Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 13 February 2020

Money emoji

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (94/12/4); Scheduled to end 12:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Money emoji (talk · contribs) – Money emoji is one of the most diligent and prolific participants in copyright cleanup. It's a thankless task to have to slog through hundreds, if not thousands of contributions suffering from potential plagiarism, and the backlog is horrendous. He knows exactly what to check for, and has a good idea for spotting close paraphrasing in articles, and flagging them up. He started the daunting Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, which has the unenviable task of trawling through the early contributions of a prolific editor (and my friend) for obvious copyvios and resolving them, without upsetting Blofeld in the process. It's a difficult balancing act and as he says himself, it's a long hard slog - but somebody has got to do it. It's got to the stage where I would trust his judgement of a copyvio over my own, and that in its own would be sufficient reason to recommend he gets the admin tools. But that's not all, he's got a good corpus of content under his belts, including major contributions to Pizzagate conspiracy theory, a tricky article for balance and readability, and he's recently being appointed a trainee clerk at Arbcom. He shows all the signs of being a straightforward, no-nonsense type of admin who just wants to get on with the job of maintaining the encyclopedia with the minimum of fuss. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by TonyBallioni I'm very pleased to present Money emoji to the community for consideration as an administrator. Money emoji has been active since March 2018, and has been a positive presence in Wikipedia in that time. His work in copyright as a non-administrator is thankless but important, and he generally has the sense of when to ask for help when help is needed. As Ritchie has noted, he's been involved in some areas that can be controversial, both in project space and in mainspace, but in each of these areas, he's managed to thread the needle appropriately and act in a civil and dignified manner: understanding policy and working to seek common ground when needed. Ultimately, but granting Money emoji access to the administrator toolkit, we will be gaining a competent administrator who will not abuse the tools and who is willing to work in some of the most underserved areas of our project. I'm pleased to support him in this RfA, and I hope you will join me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I happily accept the nomination. I have only edited from 3 other accounts, all of which were legit socks, and also have never and will never accept payment for my edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Copyright areas, unsurprisingly. That means dealing with Copyright problems, working at copypatrol, and Contributor copyright investigations. Unfortunately, there simply aren't enough admins/editors dedicated to working in the copyright area, leading to large backlogs and some pretty daunting tasks (Not to discount the efforts of Diannaa, DannyS712, Justlettersandnumbers, MER-C, Sphilbrick, and Wizardman- love you all). Having the admin tools will let me see hidden revisions (which is extremely helpful for CCI), revdel, and delete pages, all of which are helpful abilities to have while removing copyvios. As a non-admin, I've help complete 43 CCIs, and I'll be able to clear others out much faster with the tools. It would also allow me to clerk at CCI and CP, since only admins and clerks can archive reports; and no new clerks have been appointed for a while, since there just aren't enough people in the area. I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance that they no longer need to worry about coming back to help out with copyright. I'll participate in other areas for sure, but copyright will be the primary one.

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

A: My work on CCI in general, fighting back against our copyright backlog and hopefully renewing the community's awareness of the area. At copypatrol, I have the 7th highest amount of reviews with 1,113. I'm particularly proud by tough CCIs I defeated by myself, like Md iet, 67.184.212.160, and 20110727 06 (Which started out as this when I first got to it, here's the history with me slowly going crazy but ultimately triumphing). Other highlights at CCI include me helping spearhead efforts to combat some of our largest/most dangerous CCIs, such as 20110727, Elisa.rolle, DrB, and The 2010 CCIs. There's also my CCI list and guide to CCI, which I have put much work and care into.

