Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe

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

GermanJoe

Final (160/4/5); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 23:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

GermanJoe (talk · contribs) – GermanJoe has been an active editor since August 2010, amassing over 60,000 edits, two thirds of them to main space. I know GermanJoe from the spam blacklist, where he is a valued contributor who makes regular well-formed reports. He has worked extensively on content, with experience as an FA reviewer, and latterly he has become active in fixing problem edits, for example [1], [2], [3], tagging promotional and other problem articles for deletion and warning spammers [4] and so on. A look through his edits shows much evidence of patience and decency and solid understanding of policy, and this is reflected in a completely clean block log. I believe that GermanJoe would make good use of the tools, that having the tools would allow him to improve Wikipedia more efficiently, and that he is a low risk for abusing them. Guy (help!) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for this nomination, I accept. Disclosure: Before registering an account, I occasionally edited as IP user, but I do not have any alternative accounts. I have never edited for pay or in other situations with a personal conflict of interest. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to focus on spam-related administrator activities and, more generally, on handling promotional editing. I can also help out with vandalism, username problems, speedy deletions (log),vandalism and copyright violations. In all of these areas I already have extensive user experience with cleaning up and reports. These are just common everyday maintenance tasks, but I'd be glad to provide more specific details if you have further questions to any of these areas. As I am not a native English speaker, I don't plan on involving myself into complex dispute resolution efforts but I'd be glad to offer general help and advice for common situations.

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

A: I started regular editing with Featured Article reviews for articles like Madagascar, Germany or Scotland in the High Middle Ages among others. Although interests have changed in later years, the cooperation among all involved editors to work on a common goal was a positive experience that motivated me to learn more and to contribute more regularly. My personal favorite contribution is Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor. Since 2012 I have revised large parts of the article and its referencing (still a work in progress). Defining "contributions" more broadly, I believe that maintenance efforts by all users in all the various areas of this project are also valuable and vital contributions.

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: A few instances of common content-related disagreements - rarely in a timespan of 9 years. Sometimes a discussion just starts on the wrong foot or moves in the wrong direction, but I usually try my best to keep comments in a constructive tone (rare mistakes or a bad day do happen to everyone in my opinion). Aside from 2-3 minor cases of back and forth editing where I should have initiated a discussion earlier, I was never involved in any serious conduct-related disputes. I believe that I also got better in recent years in using article and user talk to avoid disputes and to clarify possible misunderstandings.

---

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 Schazjmd

4. What is your view of unregistered (IP) editors and how should they be treated on Wikipedia?

A:IP editors should be treated with the same collegial respect like any registered user, and their constructive contributions should be equally appreciated. But IP editing also has a technical and practical side. It has several significant downsides for the IP editor and the community: decreased user security, more difficult communication, several technical limitations, to name just a few points. When discussing IP editing we should be aware of these flaws and disadvantages. While I am critical of IP editing as a concept, I fully respect the current consensus.

Additional question from OhKayeSierra

5. You show interest in using administrator tools to handle spam. What criteria should be used to distinguish a useful external link from a spam link?

A: The basic requirement for a useful link is meaningful, relevant content that is unsuitable for direct inclusion in the article, although "usefulness" is often subjective. Following the principles outlined at WP:ELNO (I am not going to paraphrase all 19 points for the sake of brevity), such links should also not be promotional. In rare cases promotional sites can be linked if their encyclopedic value outweighs a secondary advertising effect, but such exceptional usages should be decided by uninvolved editors. External links don't have to be absolutely "reliable" per our standards (WP:EL is less restrictive than WP:RS), but their content still needs to be reasonably accurate. Lastly, Wikipedia is no link directory: broad topics could theoretically have hundreds of useful links, but editors should focus on a small selection of ressources that are most useful for a general readership. A bit tangential but worth pointing out: blacklisting has several safeguards to prevent or mitigate the blocking of useful external information. Editors can suggest specific useful links in blacklisted domains to be whitelisted and less-serious cases can be listed to get automatically reverted via XLinkBot instead of being fully blacklisted. Erroneous blacklistings are extremely rare, and like other admin decisions they are also open for review to get such mistakes corrected if needed.

Additional question from Clovermoss

6. How are blocks for unregistered users (I.P. addresses) different from blocks of registered users who have created an account? Clovermoss (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A: The main difference is the recommended length for such blocks. As most IPs are usually dynamic and/or potentially used by several editors, extended blocks in this area risk preventing good-faith edits from other uninvolved IP editors. To avoid this, blocks for IPs should be applied cautiously and usually with a shorter block duration compared to a unique registered account. Of course serious repeated disruption from specific IPs need to be handled with appropriate longer blocks, but such blocks should only be done in exceptional cases with the minimum necessary duration.

