Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Z1720

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

Z1720

Final (194/0/0); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 19:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Z1720 (talk · contribs) – Hi all, Z1720 has been actively editing since August 2020, though has had an account for considerably longer. It's my honour to nominate them for adminship. They know content, with 2 FAs and 5 GAs to their belt and actively participating at Featured article review and Featured article candidates pages. I've found Z1720 to be level-headed and sensible. Hence I'm sure them being an admin will be a net positive. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

It's been a pleasure to collaborate with Z1720 since early 2021. Their content work is excellent (see Types Riot and William Lyon Mackenzie), their demeanor is always calm and sensible, and they're an excellent reviewer who has helped save many older FAs at WP:FAR and have provided valuable input at many featured article candidates. Z1720 has also become a force at DYK, where more administrators are always needed to promote items to the main page and step in when manual intervention is needed for updating the main page. Z1720 has the knowledge, skills, and demeanor to be an excellent administrator. Hog Farm _Talk 23:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Thank you to the nominators for your kind words and to the editors who gave me advice before this RfA. I have never edited Wikipedia for money and never used an alternative account. I look forward to answering your questions below. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: My main focus as an administrator would be DYK. For the past several months I have enjoyed creating prep sets and reading articles from all over Wikipedia. I want to help keep this process working by promoting preps to queues, especially when DYK is running two sets a day.

I would also monitor ERRORS; I’ve been nominating at TFA for the past few months, especially articles promoted before 2016, so I have seen how that process works and why certain language is chosen for TFA blurbs. With my knowledge of the DYK and TFA process, I can quickly address concerns at ERRORS and evaluate if changes are needed to blurbs or hooks. Another area I would monitor is COIN; I have evaluated requests from editors with a conflict of interest, although not as often as I used to. If there was a backlog of COIN concerns, I would be willing to evaluate them carefully.

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

A: My best contribution is William Lyon Mackenzie. I spent almost a year finding every source I could, summarising his life, and bringing it to FA status. It is my first FAC, so I will always have special memories of this article.

I am also proud of my work at articles I have reviewed at FAR, like Chinua Achebe and War of the Fifth Coalition. These are topics that I was unfamiliar with before I reviewed their FA status, but I used my knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines to give comments on how to improve them. Most importantly, I collaborated with other editors to save these FAs; Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I am proud of how editors worked together to improve the articles, and I am honoured to have been a small part in helping the articles keep their FA status.

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: Reviewing articles (of which I have done in DYK, GAN, PR, FAC, FAR, and FLC) will sometimes cause disagreements among editors. My approach in these disagreements is to carefully read other editors’ responses and give feedback that focuses on the content of the article (not the actions of the editor.) I also try to employ a “two response” rule, where I will only respond twice to a discussion thread unless absolutely necessary to give more information. I believe an apology can go a long way; if I make a mistake or cause an unintended consequence, I will apologise and propose ways to improve the situation.

In the real world, I work in an artistic field where my creations and actions are constantly critiqued. I have learned to respect their opinions and reflect on how my actions cause others to respond. As an admin, I hope editors will post on my talk page when they are concerned about my actions. If I agree with them, I will say why and try to learn from my mistake. If I disagree, I will explain why and try to find a solution. I will also ask neutral parties, particularly other admin, to look at these actions and suggest ways to improve my conduct.

---

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.

Optional question from Fram

4. Looking back at Template:Did you know nominations/Indiana HB 1041, what if anything would you do differently?

A: This is an action that I messed up. When I promoted the article, I checked the Indiana legislature source that had the precise dates of the veto and the veto override. I saw that the days were three days apart, as stated in the hook. What I missed was that the veto and the override were two months and three days apart, thus not verifying what the hook said. I realised that I messed up when I woke up the next morning and saw the ERRORS thread. While I was typing a response (which included a huge apology once I rechecked the source) the thread was unfortunately archived as resolved.

What I learned from this mistake is to check precise numbers carefully when promoting at DYK. If I become an admin, I will be double-checking figures while promoting preps to queues. This includes dates, monetary amounts, the amount of a group of objects or people, and anything else with a precise number. If I notice a discrepancy in the hook and the source, I will post a new thread at WT:DYK and ping the nominator, promoter, and other major participants of the DYK nomination in my post. If the situation cannot be resolved quickly (because the queue set that the hook belonged to was going to be promoted to the main page soon, or there is an extended discussion) then I will pull the hook and replace it with a hook that was promoted to a different prep set. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from GeoffreyT2000

5. Suppose that you see a user account with any one of the following names: ZI720, Zl720, Z172O, ZI72O, or Zl72O. Would you then block them as impersonating yourself?

A: I wrote a very long answer to this question, referencing various pages and policy points, but the short answer is no, for a variety of reasons. If you are interested in the longer answer, feel free to post on my talk page. Before typing this answer, I reread the username policy because I was unsure about the appropriate answer. Whenever I am unsure, I am going to try to find the appropriate policy or ask another administrator for help.

Per WP:BADNAME, if the user is not actively editing than no further action is necessary. If they are, but their edits do not go against other policies (such as spam or vandalism) then I would check to see if there was a discussion about their username on the user’s talk page, the administrator noticeboard archives, and RFCN to see if they have been granted permission by an admin or the community to use the name. If not, I would post Template:Uw-username and encourage them to change their username due to our similarity. If the situation is not resolved at this point, I would open a new thread at WP:RFCN.

If policy is being broken, such as spam or impersonating me, I would file a report on the appropriate noticeboard. I would not take direct action myself as I would consider myself involved. I would contact another administrator directly if I thought immediate action needed to be taken and ask them to evaluate the situation. Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish

6. What are your worst contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my worst contributions to Wikipedia were at Miriam Adams in 2016. When I nominated the article for DYK, the reviewer correctly noted that there was close paraphrasing throughout the article. Instead of fixing the problems at the time, I let the nomination fail for being stale (and not addressing the issues) and did not edit Wikipedia for many years. When I returned as an editor in 2020, I revisited the article and tried to resolve the close paraphrasing concerns. I took another look at the article today, and after some edits I think the article’s phrasing is improved even more. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from FormalDude

7. Do you support no-warning blocks?

A: The short answer is yes, under very specific circumstances outlined below:

The question links to an essay entitled “Zero tolerance”. While essays contain helpful information, they “have no official status and do not speak for the Wikipedia community because they may be created and edited without overall community oversight” (quoted from WP:ESSAY). I read through ZT, then consulted the blocking policy to get more information.

The blocking policy states that “warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking” and “users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.” WP:DISRUPTONLY outlines various scenarios in which no-warning blocks may be enacted. Before blocking without a warning, I would ensure that I am not involved in the dispute (for example, I would not block for actions in an article I nominated to FAC) and that there is ongoing disruption to the project (so for vandalism, one edit would not qualify for a non-warning block.) Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

8. Will you be open to recall?

A: I anticipated getting this question, and gave this a lot of thought. The short answer is no. My view is that the community should decide the desysop procedure and I do not want to add additional rules or mechanisms that have not been community approved. This means that, at the time of this RfA, I can be involuntarily desysoped by the Arbitration Committee (or bureaucrats under specific circumstances). However, I will be readily accountable to the community, answering questions on my talk page and participating in discussions about my actions in other locations, as it is required per WP:ADMINACCT.

If an editor is concerned about my conduct, I would encourage them to message me on my talk page or send an email. After a discussion, if there is still a major disagreement about my conduct, I would encourage them to open a thread on WP:XRV, WP:ANI, or wherever would be most appropriate for the concern (and if I think my action/conduct needs a wider community discussion, I would open it myself). I would refrain from acting in the affected area while the thread was ongoing. If the community endorsed an ArbCom case, I would actively participate in the case and answer any questions.

If the community changed the desysop procedure, I would fully adhere to it. If the community decided to put in a grandfather clause for older admin, I would refuse it as I would want to be held to the same standards as incoming admin. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Dreamy Jazz

9. Hi. Thanks for willingness to take the mop and you can skip my question if you desire. What would you do if an editor reported another editor at WP:COIN and in doing so revealed non-public personal information that backed up their claim about them being a WP:PAID editor? Let me know if you want more info on that situation.

A: There are two separate issues in this question: WP:OUTING and potential WP:COI editing. These would need to be dealt with separately, which is why this answer is long (sorry about that).

The question states that the information is non-public, so I am going to assume that this editor has not posted this information on their userpage or on Wikipedia. First, I would do is replace the information with “(redacted)”. Then, I would perform a revision deletion on all article versions in the page history that contain the information, and send an email to the oversight team to have the information suppressed.

Then, I would post a warning on the user’s talk page that conducted the outing, indicating that this is a serious offense and under no circumstances should they post information like that again. Instead, the editor should ask on the reported user’s talk page if they have a COI (but not to disclose the nature of the COI) and if they have further suspicions they should post the COIN report without specifics on the user's identity. If the user has been previously warned about outing, I would consider blocking them.

I would then post a message on the talk page of the outed editor, explaining what happened and what actions I took to remove the information. I would ask them to post any questions they have and I would monitor the talk page for a couple of days (as newer editors sometimes don't know how to ping, so I want to ensure that I can answer their questions). I would then check the affected talk page, edit summary, and the editor’s user page to see if the editor has made a COI declaration (as that is where WP:DISCLOSE says it is appropriate to state a COI). If no declaration has been made, I would ask the user to read WP:COI and state underneath my message if they have a conflict of interest, without revealing the nature of the COI. If they declare a COI, I would ask them to add a COI declaration on their user page and I would add a connected contributor or paid connected contributor template to the article talk page. While both declarations are not necessary, in my opinion it is usually better to have both to avoid future concerns.

I would then look at the user’s edits and determine if they are promotional or promote a POV. WP:COI states that editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles that they are involved with, but they are not prohibited from editing them. That language is chosen very specifically, and admin should not block an editor for editing an article of which they have a COI unless there are other concerns. Rather, I would look at the user’s edits and check for things like removing negative prose about the article topic, adding promotional material or POV concerns, and post my findings in the COIN thread. If I had time, I would edit the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia policy. If the editor had been previously warned about promotional or POV editing, I would consider blocking them. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your indepth answer. You have my support. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from KSAWikipedian

10. To see your individual thought process and judgment, would you please give 2-3 example of what you would consider as appropriate uses of ignoring all rules? Thank you.

A: Ignore all rules should only be used if following the rules would be detrimental or disruptive to the project. As an admin, I would invoke this policy sparingly, and probably immediately post a notice in ANI or contact appropriate users (ARBCOM, oversight team, bureaucrats, etc.) as necessary. If I cannot justify invoking IAR when questioned, which I will inevitably be questioned about, then I would not use it.

An example of an instance when I would IAR is if an administrator started posting inappropriate swear words and juvenile text on Wikipedia articles. This would be considered vandalism, but more importantly, this would be uncharacteristic of an admin and cause me to suspect that the account was compromised. I would block the user without a warning (thus IAR) and immediately post a message on the bureaucrats’ noticeboard and email the Stewards to lock the account. I would continuously monitor my notice about my suspicions to answer any questions and justify my actions. I cannot think of a second specific example at this time. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from KSAWikipedian

10a-Follow-up. Have you ever taken any steps where you ignored rules, but still did the right thing?

A: I cannot think of a time when I ignored the rules on Wikipedia. If I have a concern with following a specific policy or guideline, I post the situation on the appropriate talk page or noticeboard and ask for additional opinions. This has happened so rarely and I would have to search several archives to find an example of this. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from KSAWikipedian

11. If asked to review a pure judgement call decision made by another admin with no clear policy support, under what circumstances would undo that decision?

A: I cannot think of a specific instance where I would undo an administrator action unilaterally. Instead, I would post on the administrator’s talk page and ask them why they conducted their actions. If this did not resolve the issue, I would post a notice on WP:XRV or WP:ANI to have a wider community conversation about their actions. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Lights and freedom

12. Can you explain how this fits the description of "removing copyright concerns"? If you think it does not fit this description, can you explain what you could have done instead?

A: This is another example of where I made a mistake in promoting a DYK hook. Sometimes, when constructing preps, the earwig copyright tool indicates copyright concerns. If the problem is minor (a sentence or two) I will fix it myself by summarising the information or phrasing sentences differently. In that article’s case, when I promoted it I thought I could fix the copyright concerns with some minor edits, but the problems were too vast and it should not have been promoted in the first place. What I should have done is post a notice in the DYK nomination page explaining the copyright problems, and not promote the hook.

As an admin, if I was promoting a prep to queue and noticed similar copyright problems in an article, I would immediately pull the hook from the set and move it to a lower prep. I would then outline my concerns on the DYK talk page, pinging the nominator, reviewer, and prepper. If the copyright issue is not resolved quickly (probably about a day), I would revert the promotion and pull the hook from the prep sets entirely. I would then replace the pulled hook with a promoted hook from a different prep set (keeping in mind the geographic, topic, and biography requirements of prep sets) and promote the prep set to queue if there were no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Robert McClenon

13. Do you have any experience in trying to resolve either article content disputes or user conduct disputes in Wikipedia?

A: When I spent more time fulfilling COI edit requests, I would encounter editors who wanted to add promotional or POV language to articles. If rejecting their request, I would explain why I was not adding or changing the prose by referencing Wikipedia policy and guidelines, then trying to explain my reasoning in non-Wikipedia terms (as many COI editors do not have experience with Wikipedia jargon). Sometimes editors would react negatively to my response, but I would calmly explain my position and invite the editor to ask questions on the talk page, WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from 2601:647:5800:1A1F:DD97:EAF0:FD70:BA4B

14. What is your experience level with WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:AFC, etc.?

A: I have not participated with NPP, though I have created articles that were patrolled. None of the articles I created have been deleted, according to xtools.

In late 2020, I was regularly participating in AfD discussions, as I considered it a “jury duty” responsibility for moderately experienced editors. I focused on articles that were relisted, as I thought my contributions could help the discussion come to a resolution. I also focused on Canadian articles as I know about and have access to Canadian sources that those from other countries would not be able to search. I pulled back on AfD because I wanted to focus on article writing and WP:URFA/2020.

I have done some AfC patrolling on an inconsistent schedule. When patrolling, I determine if the article would be declared “keep” at AfD and, for BLPs, if all paragraphs and quotations have a citation. When declining the draft, I try to leave a detailed message in addition to the templated messages that give specific information on how the draft can be improved before resubmission. If approved to be an admin, I would leave short, detailed messages when performing admin actions to explain my reasoning. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Chess

15. As you're aware, WP:COIEDIT "strongly discourages" editors with a COI from directly editing articles. In practice, editors with COIs are often brought to WP:COIN for directly editing related articles. What factors would you consider when deciding whether to prevent an editor with a COI from directly editing related articles?

A: A factor I would consider is if the prose added or changed by the COI editor is promotional or violates WP:NPOV. I would also check to see if the editor is making multiple edits and has been asked to stop on the article’s talk page or their own talk page (aka been given a warning). A factor I would not consider is if the editor is editing an article of which they have a declared COI, as WP:COI allows this as long as the edits do not violate other policies and guidelines (even though this is strongly discouraged). Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

16. When, if ever, would you consider it appropriate to WP:PBLOCK an editor from mainspace?

A: One situation I would consider a partial block from the mainspace is if: 1) the editor is causing disruption on a number of mainspace pages, 2) the disruption is recent and ongoing, 3) the editor has been appropriately warned to stop and has either ignored or rejected the warning(s). Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Ruwaym

17. Let me say it clearly: Do you acknowledge the existence of what i call it "persecution of users by access-holders"? especially through indefinite block; here in EnWiki or other projects.

A: I’m not sure what “access-holders” refers to. Since indefinite blocks are cited as an example, my guess is that it refers to any user permissions with include the block function (for example: admins, bureaucrats and stewards) and I am answering this question with this assumption.

Unfortunately, with any group of people there are going to be those who make mistakes, and I encourage editors to outline instances when I can improve my skills or handle a situation differently. When blocking a user, I will outline the specific reasons and answer questions about my actions. I will encourage users to contact me if they have questions or concerns so that we can attempt to resolve the issue. If there are still concerns, a review of my actions can take place on the appropriate noticeboard, and I will guide users as to how to file a report. I have not studied admin use of the block function on en-wiki, so I cannot give an opinion about if this function is being abused. I also cannot comment on actions on other wikis as they are organised separately from en-wiki and have their own policies and guidelines that may differ from those on en-wiki. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Z1720: Z1720 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Z1720 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support Has been around since 2007 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per my co-nomination statements. Hog Farm _Talk 19:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Had my support at wikipedia:ORFA the other week. Strong candidate. Schwede66 19:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Has the understanding and disposition to be an effective admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Wholeheartedly, in my experience this user would be a clearly positive addition to the admin corps Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
6. Support Per noms. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
7. Support Another editor with multiple FAs, and their indicated admin area is the traditional "content-nexus that needs the tools" of DYK. Competence clearly shown, I've not interacted with them, but no negatives indicated at ORFA. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
8. Support Very happy to see this. Great content work, and good temperament. Femke (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
9. Support - Not a jerk, has a clue.--NØ 20:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
11. Support Revieing their work, they have done an excellent job around here. Well tempered and clearly competent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
12. Support Of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
13. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
14. Support Good luck. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
15. Support on the basis of their excellent content work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
16. Support. Their 100+ FAC reviews provide ample evidence of their sound judgement, calm temperament and ability to make and explain decisions. Hell yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
17. Support, character, clue, conscientousness and content. Z1720 has been around a long time, knows the ropes, and has two Featured articles, but more relevant is their selflessness in reviewing candidate articles for others at FAC, FAR, Unreviewed Featured articles and peer review. For years, Z1720 has maintained peer review submissions for articles headed towards FAC, submitted articles for others at TFA at the requests page, and prepared the quarterly reports of featured articles needing review. To recognize the work of others towards restoring FAs to standard, Z1720 initiated the Featured Article Save Award (while declining to accept the award for their own efforts), and prompted the Signpost article on the effort to review old FAs. There have been many sticky situations when other writers were unhappy with a review or FAR nomination, but Z1720 always maintained their characteristic good cheer, optimism, and conscientous politeness, even when under fire. Z1720 is selfless and egoless, never personalizes a situation, and has the characteristics that will hold them in good stead as they move forward as an admin; I hope we don't lose their work on Featured articles. I've worked closely with Z for about three two years now, and know they are to be trusted. If there's a mop requirement they're not up on, Z will ask and not dive in unless they can get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

    Checked URFA and the FAC peer review, and changed three to two; time flies when you're having fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

18. Support per my nom statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
19. Support it was my pleasure to work with Z1720 getting Paint It Black into shape for its eventual FA listing and my first solo. Their helpfulness stood out and I have seen them around a bit. Happy to support. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
20. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
21. Support, always extremely helpful and insightful. Have now doubts this will be net positive. Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
22. Support Banks Irk (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
23. Support. Great to see someone whose WP:ORCP I commented on and supported is now at RFA a month later. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
24. Strongest possible support Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
25. Support - no concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
26. Support - I think Z1720 would make a fine administrator. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
27. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
28. Support Best of luck. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
29. Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
30. Support good nomination. Thanks for volunteering.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
31. Support very good content work and assisting DYK no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
32. Support; will be a valuable asset at DYK and elsewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
33. Support Why not? Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
34. Support: good content creator, plenty of experience and a good temperament. Thank you for running! — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
35. Support: Extensive work as an editor and has worked hard to improve articles. Normally I would want to see a candidate who has done some work with helping maintain Wikipedia (WP:AFC/P, WP:NPP, WP:ROLL) but the candidates work on improving articles and working with others lets me confidently overlook that. Thank you for running and wishing you all the best! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
36. Support –♠Vamí IV†♠ 23:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
37. Support Good candidate. scope creep^Talk 23:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
38. Support Sure! Sea Cow (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
39. Support per noms. Appears to be a good candidate, so why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
40. Support, big big help at DYK, where I'm sure the user will be of use as an admin. —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
41. Support, valuable work reviewing/maintaining old articles. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
42. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
43. Support Good candidate, good choice. Sarrail (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
44. Support obvious need for the tools, and really like how he is willing to go back and double check policies / not pretend he knows everything (Q5). Net positive. HouseBlaster^talk 00:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
45. Support - Seems reasonable and clue-filled, and I have a great deal of faith in the nominators. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
46. Support looks good. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
47. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
48. Support An admin with 14,000 edits? Nice! Nythar^T.C 01:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
49. Support - obviously has a great track record for content and is willing to admit when they made mistakes (Q4 and Q6). ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
50. Support . No concerns, but I hope they will have time to do some of the traditional admin tasks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
51. Support Has a need for the tools and doesn't look like they'll go WP:ROUGE. (I have low standards.) casualdejekyll 01:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
52. Support 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
53. Support (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
54. Support per Sandy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
55. Support an excellent coworker all around! Would be happy to see him with the tools. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
56. Support – By the way, thank you for improving content about Upper Canada. Clovermoss (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
57. Per SandyGeorgia. Seen them do great work at URFA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
58. Strongest greatest possible Support Seen him around often. Great candidate!! Uricdivine^TalkToMe 04:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
59. Support Trusted user, good content creator. Thingofme (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
60. Support No apparent reason to oppose. PhantomTech[talk] 04:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
61. Support Yeah, I'll throw my name on this one. Anyone who works in FAC and has a reputation for their quality decision making skills has my vote. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
62. Support Thank you for your contributions. :) --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
63. Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
64. Support Excellent work keeping DYK running, seems like a safe pair of hands - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
65. Support, also per answers to questions 4 and 6. Everyone makes mistakes, but recognizing them and also how to avoid them is crucial. Everything else rock-solid. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
66. Support. Net positive. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 08:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
67. Support; see you around at FAR, always had a positive impression. Besides, I was Cas Liber's most recent nominee, how could I !vote otherwise? Vanamonde (Talk) 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
68. Support Clueful, experienced, helpful. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
69. Support There is no reason for concern. --Victor Trevor (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
70. Support per above. Mooonswimmer 12:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
71. Strong Support Solid editor and looks like they can help out the Wiki community greatly. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
72. Support This nomination is so good it sent shivers down my spine. Welcome to the admin team. WaggersTALK 13:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
73. Per above Volten001 ^☎ 14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
74. Support seems competent. Toadspike (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
75. Support Seems like a good candidate Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 14:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
76. Support I have had only positive interactions with Z1720. Actually, he's helped me countless times (particularly at FAC and GAN), and I've always found him to be level-headed and knowledgeable about what he's doing. DYK definitely needs more admins to help out, and I think admin tools would suit him well. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
77. Support ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
78. Support Looks like a solid editor with no red or yellow flags that I could find. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
79. Support Level-headed, thorough, and sensible. Nothing but positives with all my interactions. An experienced editor that has and will contribute a great deal of expertise within the Wiki space. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
80. Support No problems that I can see. John (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
81. Support I like the answer to q6... self aware and able to take ownership of mistakes (not that the example was bad). We don't need admins to be perfect on mop delivery, we need admins who can grow into the role. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
82. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
83. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
84. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
85. Support A bit less broad experience than I'd ideally look for, but they seem good at what they do and an overall asset. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
86. Support Trustworthy candidate who will be useful to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 19:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
87. LGTM NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
88. Support per nominators — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
89. Support - Wants to work in DYK promoting preps to queues. This is a labor intensive, time consuming task where admins are needed. Candidate has experience, and I am impressed by their answers to the questions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
90. Support - This user has worked consistently at this project since 2020, and on and off since 2007, and hasn't made any major mistakes in that time. Easy Support! ApatheticName (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
91. Per SandyGeorgia, noms, and my own look-through of Z's contributions. No concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
92. Support looks like they'll make a good admin :) PopoDameron (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
93. Support They can't not know what they're doing after so long hanging around on here. I have trust that Z1720 won't break things. Rcsprinter123 (remark) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
94. Support Several reasons to support (FC and DYK work, trusted noms, good answers to questions, excellent demeanor), don't see any downside. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
95. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
96. Support, no concerns with this editor having the tools. BD2412 T 23:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
97. Support, seems cromulent. -- Visviva (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
98. Support - No concerns and wants to work in DYK, where there is a clear need for more admins. - tucoxn\^talk 00:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
99. 👍 Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
100. Support no concerns. Mccapra (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
101. Support as this user would definitely be a net positive administrator. Rollidan (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
102. Support, a spot check of contributions leaves me with no concerns. I am especially impressed with the answer to Q4, starting with This is an action that I messed up.. We've all screwed something up at some point; the important thing is to be willing to admit that and learn from it, and I'm certainly heartened to see that attitude here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
103. Support Leijurv (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
104. Support Seems to have the "Wikipedia heart" of a gnome and talent for article creation. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
105. Support, meets my criteria for content creation (FA/multiple GAs), appears to be acceptable in other areas. GregJackP Boomer! 05:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
106. Support Done my research already, no concerns. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
107. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
108. Support per above. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 09:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
109. Support - no concerns. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
110. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
111. Support trusted user. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 10:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
112. Support Backing of trusted users, has incredible content work demonstrating outstanding knowledge of policies, needs tools for an area editor works in and wishes to continue working in. Strong candidate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
113. Support, valuable editor, no red lights, no big deal. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
114. Support A net positive to Wikipedia who creates good content; willing to acknowledge when they need to look up the policy to get it correctly. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
115. Support No issues found, they are a perfect fit for being an admin. Toad40 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
116. Support - I trust, good luck. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
117. —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
118. Support Trustworthy, always good to have content-focused admins. Ovinus (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
119. Support Per noms. Jacona (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
120. DYK could benefit from more admins, and I trust the candidate to do the job well. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
121. Support gotta love those FAs. Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
122. Support great answer to my question. Although I don't think I've interacted much with this editor, the trust I have in the nominators and the answers to mine and other's questions are enough to give a support. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
123. Support - LGTM and is a great admin candidate, Drummingman (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
124. Support No personal experience, but a lot of good editors vouching for this candidate, and doesn't seem to have done anything concerning, so support. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
125. Support - thank you for volunteering to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
126. Support Seems fine //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
127. Support - Good answers to questions by a trustworthy candidate. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
128. Support An excellent candidate who has the excellent attribute of being willing to admit their errors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
129. Support Having interacted with this user during the GA review process, I have found that they rarely, if ever, make a suggestion without citing either a specific grammar rule or policy/MoS section. It's that kind of small thing that will go a very long way when dealing with users in an administrative capacity. — GhostRiver 22:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
130. Mainfest support. HiDrNick! 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
131. Support clearly competent and capable. ––FormalDude talk 22:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
132. Support − I don't think I've run across this candidate, but noting the two trusted co-nominators and some of the respected supporters, above, I'm happy to join the chorus of approval. Tim riley talk 00:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
133. Support Always need more competent editors with admin tools at DYK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
134. Support Seems good enough, good luck! SchinLBL (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
135. Support An excellent nominee! JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
136. Support - no concerns Denisarona (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
137. Support. Knows the ropes, and having another DYK admin will be definitely useful, spread the load around a bit. I've no doubt they would be competent in the other admin areas too, they understand how the project works.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
138. Support - another good candidate. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
139. Support Seems good - throwing my support in with everyone else! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
140. Support -- EN-Jungwon 12:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
141. Support Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
142. Support − Great editor, excellent content creator and reviewer, helpful to work with! Has a clear need and competence for the tools! − Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
143. Support - Another pile-on vote but I did find their answers to be enlightening. Content creation, reviewer experience all are a plus and I appreciate their openness and honesty in their answer about admin recall. Competence is important and they have it. --ARoseWolf 19:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
144. Support - as a classic "leaves Wikipedia and comes back" editor, I'm really impressed about the example of bad editing cited here and think it's an example that should be followed by all of us. Will be a great DYK admin. Nomader (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
145. Support Not a jerk, has clue. Demonstrated excellent content work and lots of participation at DYK. I see no issues with this candidacy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
146. Stephen 23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
147. Support A great editor, always a pleasure to work with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
148. Support CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
149. Support. Whilst I have not encountered this editor personally, they appear to be an excellent content creator and several other users have stated they are pleasant to work with in the fields they specialise in. As such, I have no concerns. Best of luck! Patient Zero^talk 01:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
150. Support - it looks like this RfA is well on its way to passing however no concerns from me. The candidate's work looks to be of high quality (and as someone who helps out at DYK from time to time, we can always use an extra set of hands there) and, in my opinion, they will make an excellent sysop. Best wishes, Mifter (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
151. Support Helpful at DYK, great to have another admin with firsthand appreciation for what content creators need. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
152. Support —MdsShakil (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
153. Support - Satisfied with their answers to questions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
154. Support, no concerns from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
155. Support Excelent content work and nice answers to the questions asked. The answer to question 5 was very good, and showed thoughtfulness and patience. – DirkJandeGeer щи 14:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
156. Dirty and hard work at FAR and URFA -> automatic support. Admin skills can be learned within weeks. Content writing skills can only be learned by years of experience. Admins should lead editors by example, not by force. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
157. Support No concerns. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
158. Support Does the right thing. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
159. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
160. Support Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
161. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
162. Support - Would have supported without an answer to my question, but the answer is a good one besides. No issues with this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
163. Support had me at civil. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
164. Support The answers to the questions here are enough proof that Z can and probably will edit and act thoughtfully, even in administrative areas where you don't have a lot of experience. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
165. Support Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
166. Support —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
167. Yes. SilkTork (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
168. Support – Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
169. Support (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
170. Support No concerns, good luck with the mops.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
171. Support I always like to see competent candidates who say they want to work in underserved areas of the project. Admins are not evenly distributed across the project so seeing you want to work in the areas where you are aleady experienced is a green light for me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
172. Support – thoughtful answers to the questions, no concerns. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
173. Support – I've had nothing but positive interactions with my fellow Canadian. Will make a fine admin. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
174. Support - Per nominators, SandyGeorgia's comprehensive comment, and my own review of their contributions. Definite net positive. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
175. Support. Looks good to me. --Ratekreel (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
176. Support - Answered the questions well and should be a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
177. Support I don't see why not. --Ferien (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
178. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
179. Support --- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin/CheckUser on Commons)} 17:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
180. Support -Looks good to me. 26zhangi (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
181. Support - GamerPro64 03:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
182. Support — by this time, this is just a friendly pile-on, but I support the nom for two reasons: (1) Anyone who knows the correct pronunciation of the letter "zed" is worth a look-in; (2) All of my interactions with the Zed guy (I can never remember the full handle) have been positive. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
183. Support - not a big deal! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
184. Support. Looking good. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
185. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 08:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
186. Support. Got the right content chops, composure, and commitment to some tough areas of the project. I'm glad he got the chance to explain some of his missteps, and I see his willingness to admit and correct mistakes as a strength. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
187. support. my previous interactions with Z1720 have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
188. Support Impressive noms, good answers, need for tools, no history of mischief. The more I read about and by this user, the more impressive a candidate they seem. BusterD (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
189. Support - Kpddg ^(talk) 15:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
190. Support - Good answers to the questions, user has a clue, and they are willing to learn from their mistakes. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
191. Support - Great overall content work and good demeanor as well. A net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
192. Support 2 hours left, so getting it in under the wire. More candidates like this please! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
193. Support. Congratulations. :) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
194. Support - I think this user will be a great contribution to the English Wikipedia. Inspector Eevee (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Moving to support. I don't really feel comfortable being the first to make a vote in the neutral section here and I'm not leaning one way ir the other. However, I'm not finding it easy to pass this on an aggregate of my 'laundry list'. The candidate's work at FA is without doubt excellent but I don't see much work in governance or maintenance areas that while not requiring admin tools would demonstrate a sense of judgment. I realise that DYK needs the intervention of admins but I'm not sure if that alone is a suffciently compelling reason to have the sysop toolset. I'm going to stay here for a while while I do some more looking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• Just for the record, Z1720 is pronounced as Zed-One-Seven-Two-Oh per their userpage, and not as "Zee-One". Although I had pronounced it as "zed", and "zero". —usernamekiran (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2022 (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.