Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/331dot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yrarendar (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 25 March 2018 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

331dot

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (124/2/0); Scheduled to end 21:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

331dot (talk · contribs) – I've been aware of 331dot for some time through his diligent contributions at the In The News section of the Main Page. His specialist topic is geography and politics in Maine, but his real flair is in the back-door maintenance areas. He's a regular at new pages patrol (a perennially backlogged section), usernames for admin attention and vandalism patrol. He's got a good track record of being civil, polite and helpful, and is a frequent contributor to the Teahouse, as well as fielding replies from new users on his talk page with tact and diplomacy.

Some of you may not be aware of 331dot at all; he doesn't go out of his way to make himself known on the noticeboards and project discussions. I don't think that's a bad thing. I know we like to see candidates we're all friends with and who should have been made an admin years ago; but to be honest, what we really need are good, solid, dependable people who will do the job with a minimum of fuss. And that's why I think 331dot deserves the mop. I hope the project will benefit enormously.

In the interests of full disclosure, 331dot has never used another account and has never edited Wikipedia for pay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination

Fellow Wikipedians I would like to take this opportunity to second the nomination of 331dot who is a solid contributor to the project with a tenure of around five years. An examination of their record reveals an above average edit count for RfA candidates (more than 3x what mine was), along with excellent records of participation in all the areas one would typically look for in a prospective sysop including CSD, AfD, UAA, NPP as well as ITN/C. (I would note that we are not exactly drowning in admins who are active in NPP.) His content creation is respectable though it's fair to say that he has been more involved in the behind the scenes work. My personal interactions with this editor have usually been at WP:ITNC where he is a huge asset. In closing I would commend to your consideration that 331dot has the sort of disposition that I like to see in an admin... calm, knowledgeable and articulate, not easily provoked and possessed of plenty of clue. Thank you for taking the time to consider 331dot's request for adminship and I hope you will join me in supporting him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank both Ritchie333 and Ad Orientem for it, their kind words, and their guidance. I would also like to thank the community for participating here.

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: I would work in areas that I work in now; AIV, ITNC(when I haven’t contributed to the discussion), CSD, UAA, NPP, and RPP. I would also be interested in using the administrator ability to view deleted pages to better help new users at the Teahouse.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contribution is adding to coverage of Maine (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. I would say I am most pleased about Sagadahoc Bridge as I had to do some digging to properly source it. I am aware that sort of thing(expanding coverage of a subject or subject area) is what almost everyone is working towards in good faith and I consider that every day in my comments and edits.
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: Like other users, I have not worked on Wikipedia without conflict. A recent one was in November with MPS1992, regarding an issue on the article The Pentecostal Mission. The conversation is still on my user talk page under "November 2017". I've also had my fair share of hostile comments on my user talk page, but I try to keep a cool head with such comments.
In a dispute I work to encourage discussion on the matter, stay focused on any relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep the focus on the content under discussion. If that is not being entirely successful I then disengage for a period instead of adding to the disruption with little to show for it. I've also sought outside assistance such as with page protection, which I did in that case. Everyone here has different views and opinions on just about everything; respect, politeness, and civility are vital towards the work we are all doing and I keep that in mind every day. Staying cool and focusing on the content are vital and those are things I would continue to do.
I'm also not afraid to admit fault and correct a mistake when I make one, such as on the article Les Paul and Mary Ford. I saw a short stub that looked like trivial nonsense and tagged it for deletion. I felt something was wrong, so I checked the history and realized the article had been vandalized. I immediately self-reverted and cleaned things up. I think part of dealing with conflict is preventing it in the first place by admitting to mistakes. This edit was an error and a learning experience.