Additional question from Nsk92

7. As you mention in the answer to Q1 that you plan to focus on dealing with promotional editing, I wonder what your thoughts are regarding dealing with articles created in violation of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and of the WMF paid editing terms of use, and with editors creating such articles.

A:Creating articles for pay without disclosure is a clear violation of WMF's Terms of use and of our equivalent WP:PAID policy for this aspect. Articles created by undisclosed paid editors need to be checked against our basic content guidelines by uninvolved editors. Depending on the state of each article, deletion, draftifying or consequent trimming to a stub article could all be viable options - such articles are likely to violate guidelines and policies such as WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and WP:SPS. Like with all other policies, editors repeatedly violating WP:PAID should be blocked after sufficient warnings have been given. On the other hand, we should try to assist the minority of paid editors who are willing to follow our policies in that regard. Such editors often struggle to understand all nuances and details of these policies and may make mistakes out of ignorance rather than intent.

Additional question from Levivich

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

A: Yes, I will add myself to this category. The process gives the community another option to hold admins accountable and that's usually a good thing (TM). Looking through some of the more common recall options, I am tending towards an RfC-based recall process that can be initiated by n editors in good standing, but I will need more time to think over all the details - I hope a general assurance is satisfactory for now. On a personal note, I would simply resign if I made grave mistakes and felt to have lost the community's trust, but I appreciate that the community should also have an explicit kind of safeguard. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Beeblebrox

9.This is basically a direct follow up to the above question. If you look at that category, you will note that the vast majority of admins are not in it. The main reason for this is that there actually is no such thing as administrator recall and never has been. It is an entirely voluntary process and there is no way to force an admin to step down even if all the criteria they listed themselves are met. (I have personally participated in a recall process where the admin in question stated who could recall him, when I tried to do so, he simply removed my name from the list. There really aren't any rules at all) Given all that, would you reconsider your answer to the previous question?

A I am aware that the process is entirely voluntary, non-binding, and not governed by any "formal" policies, but plan to join nonetheless. It is listed at Wikipedia:Administrators, so I am assuming it is still a valid option. Of course problems will occur in literally every Wikipedia process from time to time. That doesn't necessarily mean that such a process cannot be useful in other cases. But thank you for the advice and additional information.

10. Do you think this was appropriate, and that we should refrain from asking difficult questions because you are "a nice guy"?

A It was clearly misplaced, RfA-related concerns should be posted either here or on the RfA talkpage for more detailed discussions. I noticed you have already addressed this personal comment on your user talkpage, so it should be resolved by now. Regarding Q9, your question was difficult and touched upon an apparently controversial issue, but I tried to answer it as a good-faith question as sincerely as possible. No problem here, I don't mind a difficult question.

Thanks for your replies. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from AmericanAir88

11. As a follow up to Q4 and Q6, I noticed that you have a user box on your talk page that says "This user supports mandatory registration." (Here is the difference for clarity). The user box image is a strike through of the word "IP address". Why do you believe all IP users should register? In Q4 you touched upon how they should be treated, but this is more on the reasoning for the user box. Thank you, you seem like a great editor.

A I think one of the most important aspects of this issue is communication between the IP editor and the community, as I briefly mentioned before. I really don't want to change this RfA into a forum discussion on IP editing, but of course I will try to offer a few additional thoughts on the issue: First of all an IP editor without a stable line of communication will have a difficult time to get detailed advice and help from the community. Sure they can ask at Teahouse or Help desk, but community members have no chance to reach out to them as soon as the IP address changes again. Their learning curve is likely to be steeper without such assistance from experienced editors. Another aspect is community building in general: while contributions from IP editors are appreciated of course, as a project we should encourage interested editors to join more regularly on a more stable base. I fear that many IP editors, who may be interested, will not join and eventually wander off again, as the lack of communication and participation in project-internal processes by IP editors does not encourage a deeper involvement. I strongly disagree with WMF's statistical approach on that matter, that seems primarily interested in edit counts and visitor numbers instead of a long-time concept for community building in a collaborative framework. There are more aspects to this issue, but I hope these general points make some concerns more clear.