I have much to be proud of outside of copyright, as well; I helped Pizzagate conspiracy theory become a GA, and carried the torch for articles like Ahed Tamimi and John B. Magruder after the person who wrote them, TheGracefulSlick, was blocked (and for the former, someone started a review on it and was then blocked as a sock). I also did a peer review for Saving Light, an article now on it's Fifth FAC (Poor MicroPowerpoint keeps getting snubbed ☹️). I also tried fixing List of NC-17 films, the messiest article I've ever seen, and I'd say it's better than it was before I edited it. For articles I created/largely expanded, I have a few small song articles, and am trying to create an article for every song on Travis Scott's Astroworld (all of which are notable). I've only got two so far (Stargazing (Travis Scott song), Carousel (Travis Scott song)), due to my dedications to the copyright area- but I'll hopefully get them all created one day, even if it's after CCI has been completed.

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

A: I wouldn't call them conflicts, but I've had several different editors take issue with my reversion of their edits over copyright violations, and others take issue with my presumptive removals relating to CCIs. When people come to me with a complaint/question, whether they're unhappy with me or not, I try and have my responses fulfill four criteria:

1. Assume good faith. Most people come to me because they want help understanding; no matter how rude their tone may be or word choice, I know they want my help. They aren't trying to hurt me or tear me down; they're just confused and worried. And if they are out to hurt me and tear me down, it'll be clear that they are and I can deal with it appropriately. No reason to get unnecessarily angry, after all.
2. Be natural. Talk like I normally would.
3. Be factual. Explain exactly why I did what I did, people like when you are honest with them. And if I was wrong, oh well. Next time something similar happens, I won't be wrong.
4. Take my time. A rushed response will likely make things worse. A long, well thought out response is better than a short, rushed one. I'm not in of a hurry, I can afford to take my time.

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 MrX

4. Have you had any registered accounts on Wikipedia prior to this one? - Mr X 🖋 13:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Long story short: no. Long story long: In 2015, the late summer specifically, a friend of mine encouraged me to edit wikipedia; they taught me about anti-vandal work, and instructed me to edit in that area. I did not register an account (I thought you had to make a donation), and edited from an ip between late summer 2015 and early 2017. I grew disinterested and stopped editing, but became interested again when my friend (who had become quite rude towards me) stopped editing and I found out that I didn't have to donate to register an account. So I rejoined in March 2018, and have been using this account since. I initially thought that I had had another account before this one because I voted in an afd as an ip, and I thought that only registered accounts could vote in afds so I must have been tricked into registering by my "friend". That's why I initially said I had just frogotten the name and password and how I knew so much about stuff like TW and GAs.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Cbl62

5. On eight occasions in the past two years, you've nominated articles for deletion where the consensus was to "keep". On several of these, you closed yourself and were critical of your own failure to find sources that were brought forward at AfD. The willingness to revisit your initial view is an admirable quality. Have you taken steps to better investigate before nominating at AfD? And do you believe your nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Boat Museum were correct?

A:Because of my past failures, I try and refrain from nominating at AFD; I admit that I'm a bit nervous I'll miss something, and try taking the position of voting instead. In recent Afds, I've tried to be very analytical and I spend a long time looking for sources; See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Workmans Club, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binish Desai (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jokers' Masquerade (2nd nomination).

Both of those Afd noms were wrong. In the case of the boats afd, I should have looked for book sources; In the case of the American one, I was very sick, tired, and upset when I wrote that (I had just driven 5 hours to pick my sister up from Niagara Falls), and mistunderstood policy. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Leaky caldron

6. You were appointed a trainee clerk on 7 January. You recused on the next available new case although your availability does not seem to have been a issue. Why did you not wish to supplement the much needed clerking effort on that case? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A:Serial Number 54129 asked me this before and I responded at the time. Basic summary: The aformentioned "friend" in Q4 feels as though they were treated unfairly by Kudpung and vocally told me this several times, and later congratulated me on my clerkship. This person had previously asked me to make certain edits for them, and I declined to do so because they were petty revenge requests against other users. So, predicting that they would ask me to do something to Kudpung, I recused to dicourage their antics.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6A. Your signature, with it's combination of small font, dull colour, and multiple symbols reduces it's readability somewhat. Thinking of those with visual impairment using a range of equipment with various display characteristics, is this something you will consider tweaking now that it has been drawn to your attention?

