Taking a "cool off" period of a couple of hours/days and then returning to the discussion when I'm calm has worked very well in the past. After all, there is no deadline. It was a little stressful when my edits were being challenged, but I decided to be receptive to what the other editor had to say. We were able to discuss the situation and came to an agreement.

---

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 Pharaoh of the Wizards

4. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation.

A: No, I have never been paid for my contributions or compensated in any way.

Additional question from Neovu79

5. Thank you for applying. I don't have too many criteria in what I look for in an admin, but if you were to be elected as an admin, would you support a system of reconfirmation of your admin privileges in order for you to remain an admin? Thanks again and good luck in your RfA.

A: Yes, if elected I would consider being open to recall. In my opinion the current desysoping process via Arbitration requests is time consuming and energy draining. If I ever started abusing the tools, I wouldn't want to put the community in that kind of position.

I think the question intended was whether you would be open to recall. Could you be more definite? Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify, if elected I would be open to recall. Sro23 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

6. What are your biggest weaknesses?

A: When I first started editing, I was a bit of an edit warrior. I feel I've matured since then. In addition, I have no FAs, GAs or DYKs to my name.

Additional question from Jbhunley

7. In April of last year the logs show you created the article Great W hore of Wikipedia. The log for that article indicates that it was deleted WP:CSD#G10; an attack page in violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. Can you please explain the circumstances of this?

A: Oh dear. It might look like I created that page but I didn't, I was reverting page-move vandalism. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sro23 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I don't know about the appropriateness of commenting here, but I would like to clear this up as I can see the deleted content. Sro is telling the truth, they did not create an attack page, they moved it from that title to LINK REDACTED, therefore resulting in a redirect, which they then nominated themselves as G3. The ed17 decided to delete it as G10, however. This is definitely not Sro committing vandalism, rather them reversing it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23 and TheSandDoctor: Thank you. I figured it was something like that. Jbh ^Talk 04:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that we were able to resolve that. The move details were revdel'd in order to not link it by the looks, which I just fudged up...--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Redacted link. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I cleaned up the wording on the question so someone just skimming the page will not get the wrong idea. Jbh ^Talk 04:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as the deleting admin I can triple(?) confirm that Sro was reverting a rash of targeted and nasty vandalism. They were not the vandal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hhkohh

If you’re admin,

8. Can you example 3 cases in WP:RPP or WP:AIV to show how you deal with it?

A: Any 3 cases? Alright.

• From WP:RPP: An editor requested temporary semi-protection of History of WWE due to "repetitive vandalism" from unregistered users. I would decline this request. Looking at the page history, I'm only seeing maybe one or two instances of vandalism in the past month. In my view, that doesn't warrant page protection.
• From WP:AIV: An editor reported 112.123.13.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalizing past the final warning. Indeed it seems the IP has been given sufficient warning but continued vandalism. I would block this IP temporarily, I believe 36 31 hours is the standard.
• Also from WP:AIV: An editor reported W EXPRESS TRAIN for vandalism. I checked the user's recent contributions but could find no vandalism, so I think that was a Huggle false positive. I would have to decline that report, since AIV is for obvious vandalism and spam.

9. What do you think of User talk:Sro23#Misuse of WP:Rollback Rights?

A: I don't know if I have much else to add that I haven't already said there. What happened was I thought I had hit the Twinkle rollback, which prompts you to leave an edit summary, but instead hit the regular rollback button without realizing. That wasn't the first, and it probably won't be the last fat-fingered misclick I'll make, though I'll continue to try my hardest to avoid these types of rollback misclicks in the future.

Additional questions from Thinker78

10. If an anonymous IP changes a section called "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" in an article (for example changing a section titled "History of the Czech Republic" to "History of Czechia"), would you issue a warning template and if so, which?

A: I'm sure a template exists for this very scenario, but I think I would first try leaving the IP a simple note explaining that Wikipedia uses the most widely accepted English name for geographic places according to reliable sources, and that the same name should be used consistently throughout the article.

11. If a user challenges your findings and tries to engage in a debate with you about an issue, would you answer him, when would you stop answering him, to what extent would you try to convince him—if at all—and would you admit you were wrong if he is able to prove it, even after a protracted discussion? (Note: substitute "him" with the custom pronoun.)

A: I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Do you mean any issue in general, or are you referring to my work as SPI clerk? I suppose I would stop answering the other user when they indicate they no longer want to participate in the discussion. If they have proof, then yes, I would admit I was in the wrong. I'm only human; I've been wrong before and will be wrong in the future, but I try to learn from my mistakes, and in a way I'm grateful for them because they help me to grow as an editor.

Additional question from Cryptic

12. What is your opinion on the misuse of the "optional" additional questions section at RFA as veiled demands that you endorse the questioners' minority wikipolitical positions?

A: I get that candidates are generally expected to answer every optional question, but that doesn't change the fact that the questions remain optional. In my opinion, these types of questions are disruptive and the best course of action is to just ignore them.

Additional questions from Deryck C.

13. Thanks for volunteering to pick up the mop for WP:SPI purposes. Since you will gain the permissions to block suspected sockpuppet accounts, will you please explain how you will weigh up behavioural evidence to decide whether to block a suspected sock?

A: In my opinion, it's important to use the block button with caution, given the potential for misuse. Before taking action, I carefully examine the behavioral evidence - most often this evidence is in the form of diffs provided by the SPI filer. Sometimes this involves considering technical evidence as well, and sometimes that's not necessary. As long as someone (be it the filer, a patrolling admin, or other user) presents compelling and persuasive evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, and no significant doubts are lingering, then I believe a block is warranted.

13b. Following up on this question, many SPIs involve linking the behaviour of a disruptive new or anon user to a previous blocked sock rather than the original banned user, on a case page where the original sockmaster has been banned a long time ago. Where would you draw the line between "this is most likely the banned user because it is similar enough to the previous suspected sock" and "this is so different from the original banned user that we should drop the case"?

A: Part of the reason why sockpuppetry is so disruptive is it divides a user's editing history among countless socks, versus just one account. Sometimes sockpuppeteers operate "good hand/bad hand" accounts, making things even more confusing. My point is, sockpuppet behavior and sockmaster behavior can vary, especially over time I would say. For example, let's say the original sockmaster demonstrated interest in mathematics-related articles. A confirmed sockpuppet of that user demonstrates not only an interest in mathematics, but also in WP:FASHION. Later on, a new editor appears showing an interest in fashion related pages that's almost identical to the last confirmed sock. That newest user has little connection to the original master, but there's a strong link to that last confirmed sock. Therefore, I wouldn't have to draw that line, since it's acceptable to show a connection between either the original sockmaster and the new suspected sock or a previously blocked sock and the new suspected sock.