Additional Question from Carrite

12. It has been observed that you've never started an article at Wikipedia per the Creations XTool. This seems unusual for someone doing two-thirds of their work in mainspace. Can you explain this apparent anomaly? Carrite (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A: The short answer would be that I am not really sure, but maybe I can give some background details and possible reasons: One aspect is certainly that I am not a native English speaker. I can make do with basic English in everyday communication (I hope), but writing an entire article in a foreign language in a fluent encyclopedic manner is a whole different matter. In my early days I worked intensively editing several WP:FAR articles though that were in risk of demotion so I believe I have a good knowledge about content guidelines in that regard. Also, most topics that I would be interested in, for example medieval history, are already well-covered with existing articles. It may sound strange, but I just never felt like contributing in article creation yet and, while I greatly appreciate editors with this skill, I don't see it as an absolute requirement for a constructive editor.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional Question from Andrew D.

13. It seems that your Wikipedia activity has been focussed on the English version from the outset but this is not your most fluent language. Why did you not prefer to work in the German language Wikipedia?

A: When I started to become interested in Wikipedia, occasionally reading some articles and sporadically making some minor edits as IP editor, I did so in the English-language Wikipedia. That wasn't a conscious language choice though - I am often surfing on English-language websites for many topics, because English-language websites are usually more widespread for any given topic like politics or documentaries. After getting settled here, especially in the featured article community in my first years, I never saw a good reason to switch. Nothing against the German Wiki, but I prefer the English Wiki in some regards, for example the more active community, its close cooperation in many areas, and its stricter focus on verifiability and a neutral point of view. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

14. What two areas of the English Wikipedia do you consider yourself to be the weakest?

A: That's a tough question for anyone to answer about their own contributions, but I'll try. Article creation is certainly one of these areas as already mentioned, although I have all the necessary knowledge and understanding about the underlying principles and guidelines. Moving on from the obvious, I sometimes struggle with page functions like redirects, moves, mergers and splits. A simple move or a merge request are no problem, but when it comes to more complicated situations I'll gladly pass. These processes are far too technical and obscure for my taste, at least in non-standard situations. Categorization is a similar area where the basic features are relatively easy to understand, but getting into the more arcane details of category logic and maintenance has been a challenge for me.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. As nominator. Guy (help!) 21:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. AfD work looks good. Haukur (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support - I've seen GJ around here and there over the years. After a refresher via the interaction analyzer and a look through some other figures, I'm seeing plenty of good reasons to support and none to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support I'll admit I'd never heard of GermanJoe before as he's a bit gnomish, but looking through his history, I'm impressed. Joe has kept his hands clean, and been a great asset to the community. We've long been asking for admins in more than just North American time zones, and this is a great opportunity to expand that. A nom by Guy cements my support! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support As TRM says at ITN/C, "satis". While Cryptic brings up a fair enough point with sparse anti-spam activity, WP:NONEED allows this to not be a dealbreaker. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Support I believe I've seen him in AfD, and I'll support anyone working in the gnome regions for 9 years. Nothing says he'll abuse the mop. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Some of the gravest cases of copyvios have been found in articles from the sub-continent; so it's heartening to see an editor contributing to improve the project in an area that is significantly ignored by the majority of us. Extensive editing and maintenance experience, good conversation skills, seems a good choice here. Lourdes 01:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Support - long term editor with a clear need for the tools. I've stumbled across his work hundreds of times and I trust him to make the right decisions. Kuru (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Support per nom good contributions and well versed in policy clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Support does good work, will make a good admin. FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 03:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
11. Support. I've also never heard of GermanJoe before as he's a bit gnomish, but after spending a good hour researching, although he falls short on several of my criteria, his knowledge of policy and guidelines is more than adequate, he has a calm, polite, mature and helpful demeanour, and there is therefore no reason not to trust him with the tools or the sense of judgment that goes with the job of janitor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
12. Support. Great candidate, looks to be a great admin too. Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
13. Support - very good editor,definite net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
14. Of course, I have seen lots of good things. —Kusma (t·c) 06:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
15. Support I've seen them around doing good stuff - never disagreed with their actions. No red flags in a look through their history. Polite, knowledgable, helpful - seems like a clear net positive to me. -- Begoon 07:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
16. Support I don't see any problems and they have the experience and skills so as to use the admin tools well. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
17. Support has many years experience, although it doesn't really matter as long as he has enough, just like edit count. His AfD logs are impressive. Contributes mainly in article space. Has plans to help at AIV. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
18. Support. One who I thought already was an admin. Been extremely helpful in the past on image licensing queries, which interaction showed him to be knowledgeable, patient and unfailingly calm. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
19. Support, no issues here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
20. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
21. Support I don't generally like editors who claim to be "anti spam" as it often means "anti topics I haven't heard of", but I've checked out GermanJoe's contributions, and I don't see any concerns. Going through his talk page archives, I find lots of constructive and helpful advice. His CSD tagging is good with no obvious recent declines or mistakes. He talks a good argument at AfD, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokaglish when consensus didn't go his way (and in retrospect probably should have). I was a little concerned over what appeared to be (at least superficially) edit warring at Hyperthymesia, but this seems to be reasonable action for somebody who doesn't have the block button, and GermanJoe reached out to the other editor with a polite, hand-written message before getting action taken. Give him a mop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
22. Support precious nit-picking tools and brainstorming --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
23. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
24. Support: excellent temperament, the most important quality for an admin, and very competent. — Bilorv (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
25. Support per nominator. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
26. Support - Sufficient tenure (steady and active since Sept. 2014) and participation (63.9K edits, 66.4% mainspace) for this native German-speaking editor. His first stable version of his user page after becoming active at WP looks like THIS, which is a very good sign indeed. Clean block log and no indication of assholery. AfD win-loss record using my scoring system is 17-2 voting Keep and 223-7 voting delete, which, while definitely a bit out of balance on the deletion side of the ledger is nonetheless excellent in terms of meeting consensus. One bad deletion nomination in the last two years, for social psychologist Lee Jussim which ended up as a 6-0 keep if nominator is excluded. Stuff happens. Appears to be an excellent candidate. Appears to have a need for the toolkit as a spam-fighter. No concerns whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jussim was a procedural nomination originally requested by an IP, so I wouldn't even hold that against Joe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    I missed that fact, thank you for the clarification. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

