Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ajpolino

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

Ajpolino

Final (124/4/0); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino (talk · contribs)

Nomination

I am delighted to nominate Ajpolino for adminship. In my view, he is the epitome of a stealth candidate - someone who works hard in the background, always willing to lend a hand, and happy to pick up the slack where it's needed. I first encountered him in January 2017, just after my return to active editing. While working through the orphaned article backlog, I had discovered quite a few related to genetics. After I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology, Ajpolino jumped in and offered to work on all of them. The workload was substantial - I think it amounted to several hundred orphaned pages, all told - and Ajpolino patiently took the time to deal with all of it, for no other reason than that a stranger asked for help.

Not simply a hard worker, Ajpolino is a consummate team player who excels at reaching out to collaborate with other editors, whether that means nudging editors into reviewing GAs, or seeking partners for GA/FA work. When SandyGeorgia approached him about RfA, he was humble but willing, and quickly identified areas where he could help. I have no doubt that he will be as patient, even-tempered, and helpful as an administrator as he is as an editor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

A very knowledgeable and reliable biology/medical editor who consistently gets the job done, Wikipedia could really benefit from giving Ajpolino (talk · contribs) the tools. I was aware of Ajpolino’s steady work in initiating collaborative improvements of medical content (sample), but the quality of his work came more prominently into my focus when he and Spicy took on improvements at Chagas disease during its Featured article review, resulting in a saved bronze star for a 15-year-old badly neglected and outdated Featured article that would have lost FA status without their intervention. Ajpolino is currently working Buruli ulcer up to be presented at FAC, and is very active in reviewing Good article nominations for other editors. Willingness to review and improve someone else's very dated work for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers is typical of Ajpolino's character, work ethic, and steadiness. He is unfailingly civil, professional, calm, trustworthy, thorough, and reaches out to other editors to encourage a collaborative spirit: see samples here and here. Ajpolino has helped bring new life to the Medicine Wikiproject by starting, producing and delivering a monthly newsletter. Wikipedia is chronically short on admins in the medical realm—a difficult editing area—where content and policy knowledge is helpful in sorting the disruptive from the merely unknowledgeable about medical editing guidelines. Medical journal access is key in tracking down and dealing with copyvio and distinguishing disruptive edits. Ajpolino has an interest in, and has been helpful in, dealing with copyright problems: see here, here, and here for samples. More help is always needed in sorting out move discussions and determining when semi-protection is needed, and when it is not: see samples here, here, here and here. I enthusiastically join PMC in bringing forward Ajpolino as an excellent candidate for adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the kind words. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay. The only alternative account I have is User:Ajpollino, which I made to use in an airport one day, but ended up never really needing. Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2020 (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 plan to stick largely to my "home" areas of the encyclopedia, molecular biology and medicine, both areas where a bit of background knowledge goes a long way in differentiating inexperienced editors (who need a helping hand) from the truly disruptive (who occasionally need administrative intervention). In my free time I'll continue dipping my toes into text and image copyright; in spite of myself I find the convoluted half-logic of copyright law intriguing, even beguiling. I'm happy to lend an occasional hand elsewhere in the project, wherever I can be useful. I'm not a specialist in any particular Wikipedia process, so I'll enter new areas cautiously and seek more experienced help as I need it.

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

A: I'm pleased with my reviewed content contributions. Spicy and I overhauled Chagas disease earlier this year after SandyGeorgia posted at WT:MED looking for help. That got me interested in neglected tropical diseases and I'm working on a major overhaul at Buruli ulcer now. I've also done some heavy lifting at a handful of other articles, mostly related to Earth's predominant (and most interesting) life forms: microbes. An incomplete list is at my userpage. Putting together coherent medicine/biology articles is probably the activity here that brings me the most joy. I'd like to be useful in the administrative sphere, but article building will likely continue to take up most of my Wikipedia time.