Additional question from Ritchie333

14. I'll tell it like it is - you aren't the sort of candidate I'd leap up and down and shout "hell yeah I'll support", but you deserve a fair chance and a fair hearing. Back in February, I wrote "If you stood for RfA tomorrow, I’d probably abstain altogether or vote neutral - all I see in your mainspace contributions is “revert”, “revert”, “revert” which suggests you’re likely to be the sort of person who’ll get dragged to ANI a lot over questionable blocks. I suspect other voters would give you a hard time over this, too. In my experience, people who spend too much time at SPI get very short tempered, aggressive and ultimately retire (see Elockid and Mike V)." (FWIW I spot checked your mainspace contributions over the past few days and while they are a lot of reverts, they are reverts I would have done myself). How do you feel about that now, and how have you followed up with my further advice to give some more encyclopedia writing a go via a personal project such as User:Ritchie333/Genesis? You're going to be signing up for the "everyone calls you an asshole" side of adminship, and so you need to ask yourself if you really have a thick enough skin to be able to take that sort of abuse on a regular basis.

A: I understand where your concerns are coming from. Again, I intend to use the block button with caution. In terms of content creation, I've been working on a little personal project of my own: turn the redlinked recipients of the Newbery Medal and Caldecott Medal blue. Since February, I've started or helped expand Sheila Turnage, Matthew Cordell, Sophie Blackall, and Erin Entrada Kelly, in addition to other articles. It might not look like much, but for me, it's a challenging yet doable goal, and I'm so proud of how the articles turned out.

Additional questions from User:PCHS-NJROTC

15. What is your thoughts on {{schoolblock}}s, {{anonblock}}s, {{rangeblock}}s, and the collateral damage they can cause? Do you think placing long-term blocks (six months or more) on wide ranges or individual IPs representing thousands of users to stop sporadic editing tests or silly vandalism with no real pattern of abuse is appropriate on "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?

A:

16 Assume you are an administrator, the current date is May 23, 2016, and someone is asking you to help with a backlog at WP:AIV. Someone has reported this IP address for a vandalism spree. The report has been there for four hours, and no edits have been made from the IP since the last edit, which was someone claiming to be from the IT department to say that the person vandalizing was disciplined for it. How do you respond? This is not just a matter of "agree to not to block schools or get opposed" but rather an assessment of how you will analyze situations as an administrator, which is especially important at WP:SPI.

A: I would do nothing. Blocks should be preventative, and since the vandalism ceased four hours ago, there is no ongoing disruption, and no reason to block.

Additional question from Snow Rise

17 From reviewing your contributions and reading your responses the last couple of days, I would say you demonstrate a respectable capability with parsing analytical questions and communicating your reasoning, particularly where the inquiries at hand are predicated in well-established policy and process, but I would like to direct my first question toward somewhat more discretionary ground and matters which regard our community culture and interpersonal exchanges. So I would like to know, what are your feelings on blocks for incivility, where all other varieties of disruption are (for the moment at least) absent from the behaviour of the party in question? I know that is somewhat a broad query and may necessitate some form of an "it depends" response, but I'm just looking for a general sense on where you pivot between the restraint on tools encouraged for admins and the value of WP:CIV.

A: Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. You could be a wonderful content contributor, but if you consistently breach the civility policy by leaving insulting edit summaries or making personal attacks, then it's pretty difficult to work with you! At the same time, blocks should be preventative - essentially a last resort. Before jumping to a block, there needs to have been prior attempts at communication, so that there are no misunderstandings and the user is fully aware their comments are being perceived as uncivil. The best case scenario would be that all editors involved work the issue out on their own without need for admin intervention. Context should also be taken into account, as instances of "baiting" are quite common. In my opinion, a block for a one-off minor incident of incivility would be inappropriate. On the other hand, when there's a pattern of incivility with warnings ignored or dismissed, it can start to interfere with encyclopedia building. In that case, sanctions may be necessary.

18 [I'm reserving this real estate for a probable second question.]

Discussion

• Links for Sro23: Sro23 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sro23 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Trusted user, make sure you visit WP:AIV frequently since there is HUGE backlog everyday. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

   I don't agree with this. If you want a huge backlog, try RfCs wanting closure or copyvio investigations. (Or, outside of admin work, a 6 month wait on a GA review is not unusual). And often I find that reports for "vandalism" are actually other sorts of disruptive editing or WP:COMPETENCE issues. It's why I created User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism, for instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

   Ritchie333, I’m on the same page as you with this (see my !vote and the follow up on my talk). What puts me at strong support is that despite the lack of content creation, Sro23 seems to actually get why we’re here. If I thought he’d be handwringing about the public library sitting at AIV in need of multiple year block, you’d find me in the opposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Competent, experienced, and can be trusted with the tools. -- œ^™ 02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Seems like a solid candidate with an appropriate history. Monty₈₄₅ 03:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support and don't forget RFPP where there is also a permanent backlog. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Support one of the few editors who focuses on vandal fighting that I would trust with the block button. I’m probably the most lax admin when it comes to reviewing AIV because I often find the players of Huggle the video game more disruptive than the people they revert. Sro23 is one of the few editors in this area whom once I see a report, I instantly trust it. He’s familiar with LTAs and is an SPI clerk who works seamlessly with patrolling admins. I have no problem supporting this self-nom and would have gladly nom’d myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Per TonyBallioni, has always been actively fighting the good fight — IVORK _Discuss 03:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Between adminship really not being a big deal, and nothing sticking out that would make me believe that Sro23 would abuse the tools - I see no reason not to Support. SQL^{Query me!} 03:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
8. Support per SQL, and a clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
9. Support per TonyBallioni and SQL. Royalbroil 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
10. Support based on the candidate's SPI/LTA work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
11. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
12. Support--Superb SPI work and is highly clue-full cum productive.So, why not?∯WBG^converse 04:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
13. Obviously. Hhkohh (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
14. Support Hopefully this’ll get 300 supports, because you deserve that. Hell yes.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
15. Support Excellent work w/ SPI/LTA. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 04:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
16. Support. (edit conflict) I know that it is cliche, but my honest first reaction to seeing this was "I thought they were one already". Like SQL, I do not see any problem with this. Adminship isnt supposed to be a big deal and a need for the tools has been demonstrated. Good luck! :) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
17. Support - good work at SPI, where they will use the sysop bit well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
18. Support all of my observations of this editor around the project indicate they have sufficient clue to make good use of the tools. Their work at SPI shows good judgment, familiarity with our policies and a willingness to deal with sometimes sticky matters.
    I am a bit concerned about the lack of AfD participation and the comments on the ones I looked at are brief and do not give any insight into their understanding of our inclusion criteria. Since their focus seems to be SPI and anti-vandal work I do not see this as disqualifying nor do I see any indication they would go wading into an area they are unfamiliar with. Jbh ^Talk 04:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
19. Support – obvious need for the tools, good vandal/sock-fighter, no complaints or issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
20. Support I have come across this user many a time at SPI and admired their work. I was thinking just the other day that they should be an administrator.--5 albert square (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
21. Stephen 04:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
22. Support Yeoman work as SPI clerk, all my interactions have been positive; if this is a desired promotion, great. TonyBallioni & Jbh summed up my feelings well. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
23. Support Very deserving of the tools. -- Dolotta (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
24. Support I can't recall sharing a workspace with this editor, so I am basing my support primarily upon the answers to the inquiries above, a shallow review of editorial history, and the general sense of collegial support I am seeing from others who are commenting as to the candidate's work in quasi-administrative areas to date. Overall, I see enough positive indications to be comfortable supporting, especially as Sro23 seems keen to parley their previous experience at SPI into easing the backlog there. Best of luck with the mop. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
25. Support: Sro23's work here is not exactly multi-dimensional, but they are extremely talented, skilled and experienced in what they do (dealing with SPI and LTA cases) with minimal drama. Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Alex Shih: Do you have the link that this conversation was about? I'm curious, and given everyone's response, I imagine it would help Sro's case. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Amorymeltzer: The conversation was about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan/Archive, in which the sockmaster has disruptively requested global rename for their sock accounts over the years to make it extremely difficult to find the oldest account, unless if you are able to see the deleted contributions. Alex Shih (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    Perfect, thanks. Good example of 1. humility and willingness to listen to others and admit mistakes; and 2. where they'd find the toolset useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