27. Support Strangely I never came across the candidate even though they have completed a mountain of edits, guess it shows how the big the project is. I had a look last night and seems a reasonable decent candidate. scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
28. Support.has many years experience. I believe I've seen him in AfD. very good editor,definite net positive. does good work, will make a good admin.--Nahal^(T) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
29. Support meets my criteria. I’m particularly impressed with the answer to Q5, and think that he would be a net positive with the tools. See also: WP:Yyy?. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Support' strong content contributions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Change to neutral.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC

30. Support Seems like a right guy to handle the admin mop around here. - Darwinek (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
31. Support I don't see anything that makes me wary. Trustworthy, been around a while and is experienced, and definitely a net positive. In addition, the answer to my question was exactly what I was looking for. Clovermoss (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
32. Support An excellent candidate. A net positive. Good luck, N.J.A. | talk 12:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
33. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
34. Support Everything I reviewed looked good to me. — Ched (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
35. Support The spam blacklist always needs work, and I trust JzG's nomination. Good answers to questions so far; no drama is a welcome plus, so I have no reason not to support. Miniapolis 13:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
36. Support - Seems like a solid choice who would make the project better if granted admin access. Michepman (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
37. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
38. Support Competent, well-intentioned, good temperament, unlikely to abuse the tools, and huge extra points for the early version of their user page found by Carrite, which emphasizes how diligent this editor has been since first starting to edit. Also how diligent Carrite is. --valereee (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
39. Support Edit history shows candidate to be helpful and collegial and reasonable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
40. Support Per nom and others, particularly Kudpung and Richie333. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
41. Support Strong content work, no concerns. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
42. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
43. Support Doesn't show up in all the wrong drama places so with the above supports, looks like an ideal candidate. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
44. Support I have seen GermanJoe around. I've found him a competent editor, temperamentally suited for adminship and trustworthy. Vexations (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks well qualified, and I don't see any cause for concern. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
46. Support Adminship is no big deal. As long as the user has good knowledge of Wikipedia policies through experience, and there is no reason to believe that the user will abuse the tools, there is no reason to oppose. William2001^(talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
47. Support solid record at AfD, appears to have a track record of civility, no apparent reason to oppose. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
48. Support remember him as very solid in any cases I've come across him on articles and highly likely to make good use of admin tools.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
49. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
50. OK with me. Neutrality^talk 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
51. Support, well-rounded experience, good temperament, clueful answers to the questions, will make a good admin. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
52. Per nom, and I think Nsk summed it up well above. With thanks to GJ for stepping up and volunteering. – Levivich 21:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
53. Support - Competent and trusted candidate, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
54. Support - I see no red flags. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
55. Support One of the easiest decisions in RFA in a while. Good content history, no drama. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
56. Support - as per nom. Reviewed contribs and no concerns. Loopy30 (talk)
57. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
58. Support - Looking back through XTools and AFD Stats, and I can't find anything wrong. At all. Utopes (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
59. Support - work in policing promotional editing policy can be tricky. I wish you the best of luck with it, and hope that you will uphold the trust that WP's users place in us to provide NPOV, unbiased coverage. Hlevy2 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
60. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
61. Support An excellent, well-qualified candidate, and it is great to have two such candidates right now. I appreciate the thorough analyses by Carrite and especially by Ritchie333. Great to see you back, Ritchie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
62. Support Tolly4bolly 01:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
63. support per Carrite and Ritchie, and my inability to find anything of concern. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
64. Support Experienced and qualified editor; good demeanor and interactions; excellent AfD work; can do valuable work in areas that always need attention (spam) and that can get backlogged; positive contributor for many years; trustworthiness established. Donner60 (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
65. Support I see no problem with the candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 07:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
66. Support per Ritchie and Carrite. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
67. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
68. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
69. Support - seems like would be a good addition Takerlamar (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
70. Support After having a deeper look, I was impressed with the candidate. --Pudeo (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
71. Support Sure. Fish+Karate 08:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
72. Three support votes because an anti-spam admin is worth about three other admins. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
73. Support moved from neutral now all of the current questions have been answered - haven't run into GermanJoe myself on the project, but they seem like they are more than ready for the mop. SportingFlyer T·C 10:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
74. Support no issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. I haven't interacted with the candidate much, but he has been around on various maintenance noticeboards and is generally a reasonable editor to work with. Deryck C. 12:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
76. Support. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
77. Support - undoubted asset to the encyclopedia, unquestioned support from me. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
78. Zustimmung. Seems like a clueful, helpful and productive user who will be even more of a benefit for the project with the mop. Also, more Germans seems like a good idea I like the answer to Q11 despite disagreeing with his opinion. As for the hesitance displayed in Q12, I probably thought the same when I ran for admin but I can assure you, one can indeed write good articles even if English is their second language, so I am optimistic that the candidate might take on some article creation in the future. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