A: My signature used to be 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸, but I stopped using it because it took too much space up at CCI and I felt like it attracted too much attention to me; I liked how it looked, but it looked like I was saying "LOOK AT HOW COOL MY SIG IS ITS GREEN". If people feel as though that one is better than my current one, or feel as though the current one is inadequte, I will happily replace it. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Feminist

7. In what situations should a sysop provide non-admins with revdeled content and/or copies of deleted articles?

A:The typical stuff at WP:RFU, stuff deleted under WP:G13, contested prods, requests for a redirect with the history restored for whatever appropriate reason, etc. (As long as there are no copyvios)- the usual stuff. For my specific area, articles presumptively deleted that a user wants to rewrite (and wants to see what the deleted content was for reference), or if a non-admin needs access to deleted content to help get an idea of what to do at a specific CCI; See User talk:Money emoji/Archive_4#Copyright problem for an example. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Girth Summit

8. Thanks for standing. Let me say straight away that this question is not intended to try to trip you up - to be honest, I'm inclined to support purely on the basis of our past interactions (and Diannaa's support, since you work in COPYVIO, makes that inclination stronger). I wonder though whether you'd be willing to expand a bit on your answer to Q4, the last sentence of which I find rather confusing. When did you say you had forgotten your former username and password? And, assuming that by 'TW' you mean Twinkle, how would you have come to know about that (since IPs can't use Twinkle)? I just wonder if you'd be able to clarify that, without divulging any details that you would be uncomfortable with, or which would risk disclosing your former IP address, naturally.

A: Oh gladly, the answer is strange but true. I said it when I first opened my account and claimed it afterwards for a while. I knew about TW because my "friend" told me that they reverted edits using twinkle. That person told me that I had to "install" it; I stayed away from it because I thought that meant that I would have to pay money for it. They were wrong and I believed them until I figured it out myself when I registered an account. As you can tell, my friend left me in the dark about a lot of things.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A:Like many, I have little knowledge of scripts and don't really understand them. I also wish I could be a more consistent content creator; I've had fun writing the articles that I have, but my work at copyright often intrudes on it and I'm not able to write as much as I'd like to. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Rhododendrites

10. I think I first came across your username when I was considering reviewing Pizzagate conspiracy theory for GA a while back. I hesitated, however, because it's uncommon for the nominator to have never edited the article, and looking at your userpage I saw this rather extreme retirement message. Could you talk about what was going on there? (BTW: regardless of how it started, kudos to you for your work in bringing Pizzagate to GA).

A:I'm not really sure what the hell I was going on about quite honestly; for some context, I was in a very, very rough period of my life then; I was depressed, three people I knew well had died around that time, and I failed a GA review because I had to leave for Arizona to meet my grandfather, who was dying of cancer. After he died and the review failed (no prejudice against the reviewer), I was very unhappy with the site, was disillusioned further by some ultimately meaningless nonsense I was seeing at Ani, spat that out, and left, which is why I edited less for the later part of 2018. I came back in 2019, and have improved massively since then, I've learned how to better cope with stuff in my life and I see this place in a much more positive light. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from King of Scorpions

11. What Wikipedia policy do you believe is the most important, and why? (I'm still fairly new and don't know all the acronyms, so please write the full policy name or provide a wikilink...)

A:WP:V, or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically, it boils down to a piece of information being true and readers being able to verify that it is true. Without verifiability, some of our other most important policies, like Our Biography of living persons policy and our Reliable source policy, wouldn't be what they are. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 21:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from JC

12. Hi, thanks for volunteering to contribute in this capacity. Do you have any misgivings about serving as an administrator under the identity of "Money emoji"? Or, if you like: if you knew when you registered that you would one day be blocking people and deleting their articles, would you have selected the same username?