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 Alex Shih
4. You have recently ran into a minor argument with The Rambling Man ([1]). In hindsight, would you have approached the situation the same way or differently? Alex Shih (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you for your question. In retrospect, I would not have carried on the conversation on their talk page as much as I did, and apologized before disengaging. (For what it's worth, I do apologize to TRM for giving offense) I might also have given a few hours before making the inquiry in the first place. Both would have been less disruptive. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Amorymeltzer
5. What are your thoughts on Administrator Recall? Is it necessary given our other procedures for removal (e.g., ArbCom, inactivity) or is current community oversight sufficient?
A: Thanks for your question. I have not given administrator recall a great deal of thought. I can say that I have not seen anything to suggest to me that current procedures for dealing with administrator misbehavior are inadequate. In my time around Wikipedia, I have observed cases where an administrator overreached, but was corrected after community members engaged them in discussion. I would hope that would be sufficient in most cases; anything more extreme would probably best be dealt with by ArbCom as is current practice. That said, I'm ambivalent about the need to have an administrator recall process. I wouldn't stand in the way of one if it came about. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Dolotta
6. What do you think your biggest challenge would be as a new admin?
A: Thank you for your question. I think that my biggest challenge would be to keep good faith editors from leaving. For example, a user created an article which was legitimately deleted per policy might get upset, think their work was in vain, and quit. I have seen that often a user will be more upset with the deleting admin than with the person who actually tagged the page for deletion. It would be important for me to be understanding and sympathetic to the user. When appropriate, such as with an A7 or G11 deletion, userfying or emailing the text might help. That can't be done in other cases such as G12 copyvios but giving a good, polite explanation would hopefully clarify the situation for the user involved. It is important to hold on to good faith editors, as that is what Wikipedia runs on. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:Anachronist
7. Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than 24 hours. The most frequent anonymous IP edits involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although he has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
A: Thank you for your question. As such a question requires a lot of specifics, and I presume that asking for specifics would defeat the purpose of the query, I take liberty in assuming a few, straightforward things – that the established editor hasn't invited the IP to the talk page yet, that the additions are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL in nature (which would require multiple reliable sources than one to support), that there's no other exigent situation involved (e.g. WP:BLP issues), that the article hasn't gone through increasing levels of protections in the past due to the same issues, that the IP or the editor haven't been sanctioned/blocked/warned for this issue in the past and that this is purely the first instance of such a case happening. In such a case, my answer would be quite simple. I'll decline the semi, and rather than leaving a message at RFPP, go to the talk page of the established editor, leave an apology note and explain that I would prefer that the editor start discussions on the talk page of the article inviting the IP and following the steps listed out at WP:DR, rather than reverting or asking for protection. Then I'll go to the IP's talk page, inform them not to revert again as that would be considered disruptive and liable for a block if they don't stop; I'll additionally advise them to immediately join talk page discussions and reach consensus before re-adding the material, and that leaving explanations on edit summaries is great, but not enough at all for reaching consensus. That's the way I would prefer to proceed. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, and so on.
a. Would you prefer to see escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
A: Thanks for your questions. I would prefer to see that almost all the time, with only a few exceptions such as egregious WP:BLP violations, long term abusers, and blatantly promotional agendas and names worthy of being reported to UAA. I have run into cases where a user was not even aware that they had a user talk page to receive messages, and it took two or three warnings before they did, if at all. I think in most cases users need a chance. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
b. Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
A: I assume your question meant, "Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning and again commits the same mistake for which he/she was warned?" I again take liberty to assume that I'm viewing this issue as an independent admin who has landed on the scene for the first time. At Wikipedia, warnings are sometimes not necessarily commensurate to the level of exigency involved. To broaden my argument, a newbie editor making editing tests attempting to add a citation that is wrongly formatted could end up getting multiple warnings from cluebot, from other patrollers, and so on. If it were simply enough that anyone who has received a level-4 warning should be blocked if they commit the mistake again, then we could have left a bot to do the job. The fact that it is us, editors, who take the call, is because each case is dependent upon many variables that cannot be summarized in this query. Whether it's a case of a newbie adding that citation unsuccessfully, or that school editor who received a level-4 warning as their first warning because they tried to change the name of the principal without reliable sources... well, there's nothing laid in stone. Blocking requires dollops of common sense and much experience, which I hope I'll gain slowly and surely. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Andrew D.