26. Support About time. Widr (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
27. Support: This is so overdue. I have had many dealings with Sro23 over the years, and they have always been productive and amicable. --Ebyabe (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
28. Support - Experienced and trustworthy. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
29. Strong Support - I am very familiar with Sro23's work. We have crossed paths many times (sometimes the same LTA goes for both of us!) and I am very confident in their ability to use the tools wisely. -- Dane ^talk 05:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
30. Support The candidate has rare and exceptional record in dealing with LTAs and SPI cases. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
31. Support - As Kurtis just wrote: experienced and trustworthy. Great work in some maintenance/administrative areas. Good demeanor. The backlog at AIV is very real right now, and has been over the last several nights (US time). Sro23 can be counted on to handle matters in that area and in SPI. I think he would proceed carefully and do well as an administrator over all Donner60 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
32. Support obviously – hopefully you'll be the one dealing with requested admin actions from me, Sro23, after this is all over Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
33. support I would trust Sro23 with the tools and we need help at SPI and AIV. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
34. Yes. Is doing almost-admin work well, and I see no behavioral issues. Works on content. (I'm not an FA-thumper, and am more of a stub-to-B editor myself.) Not concerned about lack of a huge AfD record, because deletion is not all that admins do, and this candidate already has a clear path toward other admin work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
35. Support Zarasophos (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
36. (edit conflict × 2) Support. Trusted user whose work at SPI shows careful approach to complicated matters. No real deletion-related work to judge from (the few speedy requests they logged are mostly correct, minor problems such as using A1 instead of A3 or A10'ing instead of redirecting notwithstanding) but I'm assuming that they will apply the same kind of careful approach to these areas if and when the candidate decides to venture there. Regards SoWhy 06:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
37. Support way overdue, clearly qualified and has clue - TNT ^💖 06:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
38. Support This user is unequivocally qualified for adminship and demonstrates an immediate need for the tools - happy to support! Zingarese (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
39. Support I don't spend a lot of time at SPI but, on the occasion I have had to report one, it's usually terminally slow due to the volume of work the faculty have there. Adding another admin clerk can only be a good thing and the candidate seems more than qualified to take on the role. Chetsford (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
40. Support Maybe limited knowledge in certain areas but to me that's not of the slightest importance, as long as the candidate is a net benefit in the areas he concentrates on. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
41. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
42. Support - Was glad to meet Sro23 on a number of occasions at RPP and, if I'm not mistaken, at SPI. Will be an asset, and will hopefully help clearing the backlog at AIV and 3RR. - DVdm (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
43. Support. I'm not seeing some of the things we usually ask candidates to have, but anyone who lasts a significant period clerking can be trusted with the tools. Take care when expanding into other areas, and you should be fine. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
44. Support. Absolutely, strong SPI work and experience in administrative areas. Would clearly be a net positive to the project. Mz7 (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
45. Support. This is one of those "gee, I thought he/she already was... " candidates. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
46. Support Industrious and trustworthy. He would be a good admin. scope_creep (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
47. Support. Full support. Informed user , will benefit from having the admin tools. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
48. Support Hell yes. Handles himself more than competently at SPI, perfectly capable of using a mop with sufficient discernment. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
49. Support - User shows rationale for wanting the tools (That make sense, and clearly WOULD help with his work.) Despite not having any GAs, etc. The user works well with SPI, which is very much a positive to our system. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
50. Support. The editor whose username is Z0 07:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
51. Support Yep. talk to !dave 07:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
52. Support -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
53. Support – Solid work and good communicator. — JFG ^talk 07:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
54. Support. Easy support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
55. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
56. Support, absolutely. Fish+Karate 09:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
57. —Kusma (t·c) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
58. Support - clear net positive. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
59. Support, a trusted and constructive editor. Already some experience in maintenance-related areas. The many positive comments about valuable SPI contributions are also a strong argument for this candidate. No concerns. GermanJoe (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
60. Support. No hesitation - pretty much as per everyone above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
61. Support Excellent self-nom. No concerns re. content-creation; even if they hadn't written so much as a line, this is one of the (very) few cases where they should still sail through RfA candidature: CLUE + NEED = unopposed. SPI is one of the technical areas where expertise, rather than a FA, is required. The candidate clearly has that expertise already, so the mop will enable them to do the work they currently have to hand over.
    They were probably ready for this a few months ago; the fact that they chose to wait further evidences a careful, thoughtful approach that is a quality of our best admins. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
62. Support. Solid and diligent work. Lots of clue. Sorely needed as an admin. Favonian (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
63. Support Having only recently had any forays onto SPI I am now far more aware of two things: its complexity (even just for the users) and its backlog. Having another admin who has already demonstrated their competence in the area, without any unidentified negatives raised yet, can only be a positive. I generally have a much lower creation bar than almost anyone else, but specific expertise seems to have been fairly freely accepted in any case. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
64. Support I had half a plan to nominate Sro before I went inactive for most of the past year. Easy support! Sam Walton (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
65. Support I've seen them around, and have been impressed with their dedication at SPI. I spot-checked their CSDs, AfD comments, and contributions to ANI, and I found nothing of concern. No hesitations here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
66. Support – this is the one I've been waiting for. I've been very impressed by how coolheadedly Sro has dealt with all the grief that LTAs have given them and their tenure at SPI. I don't usually believe that any user has a need for admin tools, but if I was to think of a user who needs admin tools the most, it's Sro. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 10:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
67. Support SPI needs all the help it can get. FITINDIA 10:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
68. Support Clueful editor, clear net-positive. Great contributions for years, an absolute beast at AIV, and a fabulous SPI clerk (for a quick example, see this convo). SPI could always use extra help and good clerks are very valuable. I found the toolset quite helpful when clerking, and I think the project would benefit greatly by Sro23 having the mop. Has a good attitude when interacting with other editors and seemingly on editing in general. I appreciate the cajones in self-nominating when there are multiple extant offers of a nomination on their talkpage. Wish they wore the fez, though! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
69. Support Has a clue, is very knowledgable, helped me out several times when I was a new editor. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
70. Support. — sparklism ^hey! 11:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
71. Support - worthy of the mop. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
72. Support Shows every quality of an admin; seems to have a good to excellent knowledge of the policies. IWI (chat) 11:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
73. Support Has been working with the project's best interests at heart and shows no signs of going rogue and possibly abusing the tools. Loopy30 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
74. Support - An extremely easy choice to trust with the tools. Glad he came forward to retrieve them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
75. Yes, it's about time. Abundance of clue and clear need for the tools. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
76. Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. Sro23 has a long of making meaningful contributions. I also like your answer to Cryptic's question, regardless if a person's views are in the minority or in the majority, or whatever they may be. You'll need that type of thick skin and empathy in the coming days. Especially when you hit the delete button on work that some may or may not have spent hours working on. Best of luck to you! :) Neovu79 (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
77. Support : Great editor , should be given the mop . Kpgjhpjm 11:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
78. Support Trusted and exceptionally competent. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
79. Support. Highly qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
80. Support of the highest order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
81. Support. Long time trusted and productive editor. Active in areas that are understaffed. Kuru (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
82. Support. Work history is the very definition of WikiGnome. Would be a good addition to adminship. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
83. Support. I don't believe I have been aware of this editor before, but I like the answers above. - Donald Albury 12:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
84. Support. Meets my RfA criteria. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
85. Support Clear net positive and good work in SPI.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
86. Support. Finally. Hard-working, smart, modest, and easy to work with. Invaluable at SPI. The clincher is of course their username: three letters followed by "23".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
87. Support. The first thing I thought when I saw this RFA was "Oh good". I love the answer to question 10a. Also, per Bbb23's perceptive analysis. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
88. -- Nick (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
89. Support - Sro23 has done great work on the anti-vandalism and sock puppetry fronts. Every indication is that they will make a fine admin. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
90. Support - Good work and an asset to the community. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
91. Support - not much to add other than what TonyBallioni and SerialNumber54129 stated. A very clear need for the tools, and whenever I see them around I appreciate what they add around here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
92. Strong support - obvious need for the tools, asset to the project, I see no issues whatsoever. Home Lander (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
93. Support - I remember when Sro23 started as an SPI clerk and have regularly seen their action there since (unfortunately in a way, since SPI is a solution to a problem). That is what I consider an administration area among others where I've also seen Sro23. —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
94. Support - already-trusted user who does great work at SPI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
95. Support per Q14, particularly turning around Erin Entrada Kelly from a failed AfC submission to something that can develop in mainspace easily. That sort of work, when combined with the above comments, puts me clearly in the "yes please" camp. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
96. Support - No issues. Deb (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
97. Support Wow, long overdue! I was convinced Sro23 didn't ever want to be an admin. I'm glad you changed your mind :) Sro23 is highly trusted and would make very good use of the tools. No hesitation in supporting — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
98. Support Only if you keep working on those author articles . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
99. (edit conflict) Support: Sro23 has been a big help with the whole Orchomen sock ordeal. In fact, Sro is still a big help. Orchomen just hasn't been bothering me and the others he was bothering regularly last year and late 2016. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
100. Support. Dedicated work to SPI where they have proved to be a valuable asset. Will be able to do more with the tools.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
101. Support. I see no reason not to enable the tools that will be useful in Sro23's chosen work. I don't claim to know the candidate, but they are clearly trusted by a lot of people who I trust, so good enough for me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
102. Support. Yintan  16:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
103. Pile-on Support Excellent editor, highly competent with tons of clue. No red or yellow flags to be found. We need more RfA candidates like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
104. Support Candidate will become even a better asset to the project if they get the tools. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
105. Support. SPI is important work and the tools will obviously help the candidate in this work. No flags that I can see. --Mark Ironie (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
106. Support I have seen the contribution Sro23 gives to the SPI process, this user with admin tools would benefit Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
107. Support All looks good. Background is somewhat specialized but we need to acknowledge specialization of admins anyway. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
108. Support Obviously he is committed to Wikipedia, and has a clear understanding of its policies. SPI needs him! Rowan Forest (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
109. Support bonne chance.--Mona778 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
110. Support – Sro23's hard work at SPI has demonstrated that they will do a great job with the mop laundry basket . –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
111. Support A huge net positive for the project. Sario528 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
112. Support good record, no problems at all, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
113. Support Sure. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
114. 20 Mule Team Support Sro's tireless work on SPI's is but one facet of his value to the project. The mop and bucket will only increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
115. Support good track record, mature approach to problematic editors, looks like he will make an excellent admin active in the SPI area. --Tom (LT) (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
116. Support Clearly qualified, already working in admin areas anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
117. Support Good answers. Thank you for assuming the responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
118. Support Seems to be an ideal admin. Daask (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
119. Support - I assist him with SPI cases frequently by pulling the trigger as an admin when he could just do this himself, and I can attest that he knows what he's doing. Less work for me? Cool! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
120. Support . Doesn't check all my boxes but I'm as fully entitled to ignore my rules as the candidate should be fully entitled to the tools - especially for SPI work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
121. Support, and very glad to see the level of support you are getting! You have always struck me as someone who does good work, really needs the tools, and can be trusted with them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
122. Support: a very productive editor with no past conflicts that cause worry, and a clear reason for needing the admin tools. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
123. No problems. J947 ^(c), at 19:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
124. Support. Sro23 and I have run into each other a ton on music articles, film articles, and with sockpuppet investigations. Solid citizen, worthy of the bit. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
125. H23lls yes - I did not read the nomination statement nor the questions, they would not influence my opinion. Nearly every sockpuppet investigation held up for admin action has been actioned up to that point by Sro23 and is merely waiting for someone with access to a button to push it, and each time I come across one I wonder (sometimes visibly) why Sro23 is not an admin yet to push those buttons themselves. They are a thoughtful and cautious clerk, and I expect their temperament to serve them well with the sysop tools in other areas, should they choose to branch out. But notwithstanding any of the above, SPI is consistently our most backlogged admin process, and having even one more active admin clerk there is a net positive for the project, even if they don't do anything else ever. Demonstrated need, and all that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
126. Support. The user has been extremely productive and very fair at SPI. Sro23 can definitely be trusted with admin tools and I'm happy to see this user's RfA. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
127. Support I don't believe we've ever crossed paths, apart from fighting vandals at the same time. A quick poke around no worries at all. All the best, just don't get buried in the snow! KylieTastic (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
128. Support Definitely! Need more reliable admins working on behind the scenes jobs! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
129. Support it’s about time. :-) Katie^talk 19:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
130. Support I have only seen sensible edits from Sro23. Along with his experience at WP:SPI, I am pretty confident they will make a good admin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
131. Support No issues, plus wants to work in a specialized area. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
132. Support not familiar with editor but think it'll be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
133. Support I think it'll be net positive and I am glad there is recent experience with article creation. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
134. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
135. Support Blah blah content creation — don’t care. Sro23 is a trusted, thoughtful user that is a clear net-positive to the project. They will be even more effective with the tools. —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