A: Kinda funny, I think about this sometimes. It's a fun username, one which has no backstory (I came up with it on the spot), but it's kind of stupid. I was actually considering renaming myself "Moneytrees" a few weeks ago but it escaped me. Maybe I'll rename in the future.

13. How do you justify claiming credit for GAs like John B. Magruder, where your edits during the promotion process were essentially confined to three words and two emdashes?

A:I was wondering if this would be brought up or not. It is true; I did not edit John B. Magruder very much. User:TheGracefulSlick wrote that page, and I made sure it became a GA when they were unable to edit. By claiming credit, I'm assuming you mean the GA box and topicon on my userpage; the logic for me putting those there was the amount of time I spent looking for an appropriate license for one of the images; it took a few hours before I figured out the right one. My thought process for putting up the GA stuff was "Hey, I didn't really edit it, but I did spend all the time getting the license, so that must count for something" but I agree that it looks like I'm hogging the glory for something TGS did. I've removed the related GA stuffs from my page. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John M Wolfson

14. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: Ah, the iconic elementery school question; I think I may have come across this exact situation? This is right in my wheelhouse...

The most obvious one would be WP:G12 as an unambiguous copyright violation (obviously I would check if it were under an appropriate license, but it probably wouldn't be), and maybe WP:G11 as unambiguously promotional. As a user, I would simply tag the article with G12; As an admin, I would probably stub the article down to a single sentence not similar to the source and revdel offending revisions.

Ones that would not apply include G1, G2, G3 (unless it was a prank school or something?), G6, G10, G14, A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, and A11.

Ones that may apply would include G4, G5, G7, G8 (if it was created in the wrong mainspace), G9, G13 (hopefully the violation would have been found before then...), A2 (this actually happened with CADENCE Ensemble), and A10. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Links for Money emoji: Money emoji (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Money emoji can be found here.
Afd tracking cut off at a certain date; I've logged my recent ones at User:Money emoji/AFDlog