I've also been gratified by the positive response to the new WikiProject Medicine newsletter that SandyGeorgia mentioned above. I can only claim some credit, as the format is lifted entirely from Enwebb's excellent Tree of Life newsletter. I hope it can stimulate collaboration and a sense of cohesion among medicine-interested editors going forward.

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: As I alluded to above, editing here brings me joy. I try to avoid spending my editing time engaging in unnecessary conflict (and thus dissipating that joy). When conflict is important or inevitable, I try to be brief but human in explaining myself. If I can't agree with someone, I'm happy to bring in other editors and abide by whatever consensus is reached. I haven't been in any particularly explosive conflicts, but off the top of my head, a couple of fairly recent examples when the temperature of discussions rose: 1 (after 1 and 2) and 2 (followed by this).

---

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 Dolotta

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

A: The massiveness of Wikipedia has spawned many necessary but specialized working areas, each of which operate by distinct and somewhat siloed sets of guidelines and norms. UAA, TfD, CfD, and even SPI jump to mind. In my five years here, I've engaged relatively little with several of these processes. Not out of intentional exclusion, rather my wandering interests haven't yet taken me there. It is important that we continue to recruit talented and dedicated editors to work on each of these process queues, but sadly—at least for now—that's not me. Ajpolino (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Eddie891

5. While perusing your old AFDs, I saw quite a few where you talked about WP:NPROF, particularly WP:NPROF#C1 (1, 2, 3). What is your understanding of this SNG, particularly how it relates to GNG?

A: Speaking of silos, WP:NPROF is somewhat distinct from other SNGs in that it explicitly sets a different notability bar for academics than for other biography subjects. The theory goes that since academia is rarely covered by major media, but we still wish to have encyclopedic coverage of exceptional academics, we need a different standard by which to judge academics' notability. In many cases, the NPROF criteria give unambiguous guidance. However, in some cases the guidance is less clear. Many academics-related AfDs center on NPROF criterion #1, which suggests we include articles on academics whose research has "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". In practice, articles are typically kept if the subject's work has been cited more than we think an average academic's work has been. This defies easy quantitative thresholds as citation counts differ over time (higher now than in previous decades) and field (more published fields like biomedicine are more highly cited). Now I'm all for including academics, even with scant published information available, and I've written several short academic biographies here. But you can see in 1, for example, my growing unease with criterion #1. As I said there, I worry that while GNG-centered discussions are about finding and discussing sources, NPROF#C1 discussions can be about calls to authority ("I work in or am familiar with [insert field] so I know what highly cited looks like"). That said, it's easier to point at problems than solutions. I don't have a big idea for how things should be, but would welcome some discussion to clarify (1) where do we want NPROF to draw the line, and (2) how can we clarify to non-academics where that line is? Pardon the wordy response. Ajpolino (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

6. Could you expand on your answer to Q1 and specify somewhat where you intend to use the tools (i.e. blocking, page protecting, AFD)?

A: Sure, the short answer is that I'll start conservatively and expand my use of the administrative toolkit as I feel I can comfortably act without breaking anything. This probably means starting with the easy stuff: patrolling the CSD G12 and F9 categories (which, along with G10, are the CSD categories that should be truly speedy!), looking at deleted content to help understand new users' questions/concerns, and enacting the occasional uncontroversial move over redirect requested at WT:MED (e.g. 1, which spawned 2). Eventually I might expand to actioning items at WP:Copyright problems (which can include RevDels, page deletions, and blocks), managing page protections (I'm forming the opinion that many medical articles carry indefinite protections of various levels in response to spurts of vandalism in the distant past. The unprotection of malaria earlier this year hasn't led to any problems. I'm interested in trying lower protection levels of pages that I or others at WP:MED have the time to keep an eye on), and where necessary, investigating disruptive users in the medical space (could include blocks, et al.). I'm happy to help out elsewhere if needed, as time and ability allow.

Additional questions from Fastily

7. An editor uploads a self-taken photo of a newly unveiled statue in Bellevue, Washington, and tags it {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Do you take any action to address this situation or is it perfectly acceptable as-is?

A: Of course for either I wouldn't unilaterally make a call until I checked with an image copyright regular. That said, my hunch is that this image should be viewed skeptically. Unfortunately (for us; not for sculptors), U.S. law is fairly protective of the rights of sculptors. Since the statue is installed after 1977, a photograph of it likely infringes on the sculptor's copyright. I would try to explain the situation to the uploader. It's possible that the uploader is the copyright holder (though unlikely), or that the copyright holder could be found. I've had some luck reaching out to copyright holders and requesting they release a photograph under a compatible license (1 comes to mind as somewhat recent). We could have the same kind of luck here. If not, the image will have to be deleted. Of course, there's no clear reason this should be happening on English Wikipedia. If the image were to be kept, I'd move it to Commons so other projects can also make use of it.

Incidentally, a couple of years ago I stumbled on a similar FFD regarding a slightly older statue. Sadly my confidence waned and I didn't follow through. Perhaps I can make that trip to check for a copyright notice later this year. Ajpolino (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

8. An editor uploads a self-taken photo of a child's Iron Man doll, and tags it {{Self|Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Do you take any action to address this situation or is it perfectly acceptable as-is?

A: Also unfortunately, toys are basically art in the eyes of U.S. copyright law. Similar situation to above: a glance at Iron Man suggests he's much too young for his image to be in the public domain, and the uploader almost certainly does not hold the copyright (which I assume is held by Disney?). So my guess would be explain to uploader, delete file. But I'd take a minute to check with a more seasoned image copyright hand the first time I encounter a given situation.

As an addendum, I noticed your examples are under different versions of CC-BY SA. After a quick read of New in 4.0, I don't see any additional complication from 4.0 vs 3.0. If there is something I should be aware of, please let me know so I don't cause any problems going forward. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

9. In the Caroline Ford AfD, could you explain what (in that specific instance) you'd have felt was a sufficient citation level to stand out per PROF#1, and then (somewhat more importantly), why the conventional coverage in the sources (with the text) that RebeccaGreen dropped in was insufficient for a switch to a Keep !vote? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A: Sure, per NPROF#1 we're looking for "a significant impact in her scholarly discipline" through citations. Sometime early in my career here, I picked up a common threshold from other AfD voters: 3 papers* with >100 citations (*with a few minor additional constraints I'm happy to expand on). So that's what I was looking for. Is this a good threshold? It's ok; I have my reservations, but we can discuss them elsewhere. As for the second part of your question, I just dropped the ball. Real life stole my attention, and I missed the rest of the discussion. I dropped an apology note at RebeccaGreen's talk page a few days later. I try not to be in the habit of leaving drive-by commentary and disappearing, and I can't recall another AfD where my participation fell off a cliff. In this case, the AfD outcome was correctly swayed by RG's work, all is well that ends well. But in general, AfD is not a ballot box. You can't have discussion if each commenter plugs his/her ears after commenting. So hopefully that case can remain an exception for me.

Additional question from Ktin

10. What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Wikipedia welcoming to fresh editors? Ktin (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A: Administrators come across new editors for a couple of reasons. First, while performing administrative actions (mostly deletions). Here, an administrator's role is to understand and clearly explain the relevant policies/guidelines that underlie their administrative action. I find a human message goes much further in this regard than the templated messages we're accustomed to slapping on new users' talk pages. I try to make the time to leave explanatory messages, especially when undoing a new editor's work or seeing them struggling at AfD. I'm not the right person to provide ongoing oversight and mentoring to most new editors, but I can at least explain the situation, and point them to somewhere like WP:TEAHOUSE where they'll find the help they need. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Most administrators also engage in non-administrative tasks, and run across new editors while engaged in tasks that don't require the administrative toolset. Those who note administrative status on their userpage should be wary that new users could misconstrue an administrator's opinion as weightier than it really is. For this reason, an administrator's role is to avoid acting like a jerk whenever possible. Obviously this applies to all editors, but is particularly salient when administrators interact with new editors. The "over and beyond" version of this is to reach past not-being-a-jerk and try to deploy some human kindness in one's interactions with new users. So that's the goal I'll shoot for. Ajpolino (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also just a note for question-askers, real life will keep me mostly or entirely offline tomorrow. I'll be back Sunday evening (UTC-5) and will be available for the rest of the RfA period. Feel free to pile up the difficult questions between now and then. Ajpolino (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Robert McClenon

11. What experience have you had in resolving or trying to resolve disputes between editors, either article content disputes or conduct disputes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:12, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

A: For better or for worse, I have little experience with Wikipedia's more formal dispute resolution processes, and my tendency is to avoid dispute-rich content areas. When I do bump into disputes during my normal editing, I'll only engage if I feel I can contribute useful information and/or lower the temperature of the discussion. A few examples that come to mind: (1) Here, when a normally quiet talk page burst into flames for a few weeks. Peppered throughout, you can see my (sometimes ineffectual) attempts to guide discussion and pull something useful out of a messy situation. A few sections later, I tried to bring some small closure by implementing a few of the more actionable suggestions. (2, an older one to show long-term behavior) A heated content dispute. I made a short content note there, explained at user talk, had another brief talk exchange, and the issue was resolved. (3) Two instances of problematic GA reviews. One brought to my attention here, leading to this message (The user's talk page happened to stay on my watchlist, so I interjected briefly here as well). The second here where I jumped in for a moment to add some information.

Certainly administrators are often looked at to resolve disputes, either with the administrative tools or (ideally) without. This isn't a side of administration that I'm likely to jump into, especially at first. But if folks perusing my Talk contributions have any feedback for me, I'm happy to hear it. Ajpolino (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Ajpolino

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

---

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

Support

1. Support: I haven't interacted with the candidate before, but I'm impressed with their hardworkingness and continuing work on Buruli ulcer. I was also refreshed by his respectful and defusing interactions in conflicts with other users, as well as just his general genial attitude; I think they're an excellent candidate. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nomination statements which reflect my experiences interacting with the candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Support Fairly decent candidate. I don't see any conflict or what could be called, conflict. I see rationale discussion, a fairly industrious approach to their specialism and a will to work with everybody. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing but positive interactions with the candidate at GA reviews in biology and medicine. As an example, after reviewing Willis J. Potts at GAN, ajpolino went the extra mile by contacting an archivist at Northwestern in an attempt to replace a non-free image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Support - They seem to be mature and possess common sense + with the general backlog requiring admin attention, the project definitely need more hands on deck. Celestina007 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy as an experienced content creator. I haven't really interacted with them, but the nominators' statements and Ajpolino's responses to questions seem to indicate that they are suited for the tools, even if they don't plan to specialize something in particular. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
9. Support, I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that Ajpolino would abuse the tools if given. SQL^{Query me!} 14:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
10. Support Don't know much about them but from all appearances is a useful content contributor and plugs away at their own area.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
11. Support per TonyBallioni. The opposes are just bizarre - it doesn't matter how often somebody uses the tools as long as we trust them with them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
12. Strong Support for those doubting based off of experience in admin areas, there's actually some very helpful, well worded analysis at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 July 31, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 August 9, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 August 20; an admin experienced in copyright work and medicine would be incredibly valuable, given paywalled papers and such. If this somehow doesn't pass, I'd happily appoint you a clerk at copyright problems. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 14:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
13. Support I don't have any problem supporting a candidate whose need for the tools isn't super-obvious when they have a track record of great contributions and an obvious dedication to the project. If a couple of the tools help them do what they do, even if only a little, that's great, and I trust them not to misuse the rest; if after time they dip their toes in and help out in new areas, even better. Good luck GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
14. Support per nom, I don't see any problems so good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
15. Support per noms from two extraordinarily well-respected nominators and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Primary criteria for adminship should be trustworthiness and cluefulness, which the nominee has an abundance of, not evidence that they will be blocking or deleting all day long. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
16. Support I have not had the pleasure of interacting with this editor but he seems qualified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
17. Support. Seen them around, nothing of concern, plenty to like. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
18. Support very good answers to the q's, in my opinion. Looking through AFD votes, edits in 2020, talk page archives, the WPMED newsletter, content written/reviewed, and copyright work, I see no indication that this user would abuse the tools and every indication that they are a well-qualified, competent, and kind user who would make a great admin. Convincing need for the tools and if they aren't the most active admin ever, that's perfectly fine. tl;dr: not a jerk, has a clue. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
19. Support – talented, experienced, and trustworthy. – bradv🍁 16:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