9. I am currently opposing on the grounds that you seem too deletionist. By this, I mean that many/most of your recent actions seem hostile, negative and obstructive. But I notice that, back in 2012, you characterised yourself as inclusionist. Please clarify your position on this issue. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A:
10. The username 331dot seems like it might mean something but I don't get it. Please explain. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Nick Moyes
11. If you had the ability to introduce any two changes to the way Wikipedia operates, what would those be?
A: Thanks for your question. I think improvements to the notification system would be helpful especially for newer users. As I noted in Question 8, many users don't realize that they have a talk page to receive and post messages and don't know that others are trying to contact them. I don't know specifically what I would do at this time but it would be something to help people feel welcome and assist them in directing their contributions to the right place. Second, I think having threaded discussions much like Facebook or Twitter would be helpful. Something with a more modern GUI but backwards compatible with existing talk pages. I understand that the WMF has made some attempts in this area, but did not get anywhere. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from QEDK
12. I think I barely ask questions to candidates and you seem already to be a fitting candidate, but this is just a question I was asked fairly recently so I thought I'd ask a prospective admin candidate on their outlook as well. Consider a group of editors who are observed to be editing as a group, one particular article and the situations are as follows:
  • One of the editors says, "We're part of a firm working on the orders of our employers to improve our article page." No supplementing information except they're editing that company page adding promotional language.
  • One of the editors says, "We've been paid by a firm to bring this article to a proper standard." Only 2 of the 4 editors are declared as paid editors and they're editing the company page but with no editorial mistakes.
  • The editors claim they do not know each other but are adding promo language, and the firm mails OTRS saying someone contacted them to edit the page in exchange for money which they subsequently turned down and kept sending them revisions with puffery to entice them.
How would you deal with each of these scenarios? --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks for your question. For the first scenario, I would give all of them a quick spam-4im warning to immediately stop adding promotional language and also tell them to ensure they follow the paid editing disclosure policy (including disclosure requirements, both per paid editing and per WP:COWORKER) and conflict of interest guidelines. I also would strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. Block any who continues promotional edits. Request an SPI to weed out any undisclosed meats.
For the second scenario, I would ask all four of them to follow the paid editing disclosure policy (as above) and conflict of interest guidelines. I would also strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. If they continue editing the article, and the additions are editorially acceptable, use common sense and keep a watch; if they push the editorial envelope on weight, sourcing, etcetera, but not on spam, take them to coin for review by the larger community.
For the third scenario, I would give all of them a quick spam-4im warning to immediately stop adding promotional language and tell them that if they've been paid for their contributions or/and are conflicted in any manner, to ensure they follow the paid editing disclosure policy (as above) and conflict of interest guidelines. I would also strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. I would then block any who continue to make promotional edits. Then I would request an SPI to weed out any undisclosed socks. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SarekOfVulcan
13. Which do you prefer, Moxie or coffee milk?
A: Earl Grey tea. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Uanfala
14. While patrolling the AIV you come across a report, which turns out no to involve vandalism, but a conflict that you nevertheless decide to try and solve. The article concerned is on an obscure scientific topic you know nothing about, it's got sub-par formatting, but looks well sourced. One of the paragraphs doesn't have references though. User A, an experienced wikipedian, who you have had good interactions with on the noticeboards, removes this paragraph with the edit summary Enforcing verifiablity. This is then promptly reverted by user B, who is the creator of the article and a user with less than 15 edits so far. Their edit summary is no need to cite explicitly, that's general knowledge, you silly. Then user A reverts, and then two engage in an edit war going back and forth half a dozen times. You don't see any discussion on the talk page, but you notice that user A has explained the requirement for sourcing on user B's talk page using a series of escalating templates, the last one of which is {{Uw-unsourced4}}. What action do you take?
A: Thank you for your question. Broadly, if my past interactions with User A have been significant, this could be perceived by the community as being involved; so rather than taking this up administratively, I'll prefer advising User A and B as a fellow editor to stop warring, remind them of the obvious implications, suggest further to start discussions on the talk page. If the issue is related to BLP violations (e.g. User B adding unsourced details of a scientist discovering something), then to advise User A to reach out to either EWN or BLPN or even ANI for prompt support but to give a bright note about why they reverted multiple times. But if it's not anything covered under the exceptions allowed for multiple reverts, then going to either of the boards could result in both of them getting blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Power~enwiki
15. By popular demand, the infamous UAA question returns! What would you do with the following usernames at UAA, assuming that their only edit is to write "332" on their userpage? Would your reaction be different if their first edit were to change the categorization of Saint Monica to be "332 births" instead of "331 births"?
  • Ritchie332
  • 332dot
  • 332-867-5309
  • 332 bottles of beer on the wall
A:
Additional question from Everymorning
16. As someone who was born and lives in the state of Maine, what do you think of Paul LePage?
A:

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support has clue, and not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ayuh No reason to expect tool abuse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect answer to question 13, I might add. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support clearly qualified, we need more admins, per nominators, few RfAs this year, good time of the week, month with a H in etc etc - TNT❤ 21:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per my usual "appears unlikely to torch the joint" criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - looks like a good candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as co-nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Excellent candidate. Plenty of experience. Good record at AFD, CSD, and PROD. Above all, experience and willingness to work at NPP and ITN where we are not exactly overflowing with admins. I have occasionally run across him in editing and been favorably impressed. Everything suggests he will be a great addition to the admin team. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, no worries. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Net positive. Vermont | reply here 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - No issues found. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support UAA activity is excellent, and that page definitely could use more admins. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Why not? Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Apt for the job. 331dot has the needed experience and will be positive addition. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Non-withstanding my question above, I have always found 331dot to be nothing but calm, reasonable and productive, having observed their works at the Teahouse and ITN/C. No reason to oppose. Alex Shih (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support A pleasure to work with and will do a fine job.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: No issues overall. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Per Alex Shih. 331dot does excellent work and will be a significant asset. Basically the worst thing I found is being overly inclusive with Ucmate Downloader three months ago; if that's your greatest sin, allow me to be the first to welcome you! Feel free to file this under the already thought you were one (although that's probably just collision with Richie). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to second MelanieN on the value of having more sysops active at NPP and ITN. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I actually know Dot through some AFD discussions on current events. He, unlike many editors, took the time to actually analyze sources for their worth. Reference stacking becomes an issue on these types of AFDs, but Dot demonstrated diligence on a consistent basis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Clearly a qualified candidate. Moriori (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support my strongest impression of 331Dot came from this, which happened in spite of this. This exchange was very impressive as well, especially in view of this diff and the "irrelevant personal comments" here. Banedon (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – great impressions, solid history, confident will make an excellent admin. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Have been waiting for this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - My interactions with 331dot have been nothing but positive, and I think Wikipedia would benefit greatly with this user having the tools. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Clear net positive, no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A huge amount of cleanup work, a mop probably will help with the scrubbing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support precious politics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Top class candidate with top class contributions. Lourdes 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support especially given the current shortage. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support No issues with this candidate. To a certain extent, I thought they were one already. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Swarm ♠ 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as a net positive. — MRD2014 Talk 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per above. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support seems to have a good temperament, shows a clue at AfD, and the Maine-related articles show a good understanding of content creation. No reason not to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support good work at NPP and the Teahouse Mduvekot (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Contributions and history look good to me. And I can't argue with having another geography editor in the admin corps :) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation
  42. Support —MBL talk 03:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - what TonyBallioni and PMC said. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - easily. A real asset to the project. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Glrx (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Sure, my easiest support of an RfA candidate. You knokw he is a good candidate if I've gotten 2 edit conflicts from people jostling to support him! Zyc1174 chat? what I did 05:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Sure. Looks clueful and competent.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support – competent and experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools. No obvious reasons to oppose. LinguistunEinsuno 06:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support As clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support without reservations. Good candidate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, conditional on 331dot confirming that he has never edited or created articles for compensation of any kind, as is now required (see Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates) (Ritchie333 mentions this, but I would prefer to see it come from the nominee). 331dot is a good editor who knows what he's doing and will be a valuable addition to the pool of administrators. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Yes absolutely. talk to !dave 08:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Seen them around. Have no concerns. The sole oppose is not persuading. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and would be a net positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Nice user. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: qualified, hard-working user; no issues. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
    contribs    ) 09:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - seems like a good fit. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support No concerns, and seen them around doing the Good Work with great constancy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support -looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - honestly, I already thought they were an admin... so yeah. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - No apparent issues. Daask (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: We need more admins that are active in WP:NPP. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - genuine case of "I thought he was one already", seen him around, etc. Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I am familiar with 331dot from their work at ITN and I am confident they would make a fine admin.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  68. (edit conflict)Support per The Rambling Man above, in light of his recent history with the candidate (see Q4). Miniapolis 13:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support No qualms, we need more admins and they fit the bill. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per nominations and sound answers to the questions. I've noticed 331dot doing good work in various places. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - between his stalwart work at ITN and the Teahouse, I had assumed that 331dot was already an admin. Time is absolutely right for his ascension now. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  72. In my experience, I agree with Ad Orientem's nom that 331• is calm, competent, productive, and clueful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support An asset to the 'pedia and that will increase with the mop and bucket. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support: Seems like a great candidate. Best of luck! HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - great work at Teahouse, echoing many above who think more admins at NPP is a great thing. John from Idegon (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per Cordless Larry. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Clueful, rational, helpful to new users. No red flags that I can find. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Very helpful to new users. Knows how to disagree without being disagreeable. Know how to apologize or de-escalate when appropriate. Net plus for the project. David in DC (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support -- The answer to question six is very well reasoned. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - I thought 331dot was already... well, you know. Kurtis (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support as per pretty much everyone else above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. No strong reason not to. /Julle (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - I've seen 331dot around and have no concerns re the granting of the tools. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Certainly. Good candidate and I haven't found any issues. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --Joshualouie711talk 19:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support without a doubt. Go for it. Yintan  20:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Among other virtues, I appreciate the concern for good-faith editor retention expressed in the answer to Q6. Most other errors can be easily rectified; alienated good-faith editors may be gone forever. Good to see in an admin candidate and a good reminder to us all, really. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support – Certainly a net positive, does a great work assisting new editors at the Teahouse. It seems I was not the only one who thought "wait, isn't he one already?" –FlyingAce✈hello 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support – should be a net positive with tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Stephen 21:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I see nothing that would constitute a reason to oppose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - no reason not to; well qualified candidate who knows what he's doing, has an impressive record under his belt, and is a definite net positive to the community as a whole. Andrew's oppose du jour is completely unconvincing. 65HCA7 21:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Per all above. Aiken D 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - no objections. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - while I am not completely satisfied with the answers to questions 7 and 8a, I appreciate the thought that went into the replies. I would prefer also to see less of a preponderance of automated edits in the contributions, but the non-automated edits are significant in number, so that's OK. Knowing that a new admin has a learning curve, I believe this editor will be a good administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. I've looked around (user talk page, for example), and I feel like everything checks out. I think that the two nominators explain very well the reasons that I, also, would give as to why this candidacy is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose (jk)Barely makes it onto the top 50 NPPers. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Good record. Candid and nuanced answers to questions; thoughtful consideration. Good demeanor and good interactions with others - and willing to admit the one or few occasions when offensive may have been given. Trustworthiness well established. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Knows when to resist the bait, trys to learn from mistakes, work in areas that would benefit from tools Find bruce (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Seems to really know his way around here, whether it's reverting vandalism or ITNC (the latter of which is by far the source of most of my interactions with him). I also like that his CSD log is almost entirely red, indicating good judgment with regard to the speedy criteria. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support I’ve seen this editor around ITN in the past. My feeling is that they are sensible. Jehochman Talk 03:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Late to the party, but an obvious and enthusiastic yes. Has the temperament to be an asset on the admin team. ~ Rob13Talk 04:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 05:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support --Eurodyne (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Valued contributor to NPP and the Teahouse. No reservations about giving them the tools. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Incredibly hard-working and highly qualified. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support minecraftr chat / builds 13:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - I think 331dot will be a fine admin.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support: a well qualified candidate who will be a value to the project. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Weak support. I'll be honest: When I first saw this RFA and the level of support the candidate got within such a short time, I was confused. From past experience, I did not consider 331dot a viable candidate for the mop, especially not in the areas he expressed interest in working in. What I remembered were a lot of mistaggings (like [2], [3], [4], [5] (now hidden per RD1 but an A11 for an article that began with Chakra is a chess variant invented by Christian Freeling in 1980)) that no experienced user should make. However, judging from recent contributions it was also clear that he improved quite a lot from the examples I mentioned above.
    That said, the the situation mentioned in Q4 was handled extremely poorly (both the passive aggressive sounding comment when withdrawing the nomination as well as the subsequent interactions with TRM). Since this happened less than two weeks before this request was opened, some doubts remain whether the candidate will always be able to handle the pressure of adminship. That, combined with some recent questionable taggings (e.g. [6] [7], [8]), would usually be enough to stop me from supporting. In this case though, with both Ritchie333 and Ad Orientem thinking he will make a good admin and them usually knowing what they are doing, I'm willing to assume that those examples I mentioned were only rare exceptions that won't be repeated. Regards SoWhy 15:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: trusted editor and a good candidate for Adminship. FITINDIA 18:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - I am familiar with 331dot's NPP work and everything else looks good as well.- MrX 🖋 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support 331dot is one of the good guys, I've seen a good deal of their work and happy to support here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support totally favourable impressions each time I've seen 331dot's contributions. Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support No issues for me Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support I am most familiar with 331dot's work at the Teahouse, where they are unfailingly helpful. I offer my support without hesitation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Nay problems here. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Yes, I will support. I think they can be trusted with the toolkit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  124. SupportYrarendar (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too deletionist. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grenfell Tower. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    discussion moved to talk page Alex Shih (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you deign to explain your oppose vote? WP:RFA says Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers., and so some explanation is expected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that their second last edit to their user page attributed quite an encomium for the rest of us, I'm unsure what explanation might be provided. Lourdes 04:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Feels like he lobbed a grenade here and ran away. Zyc1174 chat? what I did 05:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
General comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/331dot&oldid=832312943"