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

Support

Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good and worthy candidate. The bit will surely fit them. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100%. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni are both nominating this candidate? You don't get much higher recommendation than that. Looks like they are not a jerk, have a clue, and have created good content, which are my three criteria, so happy to add a support. Good luck! — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Money emoji is level headed, mature, and interacts well with other editors. Just the kind of person we need in the admin corps. Thanks for volunteering. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've known Money emoji for two reasons: one being the atrocious use of brackets^[FBDB] and the second being utmost friendliness. I'm sure they will make a fine administrator, open to critique with all willingness to improve. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QEDK, I Don't know what youre talking about 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We (know) you do (sure you do!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are far too many disambiguation links in that sentence. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those "wait, why aren't they an admin yet" candidates. Highly recommneded. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues at all, and all the best for the mop. Tolly 4 bolly 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support precious "I edit here when I have nothing else to do, just for fun." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As co-nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clueful, respectful, and having the bit will certainly help with their work. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - the more complicated aspects of copyright and CCI are seriously technical and a major pending risk to Wikipedia. Having another qualified admin would be a major addition. While total edit count doesn't worry me, since I'm aware a significant amount of effort can go into some copyright edits, I am significantly more concerned about his content creation, with 1 created and a couple more with major additions. So character clearly isn't an issue, nor is knowledge in the admin field. So while I would like more content creation, I don't think it's a necessity. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given more detail on the pizzagate GA, I think a WS is a more reasonable description for my state of mind at this point. Nosebagbear (talk)
Support Money emoji seems to know what they are doing, and having admin tools is extremely useful in the field of copyright cleanup; they would be even more of an asset with a mop. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues here, good luck! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no issues and have seen this user around. Being a fellow trainee clerk and also dealing with copyright violations (I usually only deal with clear cut cases eligible for G12), I can attest that having the tools is both very useful (in some cases necessary) to ensure a job well done. Their answers to the questions helped me to see how they have good judgement and foresight, (see their answer to Q6). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I see them meeting my criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've seen CASSIOPIAs contributions to the Wikipedia especially coping with vandalism and being neutral and effective in solving disputes. As per co-nom by Ritchie333 ^(talk). I vote for them in support strongly believing they'll do their best being an administrator. — The Ultimate ^{Let's Talk} 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate, I think you put this in the wrong rfa.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate, I struck your comment for now, as it is obviously in he wrong RFA. Please revise accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will always support editors who work in copyright problem cleanup. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have my unreserved Support. Good luck to you! Puddleglum ^2.0 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answer above, which seems reasonable, and per support from trusted, experienced and respected sysops working in the same area. We need more people well-versed in copyvio, thanks for stepping up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a good fit. LanHikari64 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always a good sign when I am surprised by an RfA, because I'd always assumed they already are an admin. Money Emoji demonstrates a clear understanding of policy and guidelines and will do a good job helping improve the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very strong track record. Interstellarity (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHhkohh (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Money Money 2020 -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my hand at the CCI cleanup and it's hard. MoneyEmoji knows it well, and the tools will reduce the workload for other admins fulfilling their requests for revision deletion. Clear net positive. — Wug·a·po·des 18:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Absolutely!! I first ran into MoneyEmoji when I reviewed their Pizzagate GA, and was all around impressed. Since then I have watched as Money has comported themselves excellently and been an active Wikipedian all around. Their work at CCI is exceptional, and having the tools to work in CCI would be a great addition to Money's endeavors. I see no reason to expect abuse of the tools, and believe that Money would be exactly the kind of level-headed sysop we need more of. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm impressed on how Money deals with CCI. —BeyWHEELZ • T • C