20. Support – likely net positive. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
21. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
22. Obvious nom support ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
23. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
24. Support has a clue, not a jerk. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
25. Support - I found his recommendations at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to be very helpful. MER-C 17:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
26. Support - I certainly appreciate knowledgable candidates because they are a net positive to the project overall. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
27. Support - No Big Deal, Ask Self Why Not? - TNT ^✨ 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
28. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
29. Support – no concerns. A stated interest in a few favorite topics isn't an issue, especially when those topics are relatively technical and difficult for the average editor to navigate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
30. Support - No concerns and looks like a solid editor.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
31. Support Nothing I see here gives me pause for concern. We can use more admin that are versed in copyright issues. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
32. Support Candidate is a content creator with good main space participation, which leads me to believe the candidate will protect content creators and content. The very high delete !voting gives me pause, but I cannot argue with the 82%. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
33. Support per all the above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
34. Support per Girth. No concerns. Lev!vich 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
35. Support Very happy to see this RfA. Ajpolino has done exemplary work at WPMED and I am sure he will be an asset to the admin team. Spicy (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
36. Support Clueful editor, has done solid work. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
37. Support Great content creator that can be trusted with the tools. The FAR save was what convinced me. I encourage you to promote one of the many GAs to FA. It is a great experience. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
38. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
39. support admin material. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
40. Support Trust the noms, and always good to have more admins working in copyright. P-K3 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
41. Support I read the lead sections of half a dozen biomedical/scientific articles this editor has done a lot of work on. They are clearly written, informative and easy for a moderately intelligent person to understand. The editor's understanding of their considerable strengths and few weaknesses is refreshing, and the candidate has a legitimate need for the tools. This is a fully qualified candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
42. Support We need new admins, and this person seems like they are trustworthy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
43. Support why not? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
44. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 04:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
45. Support – We are almost always in need of additional administrators who understand the intricacies of our copyright policy, and I think it would be a mistake to turn away a knowledgeable candidate who has volunteered to work in this complex area just because they aren't more active in other administrative areas. I don't dislike the answer to Q1; they're essentially saying they'll simply use the toolset as an extension of the content work they already do, which I find reasonable. The relevant question is whether this user will be a net positive to the project, and the answer is yes. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
46. Support – per Ritchie333, TonyBallioni, Barkeep49, Bradv, and Buidhe. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
47. Support Good answers to q7 and q8, would be great to see you help out more with files/copyright on enwp and Commons -FASTILY 04:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
48. Support based on high-quality content work and obviously thoughtful attention to complicated issues around copyright. Good noms, too. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
49. Support -- good answers, good editing history, seems like a fine choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
50. Support I'm impressed by Ajpolino's dispute resolution technique at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Killick. Having already contributed a sound comment to the AfD, they were under no obligation to further engage in discussion – but instead went above and beyond, writing a thoughtful comment to a frustrated opponent of deletion. We need more administrators with this sort of attitude. – Teratix ₵ 08:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
51. Support, excellent content creator, well versed with the deletion criteria of the area they plan to work in and clearly very trustworthy, would clearly make a great admin. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
52. Support, we need more admins (and more editors) with these qualities. In particular, I remember his/her thoughtful input here, and subsequent rewrite of Mycobacterium ulcerans – a problem identified, investigated and then remedied. The answers to questions 7 and 8 are good. Ajpolino, the crucial difference for us between CC BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0 is that the latter is not compatible for text; both are OK for images. There'll usually be two copyrights in an image of a sculpture, one for the work itself, another for the photograph. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    You might have to re-read the answer to q7 several more times (I'm guilty), before it is apparent that Ajpolino suggested the "copyright holder" (i.e. sculptor) was also the photographer of the image in question. While their followup discussion of this hypothetical isn't incorrect, I will say that this (e.g. artist donations via OTRS) almost never happens in practice. The candidate has already demonstrated more knowledge of this topic than most editors I know, so I'm not overly concerned with their answer. -FASTILY 21:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

53. Support I’ve always felt we need a mix of admins who are generalists and those who are specialists, in terms of content and in terms of technical/legal issues. This candidate seems to be an excellent addition to that mix. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
54. Support their answers to questions are great. Their civility is a great positive point for me. I can see no outstanding issues related to this user. Based on the large amount of initial supports, I can see this candidate is trusted by the community too. The opposers have mentioned that there is not a need for the tools, but I would say their understanding of copyright and their work in copyright areas of Wikipedia show that they will have use for the tools. Several copyright admin regulars have supported this candidate, so I would say their administrative work there would be useful and needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
55. Support, lots of good work. We also need more admins who can help out with copyright issues. —Kusma (t·c) 12:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
56. Support - Let’s do it! Foxnpichu (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
57. Support - the candidates is competent in their areas, has good content work. It's also good to see that they are not just capable of apologising, they do so as a matter of course, not just as an RfA interlude. Mistakes happen to us all, and I feel Ajpolino will make a good admin. To the concerns that "they'll only admin in their limited area" - that might well be the case early on. However admins tend to grow the area they feel comfortable operating in, and I feel that is likely the case here. In the meantime, another admin's time that would be spent here can go elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
58. Support - nice username. Also seems trustworthy and like they have a use for the tools. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
59. Support. Per Spicy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
60. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
61. Support - the candidate seems likely to use the toolset responsibly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
62. Support - No concerns or red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
63. Support. It looks like we have a trustworthy editor who can make trustworthy use of these extra buttons. I'm not worried about the lack of specific demonstrable needs for the tools, especially as this editor is praised as a good content contributor, which is the weak side of many candidates. Deryck C. 22:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
64. Support for meeting my mins. The oppose !votes aren't about the judgement or behaviour of the nominee but query the need for admin priviledges. I would invoke no big deal; there seems to be no reason to deny this simply because it would only be sparingly used and the ability may spurn them on to learn new things and assist in new ways. Ifnord (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
65. Support Trustworthy noms, good temperament and answers to questions. Will make a fine admin. Miniapolis 02:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
66. Support - I see nothing to suggest that Ajpolino would misuse the tools. On the contrary, I think they're reliable and have a clue. As for the question of need raised in at least one of the oppose votes - for the most part, admin tools are editing tools. An active content creator has need for them. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
67. Trust the noms, trust the supporters (trust the opposes too, only, remain unconvinced). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
68. Support - Good enough.--Find bruce (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
69. Support - Ajpolino will likely be an asset to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
70. Yes. I love this: "I have yet to exhaust the world of interesting and unusual mistakes to make." It shows a person who knows they will make mistakes, and is not afraid of that because making mistakes is how we boldly develop. And SandyGeorgia's nomination is perfect. I was almost tempted to support on the strength of that alone. Clear and informative, and well argued with telling links. But I did look further, and I like what I have seen. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
71. Support – With regards to concerns about a lack of need for the tools, I will reiterate the same argument as ever–no one editor needs to be an administrator, but Wikipedia does need administrators. And we should judge who gets to be promoted based on their suitability, not need. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
72. Support per nominators, TonyBallioni and Kurtis. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
73. Support - I was originally worried about activity and actual work on the encyclopaedia (less than 2,000 edits in the last year), but it seems the user is more likely to do a big update in one edit (where I might make 10). User being conservative at the beggining with the tools is wise, but would like to see them take the step out into the wider admin world eventually if given the toolset (kettle & pot) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Yikes, thanks for mentioning that, Lee Vilenski. I am one who takes ten edits to do what others do in one, and had intended to mention this about Ajpolino in my co-nom statement, but simply forgot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

74. Support Cool user-name. No issues Eatcha 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
75. Support Vexations (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
76. Per NBD I don't really care about "need for tools" as long as the editor is clueful enough to RTFM and not break things. Ajpolino seems to fit that bill, so no concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
77. Support. Based on answer to question #10, I want to say that this is exactly what we want to see in an Administrator. Empathy should be the corner stone of an Administrator's actions, and it seems like this candidate Ajpolino gets that! Thanks for your candidature and here's wishing you the best. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
78. Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
79. Support, every reason to have high hopes. BD2412 T 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
80. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
81. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
82. Support, cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
83. Support Nomination statement is reasonable; it's good to have stealth candidates. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
84. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
85. Support Good answers. Jaredroach (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
86. Support - Looks like a good candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
87. Support Echoing what many have said above regarding demonstrated need: the English Wikipedia has a demonstrated need for more people with "the tools", and Ajpolino would do a fine job. I'm happy to support. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 23:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
88. Support - we need, IMO, more content creator admins. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
89. Support have nothing but positive interactions with this editor. Has a level head, content experience, and an interest in using the tools.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
90. Support , per Ritchie333, and an excellent answer to Q10. Anyone with this candidate's experience and area of focus will find plenty of opportunities for exercising admin responsibility without needing 'to go over and beyond' with anything at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Per nom, Girth Summit, Moneytrees, Cullen, Larry Hockett, Lee Vilenski, Gog the Mild and Kudpung. Little more needs to be said except an experienced and expert contributor, great demeanor and interactions and obviously trustworthy. Donner60 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
92. Support: Seems a good content contributor who may be able to help out with some admin tasks from time to time, and would appear to be trustworthy if given the tools. Hope the strains of admin work do not taint their WP experience but that is no reason oppose. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
93. Support Salvio 09:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
94. Support Acceptable answers to candidate questions, I feel Ajpolino will make use of the admin tools very well Sportzpikachu (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
95. Support definitely need technical content creators and collaborators. The candidate has shown themseleves capable of handling admin tools. Roller26 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
96. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. That about says it all. --rogerd (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
97. Support: good temperament, excellent communication skills and highly valuable specialist knowledge, along with enough use cases for the tools for it to be worthwhile granting them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
98. Support highly likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
99. Strong support. Collaborative approach: tick. Demonstrable desire to work tirelessly for the project: tick. Abundance of clue: Big green shiny tick, splangled round with twinkling Christmas lights. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
100. Obvious nom Support, because character and trustiworthiness are what matter, and Ajpolino demonstrates those in spades. (And I won't hold it against Ajpolino for having a co-nom who put a dangling modifier in the first sentence of their nomination statement, although I do think SilkTork should have noticed!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
101. Support Well-rounded candidate; will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 23:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
102. Support I believe they're qualified, so I gladly support their nomination for admin. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
103. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
104. Support Why not. Seems like an excellent candidate. Conlinp (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
105. Support Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 08:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
106. Support strong addition to the corps. Glen (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
107. Support: (probably) won't screw up. Harrias ^talk 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
108. Support Fully qualified candidate, excellent answers to questions. No concerns. CThomas³ (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
109. Supportper nom and answers.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
110. Support - No reason not to support. The answer to my question about dispute resolution shows the common sense to act in areas where they think that they are experienced. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
111. Stephen 02:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
112. Basically what Nosebagbear says. CLUEful editor who can be trusted with the tools. The community has (recently, even!) continued to agree that competent, trustworthy editors with a desire to help can indeed be trusted with the tools. Maybe that's a shift from years ago — I've opposed it once or twice myself — but we've decided that it's not a sufficient reason to oppose a worthwhile candidate looking to lighten the load a bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
113. Support - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 18:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
114. Support - Team player. No civility complaints. Science. All great. --Guest2625 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
115. Support Solid editor with no red or yellow flags. The opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
116. Support, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
117. Support Per all the above, having more help to combat copyvio issues is much appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
118. Support. A strong candidate who I am certain will be a good admin. An excellent content creation record, and expertise in copyright matters is particularly invaluable and appreciated. Good luck. Nsk92 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
119. Support Commited and level headed.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
120. Support Antrocent (♫♬) 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
121. Support Trusted user, and as a user that has requested administrator attention regarding copyright issues in the past, I think having another set of sysop hands to assist in the area would definitely be a good thing. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
122. Support - the wub "?!" 10:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
123. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
124. Support - Piling on by this point, but agreed that this user would make a good technical admin. Good luck! --Dps04 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Regretful oppose; as per below, still not convinced that the user will administrate anything outside their common area, lack of experience in administrative areas with exception of AfD and copyrights a concern IMO. Nightfury 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