    @SoWhy: more Germans seems like a good idea...first time anyone's said that since 1945 :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

    Don't mention the war! I did once, but I think I got away with it. Basil333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

79. Support-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
80. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
81. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
82. support Looks very promising. Richie333's comments are quite convincing. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
83. Long established editor with a clean blocklog, happy to support per Ritchie33. ϢereSpielChequers 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
84. Support - No concerns. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
85. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
86. Support Good contributions, especially to AfD—no concerns. —comrade waddie96 ★ [ talk ] 16:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
87. Support - long-time editor, good answers above. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
88. Support. Good editor and seems like a good candidate. I would also like to see article creations, but I suppose we can't have everything. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
89. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
90. Support I had basically no read on this user before this RFA, but I'm now at a point where I feel like I have a decent idea of what they'd be like as an admin and I like what I see. They've worked with content plenty, article creation isn't everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
91. Support. No red flags for me, and I think that JzG's description in the nomination matches what I'm seeing. (An aside: the first oppose is partly for being too deletionist and the first neutral indicates concerns about being too inclusionist. Maybe that's RfA in a nutshell.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
92. Alles gut. Kablammo (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
93. Support A great editor who will thrive with the mop. I appreciate your honesty, dedication, and answer to my question. You will be a great help with Trans-wiki edits and countering vandalism. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
94. Clearly a competent editor. In someone with a less distinguished edit history I would be considered about the lack of meat in the areas of expressed interest. But has established enough proof that he won't muck about in ways that cause mistakes to make this a clear support for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
95. Support, solidly clued in. bd2412 T 01:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
96. Support: helpful, trustworthy; yay! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
97. Support, Based on the introduction and on the good answers to the questions. The delete/keep !vote ratio is not a red flag for me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
98. Support KillerChihuahua 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
99. Support. No concerns, level-headed and fantastic answers. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
100. Support - No concerns. In particular, no concern about the fact that he is editing in his second language, which is more than good enough for administration. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
101. Support seen from time to time at AFD, has a clue. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
102. Support. Anarchyte (talk | work) 16:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
103. Support - Great answers, good editing record and apparently clueful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
104. Support. Limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
105. Support. Strong communication skills. The candidate would be an effective maintainer of the spam blacklist and whitelist. — Newslinger talk 17:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
106. Support. As above. I think the quality of GermanJoe's work, such as at AFD/FAC, as well as his calm demeanor, are all good qualities for adminship. I'm also impressed at his proficiency of editing in his second language. epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
107. Support. On those rare occasions I have worked in the same areas as GermanJoe I have never seen anything to suggest any problems are likely to develop from giving them the bit. Also I liked his answers. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
108. Support. Finally an editor that is working in other crucial areas than the areas where most admins are active. Will do great work in areas where many (most?) other admins never thread. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
109. Support Seeing the support comment, just above, I didn't know sewing skills were part of the requirements for the job! But GermanJoe seems to have a pretty good experience of many other areas of our work, bar article creation, which has been explained. Has very good AfD and CSD results. He has helped out on many occasions at the Teahouse - and, in my view, we need all editors who run for RfA nowadays to be be able to demonstrate their ability to engage with, assist and support new editors - typically via one of our help fora. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
110. Support Worthy of the admin tools. No reason to oppose (IMO). VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
111. Support No concerns - a worthy candidate. IP75 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
112. Support Wait, he isn't already an admin? True he may not have lengthy experience at AfD and such, but overall I trust him with the tools. I expect that if he isn't certain about something, he'll ask for input before actually doing anything. I don't think he's a risk. 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaderofthePack (talk • contribs)
113. Support - Met qualifications as a suitable candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
114. Support since no strong reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
115. Support LGTM. --Masum Reza^📞 01:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
116. Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
117. Support as per Ritchie333 and Bilorv. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
118. Support per nominator and all the other great reasons above. Seen him around. -- Deepfriedokra 11:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

     PS Need replacements for those of us lost to senescence . The ever growing back logs are growing ever.-- Deepfriedokra 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

119. Support, won't break anything. Harrias ^talk 15:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
120. Support, trustworthy candidate.Polyamorph (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
121. Support No concerns and I am decidedly unconvinced by the opposes. Mkdw ^talk 17:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
122. Support I don't see any reasons to oppose this RfA at all, good editors don't necessarily need to have created hundreds of articles, it's what they do whilst editing that is the important thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
123. Support Looks like a solid candidate. No issues. The opposes are unconvincing and in two cases, bordering on frivolous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
124. Support No issues that I can see, solid contributor, knows the ropes. Welcome to the corps, German Joe.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
125. Support No concerns. Editor has a clue. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
126. Support No problems supporting this fine candidate. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
127. Support per pretty much everyone. Seren_Dept 03:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
128. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
129. Support for reasons. No evidence candidate will harm the encyclopedia if given the tools (not a jerk), and plenty of evidence candidate will help the project in certain areas if given the tools (long history of positive contribution, answers to questions, etc.) Also per Deepfriedokra 11:17, 2 October 2019. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
130. El_C 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
131. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
132. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
133. Support No concerns – looks good to me. ComplexRational (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
134. Weak Support: I do feel that some content creation is necessary, though my threshold is much lower than most. So I'd been concerned by lack of articles created, but a look through the amount of content added to some of their most-edited articles make me feel they do know the concerns content creators may face. I do have concerns about their AfD (though not CSD) deletionist nature - - that's less of a concern than in some cases as they're heavily nominations, and as they're well reasoned I'm not concerned they don't have more keeps. I do however think GermanJoe could do better with alternatives to deletion, some could be legitimate merges, others would make better redirects, allowing retention of content. However, their reasoning is always good - in fact, the one nomination recently closed as Keep could legitimately be an NC. They will definitely be a net profit to the project. If they remember to consider alternatives, they'll be phenomenal. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
135. There are some very fine sysops who haven't created any articles! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
136. Support Will do a great job as admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
137. Support - GermanJoe has done an excellent job stamping out spam throughout the encyclopedia. I am confident they will be an excellent admin. Altamel (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
138. Support - Definitely, they have the tools. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 03:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
139. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
140. Support  Spintendo  07:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
141. Support He will be more effective with the toolset.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
142. Surprised that i don't seem to have come across the candidate previously as i usually at least recognise the names of RfA candidates. Nevertheless, happy to support based on questions answered, a brief investigation of contributions, and to help negate at least one foolish oppose !vote. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
143. Support Well-rounded candidate who will greatly benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
144. Support: A great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
145. Mostly to counter oppose #2. — 🦊 16:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
146. Support - Appears super-qualified. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
147. Support - appears qualified and besides, the tools are no big deal. -- Tawker (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
148. Support - Very satisfied with the answers to all questions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
149. Support - seems like a reasonable case for support and a perlustration of their history showed no issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
150. Support trusted and competent. Jianhui67 ^T★C 05:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
151. feminist (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
152. Support Solid answers to the questions above, and the oppose votes below are unconvincing. Will be a net positive asset to the project. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
153. Support. No concerns. – bradv🍁 15:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
154. Support experienced enough and has a clue, no issues brought forth to exclude from the tools.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
155. Support. No concerns. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
156. Support. No concerns. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
157. Support. Absolutely no reason not to. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 20:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
158. Support. I have encountered GermanJoe in fellow WikiGnome activities, and always appreciated his efforts. Having looked into his contributions in more detail, he would make an excellent administrator. Greenman (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
159. Support as candidate has a good track record of identifying addition of unreliable/spam/promotional sources in articles. While I have never interacted directly, I have always noticed their edits on some articles in my watch list. I appreciate these edits since they help to ensure that our articles do not degrade. I also like their answers, particularly to Q11 and believe they are suitable to be an admin.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
160. Last minute support I don't see anything wrong with this user. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Negligible creation of articles. Negligible actual editing of BLPs. Under 8% "Keep" !votes at AfD. Indeed, mainly a "delete nominating" person, it seems (roughly 1/2 of all AfDs voted on, were nominated by this person). Three negatives and I have to oppose. Collect (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose Since there are no way of removing administrators, I will not support any new ones. Creuzbourg (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Administrators can be removed by a ruling of the arbitration committee; see Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship. –xeno^talk 13:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   This vote is inappropriate in view of question 8 re WP:RECALL. – Fayenatic London 14:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Ditto - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   I really hadn't intended to say more in this RFA about recall, but I can't agree with you all that this is inappropriate. I'm sure Joe is sincere in his answers but let's not pretend admin recall is a real thing that gets used and is binding. I'll agree that this isn't a great reason to oppose and I find it unpersuasive, but to act like they don't even have a right to say it is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Aye. We've tolerated people who voted Oppose to every single RfA, regardless of merit. When it's passing by a wide margin, it makes no difference. Guy (help!) 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   There are plenty of ways of removing administrators. They may, for example, criticise the editing of people with friends in high places. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Noting for the record that Creuzbourg's false statement has been corrected by numerous people on his talk page and rather than even responding in good faith, he's simply blanking the good faith messages. You can generally oppose for any reason but this is tantamount to trolling. If this continues we will need to discuss a TBAN. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Agree. Off with their heads. And while we're at it, let's just do away with the oppose section. Lourdes 01:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   I just love it when an admin casually tosses out a strawman like that. Lepricavark (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

   The vote has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the candidate or to RfA. It should be struck by a clerk. This is exactly the kind of voting that causes drama, causes me to comment, and discourages potential candidates from stepping forward. Per Swarm, it's basically trolling. We should not be zimperlich about removing such votes and applying sanctions.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

   While I agree with all the many reasons given as to what a poor rationale this is, I also believe that an opposer may oppose for whatever reason they choose, no matter how ludicrous I may find it. I'm glad this discussion has not resulted in a reflexive mass oppose as has happened in past RFA's, but I see no point in bugging someone about there oppose.-- Deepfriedokra 17:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   I tend to agree with Deepfried. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose From what I can see this candidate is a nice Wikipedian. IMO, not really a reason to give an editor powerful tools. I see that there has been zero content creation by the candidate and no experience in conflict areas. In spite of these glaring deficits the candidate looks to pass easily. Wm335td (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   I've definitely encountered GermanJoe in content creation areas. See the featured article nomination of Cirrus cloud for one example. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Spam fighting is a conflict area, and also a compelling reason for needing the tools. Please note: you are allowed to just oppose because you feel like it, there's no need to come up with a rationale that people will immediately point out is a bit silly. Guy (help!) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   I know, everyone has a right to have their own opinion, but same contention as I mentioned earlier: editors can only be good admins if they do a lot of content creation. And regarding the 'no experience in conflict areas': you think that spammers are happy when you stop them? Maybe they just have the right approach to conflict, stop the dramah? 'glaring deficiencies', can we start looking at the good things an editor does, instead of only looking for deficiencies? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. Creating new articles is not the only form of content creation. We have prolific content creators who have never once started a new article, as well as gnomes like myself who have started several articles, but if I were running at RFA I would probably fail some people's content creation requirements. It is accurate, though not necessarily relevant, to say that this candidate has not started any new articles from scratch. It is not accurate to say that they are not a content creator, though it might be that their content creation does not meet an individual !voters content creation standards. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   Lack of content creation was a long honored reason to oppose. Glad to see this looks changed. When the crats read this, I hope they follow the piped link in my "support", as it contains an extended rationale, part of which is a counter to this argument.-- Deepfriedokra 17:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose for answers to questions 4, 6, and especially 11. I appreciate their honesty and (current) willingness to follow community consensus, but there are too many admins who go about flouting consensus and guidelines just because they disagree with them. We don't need more who start from the mindset that the current consensus is wrongheaded and should be overturned. Rockphed (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rockphed: - while I disagree with this viewpoint, firmly, it's not illegitimate, but I wanted to ask if you were worried that opposes on these grounds risked driving future RfA candidates to hide their disagreements with community consensus (at least where they didn't have clear demonstrations of it elsewhere)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually am a little worried about causing that. My last 2 opposes on RfAs (one of which I didn't post because I wanted to give myself time to think it through and the RfA got withdrawn before I got around to it) were largely because the candidates were much too prone to drama, and someone suggested in one of them that similar candidates in the future would instead spend time acting as model wikipedians until everyone forgot about their drama causing ways. While I am sure that some drama addicts will manage to slip through in such fashion, pretending to be something is often the first step to becoming it. I am not sure what a suitable test of potential admin character is (since we can't ship them off to the WMF secret facility in Wyoming for a vision quest). I should probably ask a question to elicit a response from GermanJoe regarding community consensus and how admins should interact with it. I will spend some time thinking about how to word such a question and what sort of answer I would want to change my mind. Maybe I should have put this as a neutral vote because this is literally my only objection to giving GermanJoe admin rights, and otherwise they seem like a perfect candidate. Rockphed (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I can't find anything really objectionable in his deleted edits or CSD log. (Maybe some overoptimism in trying to save things like Bihar Entrepreneurs Association or RecoveryManager Plus, both of which I'd've G11'd without a second thought, though that says as much about me as him.) What is objectionable is that they're both very, very sparse for such an anti-spam-oriented nomination and Q1. —Cryptic 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral I have read the support votes from other editors I respect and intend to support, but I have never run into this user before on the encyclopaedia and while that fact in no way disqualifies anyone from being an admin, I want to read all of their answers to the questions before I cast my ballot. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Neutral Candidate is not comfortable with the English language per answer to question 12. As a result the candidate created/started no articles. However the candidate has 66.4% of edits in the main space, and that is the only reason I am not in the oppose camp at this time. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

   LOL! That answer is given in flawless English, as is every other comment I have ever seen from GermanJoe! As is so often the case, a non-native English speaker is hesitant to put himself forward as a writer (rather than an editor or maintainer) in English, yet we routinely have native speakers writing ungrammatical gibberish with no thought that their English might be below par. If it weren't for the username I would not know that Joe is German. Guy (help!) 11:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   lol yourself. The candidate admits they do not feel comfortable enough with the English language to start an English article. If it weren't for the answer I would not have known. Zero article creation and I still did not oppose. But I am leaning oppose. Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

   As you say, If it weren't for the answer I would not have known. I wish some of our so-called native English speakers were as reticent. Writing and editing are separate skill sets. Both are valuable. If anything, we undervalue editors compared to writers. That's a historical accident and was valid when we had a few hundred thousand articles and lots of redlinks, but the need for new articles is not so pressing now, and in fact a critical reviewer of AFC is probably more valuable than someone who sits down and writes new articles themselves. But whatever. Guy (help!) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   There is a difference between not writing articles because the need for new articles is not so pressing now or not writing articles because you are not comfortable enough with the English language. Note: the candidate wants to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia...so I hope you see I have valid concerns and allow me my informed opinion without your dismissive Lol and whatever. You are an administrator and I expect better. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

3. Neutral I was on the verge of supporting until I looked at GermanJoe's contributions. Okay, there is no obligation to create new articles, but he seems to have spent more time removing other people's errors than adding useful content. So I don't feel able to support, though I have no specific objection to his being made an admin. Deb (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   Removing other people's errors could be a succinct description of exactly what an admin's job is. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   No, that's everyone's job. Admins should have some knowledge of content creation. Deb (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   True. For me, that was satisfied by a number of significant expansions and his work in FAR. But it's subjective and reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 12:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

4. Neutral per Deb.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Wehwalt: You already !voted support on the 29th. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, sorry, meant to strike that but got busy with something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

5. Neutral: per Deb and my own fears about the potential for WP:cowboy adminship (solely on the IP registration issue, mind). I have, however, seen the candidate around, and, well, GJ's constructive, works well with others, and so on. I'm just ambivalent about giving him the bit. (No offense.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• I've noted the userbox which the candidate has chosen to keep (per AmericanAir88). I've taken into account the candidate's explanation regarding lack of communication both ways and technical restrictions on editing, both of which tend to discourage anon editors' long-term engagement. I'm also aware of the sockpuppetry-related and single-purpose account-related reasons for these technical restrictions. Still, I find it to be reductive and thoughtless to conclude that registration should be mandatory for editing - anon editors are people who engage in vandal-fighting themselves and add valuable content before registered editors can. This is the reason why I ended up removing my earlier vote, and honestly I'm puzzled by the community's indifference to this issue while !voting on this candidacy. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am leaning towards the mandatory registration view myself, for editing, or perhaps default PC. But that would be an ecumenical matter. Guy (help!) 10:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.