Support. Copyrights shall be protected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Ritchie likes Money than so do I ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen plenty of good copyright work, and that's definitely an area where we need more admins. Hut 8.5 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support does a thankless task, but does it very well, and in an important area of the project. Demonstrates clear need for the tools. Would be happy to support, whether they stick to just copyright infringement, or if they want to branch out further. Agent00x (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would love to have you on the admin team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. MER-C 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, has the temperament and the skill level. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support My experience with this user is positive and they are helpful. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No red flags and we need more admins working in copyvio.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be a good candidate and their contributions are good. What more do you need in an admin? (I may be wrong as this is the first RFA I've participated in...) King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't think of anyone more qualified in 2020 to get access to the tools, and I say that without hyperbole. Wizardman 22:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a good editor, and willing to listen to others. I don't feel it's a requirement for an administrator to have extensive content creation experience. I feel they must simply demonstrate a solid understanding of when to, and when not to, use the tools that the community is trusting them with, and the willingness to learn and listen when they might make a mistake (no one is perfect). I also feel very strongly about WP:V and respect their answer pointing that out as the most important policy. Excellent COPYVIO work. Waggie (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though Money emoji has only been here for two years, it looks like he has more than proved his suitability for the admin tools, having worked in the CCI field. I think that the admin tools would help him out with the CCI backlog. And despite his username, he is not actually a money emoji, so I guess that's another plus ... shows maturity, I think epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As said in the questions above, they have had lots of experience in the copyright area. They said there were not that many copyright admins here. I think they will be a good new addition to the admin community. --TFFfan (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Candid answers to my admittedly nitpicky questions... no complaints there. As mentioned above, the candidate plays a crucial role in the mainspace regardless of what the "articles created" or "kilobytes added" stats tell us. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this a strong support to help balance out the idea that you can't learn how a website works over the course of five years and 10,000 edits. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone willing to tackle the hellscape that is CCI deserves the mop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well versed in CCI issues, clear net positive, and cordial with all they come across to boot. I wish I could clone Money emoji and have more admins like them. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While the editor isn't big on creating new articles, I lean WP:GNOME myself. I see a >40% mainspace contribution ratio [1], which is solid (much of the rest is in "Wikipedia:", which we'd expect for someone doing admin-ish stuff, plus lots of talk namespaces, a general indicator of collaborative and dispute-resolution behavior). Clearly an asset when it comes to copyvio patrolling, and I don't see any history of jackassery or boneheadedness. I'm not sure this candidate would exactly pass my criteria in a literal reading, but they're flexible. This editor is clearly clueful, WP:HERE, and would continue to be a net positive with the extra tools. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work in CCI clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong copyvio work is very important for the project, and it's clearly demonstrated here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skimpy on content work, but their mainspace edits are not frighteningly negligible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
S - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not as thoughtful an answer to my question as I would have liked, but OK. feminist (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diannaa. Enthusiastic editor, willing to work in a tough area. Miniapolis 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support solid work in copyvio area, where we need more admins to handle G12 and revdel. I don't think it's necessary for admins to be content creators. b uidhe 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I cannot recall any particular interaction I have had with this user, I am impressed with their Wikipedia "resume" and can only expect this candidate to be a net positive to the project. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, almost exactly along the lines just expressed by Utopes. BD2412 T 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everybody likes this. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Some people got to have it, hey-ey-ey! Some people really need it - ahh, listen to me y'all! Kurtis ^(talk) 10:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 13:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Normally, I would be reluctant to promote an editor with so little content creation, but the need to effectively tackle the CCI backlog outweighs my slight reservation. Other than a WP:PERSONALATTACK edit summary, I see no reason not to support. - Mr X 🖋 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, I was making fun of myself for not realising that a site was a mirror.... unless you knew that already. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know; I was injecting some humor. It was funnier in my own head. - Mr X 🖋 15:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support CCI area will benefit from having more people with the tools. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shaking my head at voters demanding 10000 edits from admin candidates. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Say the right things, does the right things. Makes mistakes, learns from them. Rosser Gruffydd 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support with pleasure; qualified and helpful in a very underserved area. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will be a large benefit to the project with the tools, has my trust. Spencer^T•C 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm very pleased to see this nomination. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