   Nightfury, I don't want to badger you - you must vote how you think best - but above there are two admins active in copyright who seem familiar with the candidate's work, and say they would welcome their help. There are certain things about policing copyright you can only do with the tools - that seems to me to be a very good reason to allow this volunteer access to them, so they can give us their expertise for free to help the project in this area. Just a thought. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

   Girth Summit; with all due respect, that is only one area, there are many others that admins need help in. As I said, user needs more experience in a variety of areas.Nightfury 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   Nightfury, what I fail to understand is the logic behind that position - that if someone can help in only one area, it's better not to let them help at all. Yes, admins need help in lots of areas - this person is able and willing to help in one of them - we want to stop them because one's not enough? I don't get it. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   I opened a talk page section in case either of you (or anyone else) wants to continue discussion there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose. First I offer Ajpolino my deepest gratitude for their content creation and other contributions to Wikipedia, such as by using PROD/CSD where due and helping on WP:Copyright problems. However, based on the nominators' messages, on the candidate's answer to the default questions and Eddie891's questions, and on the candidate's activity logs, I am unconvinced that there is enough reason to give admin privileges to the candidate. Without having admin tools, the candidate can do reasonably well most of what they already do, especially because activity in administrative fields is not that large. Their intent to "start conservatively and expand [their] use of the administrative toolkit" is promising, but I'd rather see more activity in administrative areas prior to having adminship. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. No demonstrated need for the tools, no demonstrated proficiency in admin areas, no real discernible desire for adminship. The candidate sounds like a good content creator; let them continue to be a good content creator. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   Softlavender, without making it an auxiliary debate, I wanted to chime in and just add that just because someone is a good content creator, it is not right that we should expect them to perpetually continue to be just that. Growth is good. Ktin (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

   Candidates should have demonstrated a need for the tools, and a proficiency in admin areas. This candidate has not. Nor have they any real discernible desire for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

   I don't understand, how does this not demonstrate a high level of skill in an admin area? Even most admins aren't willing to work in the copyright area because of how difficult it is, but Ajpolino is. As for "desire for adminship", how is that not demonstrated by the fact that they're answering questions and accepted the nomination? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 05:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

   I don't see filing a detailed CP report as demonstrating a high level of skill in an admin area any more than filing an adequately researched AfD does. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

   Softlavender, I consider consistent filing of adequately researched AfDs and copyvio reports to be outstanding evidence of admin skills and also of the need for the tools, and am surprised that you disagree. People with that kind of experience and those types of skills are precisely who we need as administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

   The diff provided was a single filing. Had they presented more examples, my response would possibly have differed. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Softlavender. Nihlus 02:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

#I'm not too convinced with the answer to Q1, re the lack of experience in anything admin related, with the exception of AfD and anything outside of their "home" areas, as the OP puts it, I would say not ready for the mop just yet, but not enough for me to deny them a chance at being a mop holder. I was thinking of adding a question for them to clarify, but I see Eddie891 has beaten me to it. Nightfury 14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Still not convinced. Moving to oppose Nightfury 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

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.