     "Blah blah content creation — don’t care." What a stupid comment. I'll tell you why you should care, without an understanding of how the encycylopedia gets written you can't tell the difference between vandalism, a serial sockfarm, a newbie struggling around, and a cocky individual trying their hand at writing content in a not-so-serious manner, and end up pissing off a lorry load of people. There's more reading here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

136. Strong Support - I couldn't ask for a more perfect answer to question 16, I am familiar with you from WP:SPI and from encountering you when I was doing RC Patrol, and your judgement has been sound in all of my encounters with you. As others have stated, I was rather surprised to learn that you are not already an admin. There are a couple of issues, like the lack of an answer to 15 (although your answer to 16 pretty much covers it), and a lack of a signature on all of the question answers (not a big deal at all really, but seeing "unsigned comment by..." after the candidate's comment is rather odd), but if that's the worst problems I can come up with, there is a good reason why you have no opposes so far. Good luck! PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

     I can't see what happened there, but it's unconventional for RfA questions and responses to be signed in the first place. You can see that except for Q7 most of the Q&A threads here follow that convention. This instance seems like a SineBot error (deciding to sign a comment that didn't need signing) rather than an error by the candidate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

     You're right, never mind. Slap me with a WP:TROUT. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

     Also, SineBot only signs posts automatically for editors with less than 800 edits; beyond that you need to opt-in and say you want to be still reminded on the occasions you do accidentally forget to sign. I'd say it's a good sign (pun intended) myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

     What threw me off is that the tag was not placed by SineBot. It was placed by an editor, as you can see in the page history. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

     Ah I see. Well then, courtesy ping TheSandDoctor, and I'll leave it at that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

     Thanks for the ping Ivanvector, I put it there to disambiguate my response and to further distinguish between it and their answer as to avoid any possible confusion. After I increased the indent, I guess it wasn't really needed. (cc Ritchie333, PCHS-NJROTC) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

137. Support How is Sro23 not an admin yet??? HOW?!?! VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
138. Support I've had nothing but positive interactions with Sro23 at SPI, this is a no brainer for me. Would be happy to see a fellow clerk promoted, since we could definitely use more admins at SPI. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
139. Support. I've been watching this since there were less than 15 votes sometime late last night. I'll finally hop on the bandwagon for basically the same reason as Pbsouthwood. I'm not familiar with the candidate (I may have seen his work at SPI a couple of times, but nothing striking enough for me to recall), yet I respect and trust the judgements of a whole bunch of people who have given this very strong support, TonyBallioni in particular. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
140. Support I think this editor could be a great admin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
141. Support of the very strong variety. I have seen Sro23 at SPI and they do a stellar job there -this is a sensible user with a solid grasp of policy and a lot of experience. Giving Sro the tools would be a big benefit for Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 22:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
142. Support - Saying he and Bbb23 keep SPI running would only be a bit of an overstatement. He needs the tools and hasn't shown he cannot handle them. Therefore, he should have them. John from Idegon (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
143. Support. Clear need for the tools, lots of prior experience, seems like a sensible chap. – Joe (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
144. Support Very clueful editor who is well respected by the regulars at SPI where they intend to work. A clear net positive for the project. Ajpolino (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
145. Support Decidedly competent and helpful. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
146. Support. Absolutely no evidence put forth why not. Ifnord (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
147. Support has a clue, no evidence of being a jerk & apparently enjoys playing whack-a-mole. Find bruce (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
148. Support My interactions with Sro23 have been very positive. Super competent editor who needs the tools to be more effective in his volunteer duties. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
149. Support No reason to doubt the trust of this user with admin tools.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
150. Support, since SPI needs administrative help. Miniapolis 23:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
151. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
152. Support - I hope you don't end up regretting it, but I'm glad to provide the badly needed !vote that will put you over the top! <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
153. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
154. Absolutely, yes. — 🦊 01:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
155. Support - Fantastic resume from what I gather. No issues that I can think of and the editor seems ready to step into the role as an admin.-White Shadows ^{New and improved!} 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
156. Support - seems well versed with SPI work, a much needed asset to the admin corps. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
157. Support. SPI needs more admin clerks, and Sro23 is an excellent clerk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
158. Support generally I like to see more quality content creation than this, but Sro23 shows a clue at AfD and works at SPI, so I think they can be trusted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
159. Support as per everyone above me - If there was ever the need for the tools this is it!, Easy support by a long mile. –Davey2010^Talk 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
160. Support. SPI without vision is a tough row to hoe. Glrx (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
161. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
162. Support. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
163. Support No issues and good answers Froswo (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
164. Support Clear need of admin tools. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
165. Support. No concerns. I’ve suggested he run multiple times in the past. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
166. Support. Reading the questions, answers and comments, I believe he will make a good admin.Conlinp (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
167. Support per below and answers to question 13. Some of his comments on SPIs[1][2] were really good and I hope he continues the good work. Lorstaking (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
168. Support. Why not?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
169. Support. No issues, will be a welcome addition to the mop and bucket brigade. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
170. Support I've seen this user do good work at SPI and believe that becoming an admin will benefit them greatly there. Aspening (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
171. Support Why not? SPI could probably use more clerks. Also, as others have mentioned, be sure to also check WP:AIV, which is also a rather backlogged page. SemiHypercube (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

     Jeez, asserting the same thing over and over again does not make it true, no matter how much Donald Trump hopes you'll fall for it. I looked at AIV now; there were two outstanding reports, both of which I closed as "not vandalism" as I could assume good faith on a sample of edits from each. Took me all of 30 seconds. I've spent longer writing this comment than clearing this non-existent "backlog" at AIV. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

     Yeah I'm not sure what's with the AIV comments either - Every adminny area gets backlogged from time to time .... SPI is for more important than some poxy backlog. –Davey2010^Talk 16:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

     Yes, AIV does frequently become backlogged, no matter how much Ritchie333 hopes you won't think so. However, since there is no shortage of admins who like to patrol AIV, it doesn't stay backlogged for long, so he's mostly correct. SPI, on the other hand, is perennially backlogged, so it wouldn't bother me if Sro23 never worked at AIV. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

172. Strong Support - I have seen Sro23 around quite a lot helping to fight vandalism, and I think he is more than ready to take on the admin tools. Good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
173. Support per TonyBallioni. Nomader (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
174. support why not? Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
175. Support. I can't find any red flags (or even vaguely rosy ones). I hope you find time to help at AIV and RPP once in a while. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
176. Support Having a few extra buttons will make this super helpful editor be even more helpful. It's a win/win for all.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
177. Support: Excellent candidate that will do a great job with the mop. — MRD2014 ^Talk 17:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
178. Support Per Mr. Chan below, it is clear we need more admins that can deal with SPI. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
179. Support - Seems to be a sensible and level-headed individual who would do useful work with the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
180. Support I don't have any reservations about this. ~Awilley (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
181. Support. My first thought on seeing the RfA was "he is not an admin?".Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
182. Support. Count me among those who though he already was a very deserving one. oknazevad (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
183. Strong Support: I'm happy to report that I can find no red flags at all that would potentially imperil this request: Sro23 has a clear and a demonstrable track record of maturity and experience, is exceptionally civil and open to recall if his behaviour proves wanting, and has (and this is really the kicker) the near-unanimous trust and support of the community as an SPI clerk and here (are you taking any students, by the by?). Anyway, I don't mean to join the chorus, but please don't forget to look into the problem areas (especially vandalism). Good luck! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
184. Support: more admins are needed for SPI; thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
185. Support Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
186. Support per TonyBallioni. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
187. Support SPI work is essential. It is not my bailiwick, but all the evidence shows that this editor is highly skilled at it, has a clear need for the tools, and will use the tools properly and productively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
188. Support Nothing else needs to be said really. Will be very useful at SPI. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
189. Support largely based on previous observations of the editor's work. --joe decker^talk 22:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
190. Support. I realize this is just piling on and is clearly not needed, but I like level-headed conscientious people like this nominee and am delighted when they join the admin corps. – Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
191. Support No problems here. A good candidate for a nice new mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
192. Support reliable and competent. Making Sro23 an admin will clearly benefit Wikipedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
193. Support, no question. If I hadn't realised through SPI involvement that Sro23 wasn't already an admin, this would have been one of those cases where I just assumed they were. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
194. Support, precious "trying to keep articles free from misinformation" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
195. Support No concerns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
196. Support, Trusted user -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
197. Support, favourable impression from previous encounters. Cabayi (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
198. Support, great answers, no history of major issues. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
199. Support, per numerous testimonials above.--agr (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
200. Support candidate has proven to be a mature, level-headed person who will put the admin tools to the proper use. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
201. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
202. Support, level-headed and honest answers to questions posed. Masonpatriot (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
203. Support, I've run into Sro23 in the past - I believe they'll make a fine admin. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
204. Support Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
205. Support, experienced and trusted user. --B dash (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
206. Support. I've never come across the candidate; but everything I've read above (and below) shows that they know that what they're doing, have been doing it well, and will do it even better with the admin tools. Maproom (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
207. Support Absolutely. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Sro23 was already an admin. Great work fighting vandalism and at SPI. clpo13_(talk) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
208. Support No concerns, so why not? Natureium (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
209. Support No issues found. Good luck, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
210. Support Oh yes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
211. Support Appears to be the kind of editor that would be a net positive as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 18:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
212. Support Thank you for your contributions and your willingness to wield the mop. CThomas³ (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
213. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
214. Support Needs the tools, can be trusted. Vexations (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
215. Support Trustworthy, will help out in a needed area. Best, Spencer^T•C 22:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
216. Support Definitely one of the more qualified candidates I've come across, clear net positive. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
217. Support seems likely to be a net-positive. Lepricavark (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
218. Support I've run across Sro23 at SPI and am appreciative of their help and diligence there. Their talk page interactions, and answers here, demonstrate the knowledge, thoughtfulness and temperament I look for in an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
219. Support Seems to be a level-headed editor who understands policy and has expertise in the fields he wants to work in. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
220. Support It's good to have added help at SPI (and I imagine the user will help in other areas as well) Equineducklings (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
221. Support per above. The only objections raised so far are philosophical opposition to WP:SPI as a whole. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
222. Support Absolutely. The candidate has been doing good SPI clerk tasks for quite some time now. Mkdw ^talk 03:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
223. Support – need for the tools, clearly qualified. —72 10:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
224. Support - All signs point towards being a good adminstrator. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
225. Support - Yes yes yes and yes! This editor is amazing, I wish I could have gotten on the support train earlier. I've ran into Sro many times editing the wiki, he's always been a strong editor who understands the rules very well. 100% support. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
226. Support - as someone who comments on WP:RFUs (Requests for unblocks) quite frequently, I have come across Sro23 quite frequently on sockpuppetry cases and agree with all the above supports. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

      Checkuser note: I have just blocked this user as a sockmaster. If the account were new, I would normally just remove it, but this user has been around quite a long time, thus just the comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

227. Support with delight. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
228. Yep. I found the answer "I'm only human; I've been wrong before and will be wrong in the future" particularly perspicacious. So often, we (meaning the whole human race) fail to note this applies to ourselves at all times. I like the cut of this candidates jib for that in particular. But also they need the tools and would make good use of them, so there's that too. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
229. Support Candidate meets all of my established standards and appears to be a net positive. Good luck! Strikerforce^Talk 18:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
230. Support I knew pretty much nothing about this user before this RFA popped up on my watchlist. Since then I have skimmed through some of his answers to the questions here and messages on his talk page, and they have convinced me that he will be an excellent admin, due to his extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy and how to apply it, his modesty, and his willingness to admit when he is not sure what to do. I am quite confident that he will do a great job if given the mop. Everymorning talk to me 20:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
231. Support with very high enthusiasm. A thoughtful self-nom, and a good reason for using the tools. I'm not concerned about content or other experience-related issues, because I think that dealing with SPI actually does expose an editor to issues of disputes and conduct, because the answers to questions seem very clueful to me, and because I'm seeing a good attitude of not over-reaching and of not just trying to tick the RfA boxes in order to hat-collect. I like everything I've seen here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
232. Support, with extra points for the self-nomination. I always think they show a laudable independence. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
233. Support with enthusiasm. Sro has made it clear they would be an exemplary admin to the point that I'm surprised they aren't one already. Sock (tock talk) 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
234. Support ofc Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
235. Support per Bishonen, answer to Q12, and apparent possession of clue. Also, good job entering RFX200! (I'm not particularly happy with the way the non-support !voters on this RFA have been treated, though.) Airbornemihir (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
236. Support per it being obvious. Graham87 03:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
237. Support. I didn't know Sro23 wasn't already an admin. May as well make it so. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
238. Strong Support A knowledgeable editor that's cautious in WP:SPI investigations that they're involved with. I trust Sro23 to take the same approach as an admin. Clearly a net positive, in my view. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
239. Strong Support Based on his SPI works.--IM3847 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
240. Support - Definitely. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
241. Support; i don't know the candidate, don't recall seeing their work prior to the start of the RfA, but nothing i have seen requires me to move from my default support. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
242. Support. I read the debates and a good case was made for expected proper use of the tools. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 20:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
243. Support Come on in, the water's fine. We need more help at SPI. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
244. Support I've seen Sro23 around the traps, especially at SPI, and am confident that they would use the admin tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
245. Support I rarely comment at RFA but I'm well aware of Sro23's work and i have no qualms at all about adminship for this user. Meters (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
246. Support per above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
247. Support Fully qualified candidate. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
248. Support - Good contributions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
249. Support experienced, knowledgeable and a history and making good decisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
250. Support The 3rd highest number of supporters ever for an RFA. Nuff said.  spintendo  07:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
251. Support Calm considered answers to questions Benawu2 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
252. Support Denisarona (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
253. Support. Seems competent and has a clear need for the tools. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 13:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
254. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
255. Support. I find the Oppose !votes unconvincing, support per nom. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
256. Support Great answers, seems like he'll make a great admin! QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
257. Support per nom. Welcome to the corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
258. Support as clearly clueful. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
259. Seems trustworthy and sane. --Dylan620 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
260. Support and good to see I have to scroll so far down to add this support, clearly qualified.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
261. Support Have seen him around, can be trusted with tools. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
262. Support, no problems here. bd2412 T 01:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
263. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
264. Support. Excellent candidate. Bradv 04:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
265. Support per above. Should have happened a while ago. Good luck. Nihlus 04:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
266. Support Active sockpuppet investigation clerk. Potential use case applicable. Also endorsed as pert all above. Regards Sau226 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
267. Support - three years' learning the ropes, no blocks, some work at WP:AFD. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
268. Support - But Cryptic's question was just as wikipolitical as any other. This is an opportunity to examine if sysop candidates have extreme viewpoints on different topics.--v/r - TP 14:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
269. Support - Is definitely familiar with admin areas, has demonstrated a need for the tools, and seems like a very kind person. I fully trust Sro23 with the new tools that will become available when he becomes an admin. Also, we're at 269 support votes now - if we can get just 31 more within the next 11 hours, Sro23's RfA will be the second one to have over 300 supports!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
270. Support Obviously, he can make mistakes, like that one with the rollback back in June, but he is aware of these mistakes and quickly learns from them too. Overall though, I think Wiki will be better with the mop given to him. Minima© (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
271. Support.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
272. Support. One of those cases where it's like, how did this person not already have the tools? —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
273. Support - Definitely JMHamo (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
274. Just reviewed the deleted edits, deletion tagging looks fine. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
275. Support. I don't often !vote at AfD. But this is an obvious one. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

     Are you sure about? This page says "Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Black Kite: 4619" :-D Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

276. Support Can be trusted with the tools. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
277. Support piling on even more. I see lots of reasons to support and few reasons to oppose. Since everyone will make mistakes, admins who can admit their failings are better than the alternative. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The candidate's answer to my questions (Q13 & Q13b) seem to show a binary understanding rather than a probabilistic understanding of sockpuppet investigation. Having seen entire viewpoints being banished from Wikipedia because of SPI in the past, I can't support a candidate to gain the mop primarily to help with SPI, when they have a view there should be no distinction between the previous blocked sock and the user that was banned in the first place. Deryck C. 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Deryck Chan: But admin clerks can view deleted edits so that they can judge more accurately than non-admin clerks. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Hhkohh: It's interesting that you say "more accurately" where the candidate hasn't. My point is that although the underlying truth value is binary (a new user is either the same person as the blocked person or it isn't), no tool for sockpuppet detection is 100% error-proof, and the probability of error can only accumulate as the chain from the banned user to one sock and then the next grows longer and longer. The candidate seems to think that with the right tools, one can decide whether a suspected user is the same person as a banned user with 100% certainty (quote from candidate: "I wouldn't have to draw that line"), which is not right. My hope is that the candidate will eventually realise from experience that many SPIs are difficult to call and it is dangerous to take the identification as absolute truth in deciding the next SPI. But I don't think this maturity was in place when time the candidate answered my two questions, hence my opposing this RfA. Deryck C. 16:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   I think that you have misinterpreted Sro23's answers, because I don't see anything that indicates that they view SPI with a black-or-white (or binary) point of view. They explicitly said that they would evaluate the behavior over time to determine whether someone is socking or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   As for the "wouldn't have to draw that line" comment: People's interests change over time, so it's no surprise that the topics that a sockmaster was editing might be different from what a sock is editing years later. However, if a behavioral (or better yet, technical) connection can be made over time, it would be unreasonable to ignore that connection just because the sockmaster's interests happen to have evolved. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) @Deryck Chan: I don't normally comment on other editors' votes, but this is one of the more astonishing opposes I've seen. Let's see. The last time you even commented at an SPI was on February 23, 2017, when you agreed with DoRD that a case looked like a class project to you. Yet, you claim that Sro23, who in my view and those of many others in a position to know think is an outstanding SPI clerk who analyzes reports thoroughly and from many perspectives, is wrong when they find socking if the latest sock's behavior doesn't match those of the master's. Sro23's answers are in fact spot-on. I'm sorry to pull rank, but I became an SPI clerk in 2013 and was appointed a CU in 2015, and you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Your vote won't of course change the outcome of this RfA, but the sheer chutzpah of it provoked these comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   Deryck, I think you must be mistaken when you offer your "hope [...] that the candidate will eventually realise from experience that many SPIs are difficult to call". Do you think that Sro23 is applying for the clerk job having never done it before? It's very true that many of these cases are complex and difficult to call, which is why I'd encourage anyone considering this response to trust Sro23's year of active clerking and endorsement so far from 18 clerks and checkusers (I may have missed some) over the concerns of one editor who doesn't really seem to understand how sockpuppetry cases evolve over time. As for how Sro23 would evaluate a case and decide to block, fortunately you can mine their contributions. Here are some examples of their thoughtfulness: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I hope, Deryck, that you will realize from experience that you've made an unsupportable assertion about the candidate's maturity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   Bbb23, considering your experience in this area, your input has value. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

   Deryck , I find the candidate's answers to all the questions are thoughtful, accurate, mature, and demonstrating an excellent knowledge of the SPI process and how most of us admins decide on our actions. Indeed, one user has moved their vote to 'support' based on the answers to your questions.. Knowing you personally as I do, Deryck, I'm very surprised to see you making any issue at all on an RfA that is going to pass, and on just one aspect of the job we admins do. We are trying hard to encourage people to run for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

   Deryck Chan, for what it's worth, I think it's perfectly fine to oppose an otherwise unanimous candidate, and I have always believed that it is healthy to have valid opposing rationale(s) in a RfA nomination; but for you to be opposing based on gross misrepresentation of Sro23's answer and a baseless assertion of their maturity in SPI investigations particularly when you seem to have far less understanding over the complexity in assessing behavioral evidence is simply wrong. Please re-consider. Alex Shih (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose I am opposing this nomination for several reasons:

   • As a holder of "minority wikipolitical positions", I find the candidate's answer to question 13 to be a bit off-putting. It is also inconsistent, since User:Cryptic appears to be making a veiled demand, but the candidate answers the question. Everyone belongs to some minority.
   • I think it should be easier to express opposition to RFAs. In the current set-up, there seems to be a Groupthink problem, with almost everyone expressing support, and any editor expressing opposition being hounded with replies. This doesn't encourage honest voting, the secret ballot is used for a reason.
   • I think so sockpuppetry should be allowed to a greater extent. Sockpuppets allow an editor to protect their uncontroversial edits by making them with a separate account, which seems like a net positive. Anonymity is also useful in fora like this one, where there is substantial social pressure (on that front, this page should not be semi-protected).

   Having said all that, Sro23 might be better than the current average administrator, and will likely not abuse his privileges any more than the current average administrator would. I don't know him personally, and the above is not meant as a personal attack. I won't be monitoring this discussion further, and please don't contact me (except to agree with me, that is always OK).-Mparrault (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   When someone posts a particularly hot take (like this one) on other websites, one of these images are often posted in response. Delet this💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 18:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   With all due respect, current policy prohibits sockpuppetry, and in my humble opinion, opposing a candidate for supporting and following established policy is inappropriate when you really should be advocating for a change in policy for this. Furthermore, from my experience with good hand/bad hand accounts on other wikis, they do not always create a net positive because the disruption is often far more than the benefits they offer. If you want to talk about net positives, we block widely used IPs (and I don't just mean schools) whose worst crime is occasionally writing "poop" on articles, something that can easily be spotted and reverted by even a seven year old, whereas some of the conniving little bastards with good hand/bad hand accounts often engage in either sneaky vandalism or horrible acts of harassment like death threats, doxxing, racism, sexism, homophobia, religious/anti-religious bigotry, etc, sometimes wasting hours of administrator time. I know you're not going to respond, and that's fine, but this is my opinion on this matter. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, WP:SOCK#LEGIT explicitly allows the following: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. However, you are strongly recommended to notify a checkuser or an ArbCom member in these cases to avoid confusion. Undisclosed alternative accounts in project space (e.g. RfA) is not allowed though.

   I do see where you are coming from if your observation is that responses to opposition at RfA tend to be excessively repetitive – you don't need to pile on in saying "I disagree with you" if someone else has already said everything you want to say. However, this is supposed to be a discussion, so I don't think it's fair to the candidate or to Wikipedia's model of collaborative editing to say that you won't consider any responses to your objections except those that agree with you. If you make objections, you should be prepared to defend them as necessary. Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   I get where you're coming from Mz7 because that is basically what he is describing, but that's not really "sockpuppetry" and is already allowed. If it weren't, I would be blockable because I've done that a handful of times (deliberate logged out editing, not using an alternative account) when editing an article about a company I was employed by. I could count on one hand how many times I've done that in my over ten years at Wikipedia though. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

   Pretty sure anyone says they won’t actually discuss their position further and not to contact them unless you agree with what they said, you cn pretty much ignore it. This RFA is obviously going to pass, and this oppose is just a crankmail. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

   This is also primarily a rant about sockpuppetry investigations and not about the candidate at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

   I won't be monitoring this discussion further, and please don't contact me (except to agree with me, that is always OK). And why? Because Mparrault is fully aware that his vote is going to cause drama.We have words for this kind of participation in debates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

   What might those words be Kudpung? Perhaps "disruptive"? Or maybe "unnecessarily provocative", or "trolling", or "unconstructive"? I imagine those are the words you are referring to to describe such opposes, no? I might also use such words as "persecution complex" to refer to the way Mparrault is portraying himself here: he wants it to seem like his perfectly reasonable, not-at-all-disruptive oppose is only being portrayed negatively because of "groupthink", when of course that's not the case. There seems to be a systemic problem here as regards the way RFA voting currently works, if this kind of dead-end provocativeness can keep happening over and over and over. Everymorning talk to me 00:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Everymorning: Quite; see below! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

3. Oppose Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

   Moved to talk page —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC).

   Struck per talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

   Restored ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

4. Moral Oppose per the (mostly, not all) inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sro23#Saturnalia0's oppose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

   Move to Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

It has happened that he didn't evaluated behavioral evidence.[12] In one instance he didn't observed that the sockmaster was under a topic ban and nearly 40% of the block length was yet to be over, however he termed the connection with a sock as "joe job" and "doesn't really make sense".[13] While I understand that you can't satisfy everyone, these instances were pretty obvious that socking occurred and if he was an admin then the things would be deemed differently. I would like to know a bit from Sro23 about these concerns before opposing or supporting the RfA. Lorstaking (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In the first case, that is one of the single hardest UPE SPI cases to evaluate, and I can’t fault his actions there (and I don’t think anyone would accuse me of being soft on commercial editing.) The second case is actually a reason to support: admins should always ask second opinions when they are unsure, especially in sock cases in South Asia which are notoriously difficult to sort out. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't fault his actions in the first case either. The evidence was extremely weak: the behavior in question could have come from any number of clueless newbies, of which there are plenty in this area (and I speak as the person who blocked one of the socks mentioned there). Vanamonde (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an incredibly difficult situation, especially when there is little evidence. Furthermore, I don't think one mistake is worthy of this RFA being dismissed IWI (chat) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added a question in this topic area. Deryck C. 12:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an incredibly unfair evaluation of these case conclusions. In the first, Sro23 closed on "evidence is too weak" after conferring with two other clerks and a checkuser, who also advised that the evidence was too weak. Rooting out sockpuppetry between the many known South Asian sockfarms is incredibly difficult and frustrating, and Sro23 conferred with more experienced clerks, which is exactly what they should have done. In the second, being aware that combative editors in the topic areas covered by the case have a history of trying to impersonate each other to bring unwarranted sanctions (a "joe job") shows that Sro23 is thoughtful and analyzes all aspects of a case. And indeed, a user sitting out most of a block and then creating a sockpuppet account to evade when the block is almost expired is unusual and "doesn't really make sense", exactly as Sro23 described. And again, this was part of Sro23 seeking advice from more experienced clerks. These are all good things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking , I don't think your concerns are sufficient to not want to support the candidate. In view of the comments and explanations above, you may now wish to revise your vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Changed to support following above comments and answer to questions by Deryck C. Lorstaking (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving to support Neutral, leaning support - I am familiar with this guy and he seems to do a pretty good job, just waiting for the answers to my questions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

General comments

• Q14 Ritchie333 Perhaps, to quote Tommy Saxondale, Sro23 prefers Genesis after Peter Gabriel left the band  :) For the rest, we can assume what we like about Elockid's and Mike V's inactivity—and it might be just as you suggest, absolutely—but clearly it's not inevitable! As for "...likely to be the sort of person who’ll get dragged to ANI a lot over questionable blocks" and "I suspect other voters would give you a hard time over this too", there's no evidence for either. The former, at least, seems improbable, while for the latter, the !votes say pretty solidly otherwise  :) Just my tuppence, though. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy this "it was all over after Peter left" purism - the two four-piece albums are classic prog that sound better than everything before, and Duke is possibly my favourite album these days with the perfect mix of catchy pop ("Misunderstanding"), thinking man's pop/rock ("Turn it On Again") and possibly their best full-on prog instrumental "blow out" ever with "Duke's Travels / Duke's End" .... er, what we were talking about again? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Shame about the drummer though  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Am I the only one suddenly picturing Patrick Bateman giving an enthusiastic discourse on music while strutting about in a raincoat with an ax...? ^[Humor] - wolf 03:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Or Huey Lewis favoring Weird Al with an enthusiastic discourse on American Psycho? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk15H6PjBis -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Question 15—is surely four or five questions rolled into one? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just a very verbose one. It's practically cut and paste from the last two RfAs, and how one is going to handle shared IPs and ranges is relevant to whether I will support the candidate or not. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@PCHS-NJROTC: The last two RfAs? Ah, so including that of Pbsouthwood; during which a message was left on your page advising that such questions were frowned upon generally; concerns to which you gave acknowledgement but appear to have—deemed unfounded, shall we say? And that's notwithstanding that repeatedly asking the same highly-focussed-on-a-small-patch-of-policy-questions could come across as verging on WP:RGW, really. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I edited it. How is not wanting heavy-handed people having the tools WP:RGW? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 I really wonder what's the point of editors as yourself in pointing out that explanatory supplement. For me it is very evident that if an editor chooses a question and asks it repeatedly in multiple RfA it means simply that the issue is important to that editor and that should be respected. For you it may be a small-patch-of-policy-question but that's, really, you. That's why editors are free to ask the questions they feel are important. So why don't you try to forward debate instead of being on the verge of looking like you are trying to quash debate and silence editors who have a different opinion than you? Thinker78 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: If that's what you think this is about, then you have not understood me at all. But then, that's —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 I think you left your reply incomplete, it seems to be missing a word or something. Thinker78 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

:D I'm foxed at what the word would be. Lourdes 06:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

---

It's going to be lame if this guy gets 299 supports. He is SO close to the 300 club right now! PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:03, 9 July 2018 (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.