support seen 'm around. per nom statement. per other supports.-- Deep fried okra 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tax accountant in me was won over with the user name. In all seriousness, the candidate appears to be well qualified and has my trust. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diannaa and Hut 8.5, with thanks to the candidate for their hard work in a difficult area. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns, and nothing valid in opposes. Giant Snowman 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mkdw ^talk 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: no behavioural issues and a passion for copyright issues are more than enough reason for support. Giving the mop to an editor working in CCI is the least we can do to help them out. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I see no problems however I would personally like to see more edits and more work with CSDs in the future. Bobherry Talk Edits 02:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^T★C 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concerns about Money except that I would normally look for more content experience in an RfA candidate, and so to that extent the oppose !votes gave me pause, but Money's enthusiastic dedication to copyvio work makes up for it. In the end, I'm pretty sure they won't delete the main page (unless it's a copyvio). – Levivich 04:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grudgingly. Because the candidate fails my criteria of being the perfect candidate. Because I distrust both the nominators. Because the RfA fails my criteria of having at least 3 nominators. Because AfD !votes of the candidate should have been exactly 50% keep and 50% delete. Because I only normally support candidates with zero opposing editors.... And hopefully, in case of a crat chat, my well-explained support !vote would get the importance it deserves. That it. Lourdes 10:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 13:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No pressing concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nominated by editors with good judgment, good answers to questions, an editing record that makes sense for what they would use adminship for. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly amazing work at CCI. I'm astonished they're not already admin; they're friendly, helpful, and extremely knowledgeable. Tamwin (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per their answer to King of Scorpions. It is very reassuring to see a potential sysop with that attitude about WP:V. It truly is the most important policy on Wikipedia.^{[citation needed]} Various editors have !voted oppose due to a perceived lack in total contributions, but I question the validity of that argument. None of the added privileges of sysops directly involve content contributions. It's all about maintenance, and this editor has proven to be a friendly person that is willing to help out and make the encyclopedia better. Good enough for me. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize my question would be so RFA-affecting... King of Scorpions (my talk) 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strong record in an understaffed area; good demeanour. No concerns. AGK ■ 20:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per Amakuru. Miljoenenlijntje (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose No content creation to speak of: one article. My belief is that an administrator needs to protect content and content creators - we are an encyclopedia. Experience creating content is important IMO. The candidate also has an 82% delete !voting record at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but you fail my criteria. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious; do expansions from redirect count towards your articles created metric? 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose those can count. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, reluctantly, for failing my criteria - which is a really low bar, IMHO. On the discussion of content, I do not believe every administrator needs to be a scribe as we need techies and people willing to do tedious tasks. Delete vote % is generally meaningless to me, I assume good faith on the part of the majority of the nominations at AfD. But, while an edit count above 10K doesn't move me, I would like to see at least that. Maybe just a little too soon? Ifnord (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although you did say that it will not move you, I have now hit 10k edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient content contributions; a few stubs on songs expanded from redirects is not enough to judge, and I feel the nomination has overegged the editor's experience in this area. Some of the recent archived talk-page discussions also make it clear that even in the area of copyright the editor is not yet 100%; eg the discussion on close paraphrasing in S. H. Ervin; where precisely to draw the close-paraphrasing line is an area that it helps to have experience from the article-creation side, in my opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, what should I have done differently in the S. H. Ervin case? Archive for reference. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nominating just barely a month after they have been named an ArbCom clerk is too soon. He should have been working longer to get more of a track record. The account has been registered for less than two years (I think the answers to Q4 & Q8 are a bit shoddy, but I will assume good faith, and the rules say you have to reveal your past accounts only to the ArbCom). Most edits have few bytes in them. There is the burnout episode referenced in Q10, which shouldn't be held against you because it happens to the best of us, but it makes the short-ish Wikipedia career somewhat volatile. Money emoji seems like a laid-back person, which I would be more than happy to see in an admin, but this is premature. --Pudeo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of article creation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pudeo and the numerous comments to opposers. Nihlus 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but this has to improve and only time can help in that cause. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but I've never supported anyone with so few edits and such a short time on the project. Another year and I would consider it. Deb (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, don't mind me but you passed RfA in the yesteryears via a mailing list where the expectations from a candidate would not have the edits or tenure of one "Money emoji", let alone more than one. Even if we let that be with a "it's a different place now", is it really fair to assess them on parameters such as edit count and tenure which mostly have literally no impact on administrator's output, let alone on parameters that you yourself would have not expected from yourself in 2003? I totally stand by your criteria but I believe for adminship, all candidates need to be looked at from a wide-ranging perspective and not only a narrow set of ir/relevant parameters. Feel free to clarify further. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in thinking that Wikipedia is a different place now - a very different place. Being an admin was relatively simple in 2003 (just as I was then relatively experienced; in the early days, a large proportion of my contributions were new articles created from scratch) and I've had to learn as I went along, not to mention re-learning almost everything two or three times. Yes, the criteria are different now, but I certainly don't agree that "parameters such as edit count and tenure ... have literally no impact on administrator's output". I think those things are quite critical. Deb (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely, I'd just rather see you give them a fair hearing where you assess them on more parameters. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're implying that I'm being unfair and I resent that. I very rarely oppose RfAs. Deb (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine. Just tried to change your mind, and it's alright if you don't want to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a good editor, but comes off as too green for RfA. I'm not a big fan of how recent that immature retirement outburst was, especially when coupled with the user's already rather scanty tenure. That, when combined with the sloppy representation of content creation during this RfA, gives me enough pause that I can't support this nomination. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nohomersryan: Hi. Can you kindly provide link to the retirement incident? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Nohomersryan (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in Q10 with an explanation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully, after consideration I find myself in the oppose column. I think the candidate does a lot of good work, and I can definitely see myself supporting in the future, but I think it's too soon. "Too soon" not because I have some particular standard about content creation or edit count or account age that they will someday meet but because I think they're on a positive trajectory such that the ratio of [evidence of positive contributions and a strong grasp of policies and guidelines] to [concerns] will continue to grow. I came to this with a concern, which I asked about in Q10, relating to submitting an article for GA without having editing it and, far more importantly, a retirement message citing the obnoxious/pretentious/passive-aggressive/arrogant/cringey/annoying/asshole-for-the-hell-of-it personas the mass majority of users on this website. I'm sympathetic to the extent to which real life events can color one's involvement with other hobbies/activities, but we need evidence that admins can manage difficult interactions/users and know how to pull back from stressful situations before telling off "the mass majority of users". IMO give it another 6-12 months (of course, I say that, but this looks likely to pass at this point). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems immature and has an inadequate record of accomplishments. Smallchief (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Normally I would strenuously oppose an editor at RFA with this content contribution profile (they actually had only 24 edits and 0.7% authorship at the GA Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so there is actually very negligible content creation here, in contrast to the nomination statement, to an extent that I find alarming at RFA). Nonetheless, for those with demonstrated work in the under-staffed area of copyvio, I'm willing to adjust my usual stance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the user's contribs, and they seem good, but I'm not going to lean one direction or the other in case there's something I don't know about... King of Scorpions 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Changed my mind. Re-reviewed contribs and decided to support. King of Scorpions (my talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting neutral is not a waiting ground, it is for people who have performed a careful assessment and cannot lean either way. And in case there's something you think you don't know yet, assume good faith. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point from Sandy. I wouldn't blame a candidate because their nominator erred, but, really, @Ritchie333: do you stand by your suggestion that authoring 0.7% of an article is a major contribution. ——SN 54129 08:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this are not major heavy lifting, granted, but as the edit summary says, it was a good-faith attempt to improve the article to FAC, even though it was premature. Anyway, that wasn't really the point I was going to make, which was rather that Money emoji isn't simply a one trick pony who can do copyright investigations and nothing else. I would focus on the CCI cleanup work he has done, Dr Blofeld's is one such example, and the conversation that started me thinking "might be a good admin candidate" was this one regarding a cleanup of Elisa Rolle's work. Like TheGracefulSlick, the community seems to be divided on Elisa, but they did good content work and we should try and keep hold of that while managing the other difficulties they fell into, for the good of the project. And like Sandy, I am prepared to trade-off a track record of GAs / FAs against a specialist skill that not many admins have; in this case, copyright cleanup. I tried to have a go at Elisa's and flippin' heck, it was tedious. But somebody has to do it - as the message says at the top of the edit window, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I understand the candidate and nominators' case for needing the tools ("revdel ... while removing copyvios" is definitely a sentence that shows the candidate knows what he's asking for) but "I won't rest until the open cases at CCI is 0 and my friends in the area can retire with the assurance" worries me that the candidate will burn himself out before he begins... Deryck C. 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know too much about this editor, but now I'm concerned that they are going to respond to almost all votes in the "Oppose" section. I'll just park it here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I hate to nitpick, but the candidate says they started in March 2018, and Tony says it was March 2019 —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fat-finger :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the best example of content creation Richie, best not to big it up. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 #:{{Hidden ping|Puzzledvegetable}}I didn't realize my question would be so RFA-affecting... [[User:King of Scorpions|<span style="color:red">King</span> <span style="color:green">of</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/King of Scorpions|<span style="color:blue">Scorpions</span>]] [[User talk:King of Scorpions|<span style="color:black">(my talk)</span>]] 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 #'''Support.'''  Strong record in an understaffed area; good demeanour.  No concerns.  <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;">&nbsp;&#9632;</span>]]</span> 20:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
+#'''Support.''' As per [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]]. [[User:Miljoenenlijntje|Miljoenenlijntje]] ([[User talk:Miljoenenlijntje|talk]]) 22:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 =====Oppose=====

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights