Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreamy Jazz

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

Dreamy Jazz

Final (163/12/8); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 23:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to nominate Dreamy Jazz for adminship. Dreamy Jazz has had an account for almost 4 years, has solid editing experience (slightly edited 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)), and has shown proficiency in many areas. One GA (and another GA nomination), two DYKs, and almost 20 articles created show a commitment to significant content creation. On the maintenance side, Dreamy Jazz puts in yeoman's work in many areas. I've never declined any speedy deletion tags or UAA reports from Dreamy Jazz, his AFC work is excellent, and all the NACs at AfD are spot-on in assessing the discussion. In addition, all his contributions to the noticeboards are quite helpful and, in a sometimes drama-filled environment, he stays as calm and uncontentious as possible. Finally, Dreamy Jazz knows the way around our more technical backroom areas, and admins willing to do the technical work to keep things running smoothly are a much-needed commodity. When one puts together all of that in a user, we have ourselves an optimal candidate for adminship. Dreamy Jazz will be a fine addition to the admin corps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

There once was an editor called Dreamy Jazz, whose work I thought was in their own class,

And I left it at that till one day, I chanced upon his contributions at UAA,

That I was pleasantly surprised is an understatement; specially more, when I saw his CSDs needed no further treatment,

Then one day, I stopped by at The Blade of Northern Lights, and asked him, "My hero, where have been your sights?"

"Here is an editor since 2015, with 55,000 contributions pristine,"

CSDs, UAA, he's a master, but he's also a ~90% in AfDs, although not as faster,"

Why shouldn't we nominate him for an RfA, and give the community one more Man Friday?"

The Blade got interested, and spoke, "Girl, what editing does he know?"

"A GA, 2 DYKs, you know it, something you may want to show"

But when you do Blade, tell them that he's not here to compete on the bits;

Or block editors, delete pages, just because he's not afraid of crits;"

He's here because he really loves to contribute; if we say yes today, it'll be Wikipedia's happy retribute"

Of course, if we say no, the chap will continue editing, but I think getting him up for the RfA, would truly be fitting"

So here I am my friends, with my co-nomination; placing Dreamy for your re-examination,

Do be gentle as I always say, with your review, as significant as it be may,

Lourdes18:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thanks to both my nominators for their kind words and nominations. I have never edited for pay and will never edit for pay. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to work administratively in the areas which I have been most active, although over time I will expand to other areas.

• My main administrative focus would be on dealing with CSD nominations (especially spam and copyvios), history redaction of copyrighted material and reports at UAA. I have experience in UAA, CSD and requesting copyright redaction through new page patrolling and reviewing articles for creation submissions.
• I would like to also deal with edit requests for fully protected pages, extending my previous work on responding to edit requests on template-protected pages.
• I have reported users for sockpuppetry at the sockpuppets investigation page, and would like to help in a patrolling administrator capacity. SPI is a delicate area, where prior experience is enormously helpful, so I would learn from more experienced administrators first.
• In the future I would like to help at the requests for page protection noticeboard, an area which I have been less involved in, but is something which interests me.

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

A: I feel that my best contributions are to the article Morpeth, Northumberland. I improved the article, nominated it for Good Article status and got a hook about the town on Did You Know. I was able to expand my knowledge on article writing, which has helped me to review submissions at articles for creation, and also enjoyed the process.

Although I write articles myself, I enjoy reviewing and publishing articles written by others and feel my work reviewing submissions at articles for creation are some of my best contributions. Lastly, my work dealing with spam is something I think has benefited the project.

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: Whenever conflicts arise, I try to keep calm and relaxed, as I believe that getting angry or too stressed only makes the situation worse. One dispute I will mention is when I was improving the Notre-Dame de Paris fire article on the day of the fire. There was an editor which kept on adding a unsourced section, and I reverted them. After a few reverts, I went to the talk page to try to discuss the situation to resolve it. I feel that I remained calm throughout the dispute.

If anything makes me too stressed and/or angry, I will take a short break and come back in the right frame of mind.

---

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 questions from Taewangkorea

4. What areas of the English Wikipedia do you feel you have the least experience in?

A: I feel that I am least experienced in the file namespace (including images). Although I have uploaded some images of album covers under fair use, I am less experienced with the other fair use rationales, as well as the licenses which allow Wikipedia / Commons to host the files without needing fair use.

5. Why did you request a block on March 2019?

A: I requested a block in March 2019 as I needed to focus on real life. This was mainly due to upcoming exams, but there were other personal issues which meant I was going to need to retire. The reason I requested an unblock 10 days later was that the block didn’t help me focus on the exams and the personal issues had subsided.

Additional question from Nosebagbear

6. As an editor with experience in the Portals namespace, could you give your position as to the level of inclusion/existence there should be, and why?

A: I am neutral currently on whether portals should exist; however, I do feel that if portals do exist then only portals with a large enough article bases should exist. This is so that every portal can be a showcase of Wikipedia’s best content. Portals without a large enough article base are prone to not having lots of interesting content. I would argue that lack of interesting content would not encourage viewers to click through to an article, and for viewers not to click through in my eyes means the portal has failed to keep the viewer interested (so not met it purpose in my opinion).

Additional questions from Teratix

7. Do you anticipate the issues that led to your brief retirement in late March this year to recur?

A: No. The exams which I took are now over and the personal issues as mentioned in the answer to question 2 have now gone.

8. Why did you feel the need to request to be blocked during your retirement instead of merely ceasing editing?

A: I wanted to ensure that I focused on real life. I had tried the Wikibreak enforcer script before, but it had not worked well for me. I thought that the idea of being blocked would help me focus on real life.

Additional questions from John M Wolfson

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

A: Unless the school website has released the text under a license compatible with Wikipedia, then G12 would apply because the entire page is a copyright violation. However, other criteria may also apply. For example, if the copied and pasted text is also promotional, G11 would apply. Deleting under multiple criteria, when they apply, would ensure that no time was wasted in seeking copyright permission if the page would then just be redeleted under a different criteria.

None of the article (except A10 under the right, very specific, circumstances), category, redirect, user page, template, portal and exceptional circumstance speedy deletion criteria could apply. G14, G13, G8, G6, G3 and G2 also cannot apply. G1 is likely to never apply, as the school presumably wouldn’t write incoherent text or gibberish on their website. G7 could apply if the user realised their mistake and asked for it to be deleted by blanking or otherwise (as long as it was requested in good faith and they were the only substantial contributor), but this would be rare. G10 is very unlikely to apply, as the school is unlikely to have written something which constitutes an attack page. G9 can only be used by the Wikimedia Foundation, but could on the very rare chance still apply if the Wikimedia Foundation decides to delete the page.

10. Is office.bomis.com an appropriate username?

A: The username under the username policy is a violation, as it both implies shared use and unambiguously represents a name of the company, in this case Bomis. This particular account was treated like an IP address in 2001, as domain names were treated like IP addresses back then when editing anonymously. The username was appropriate when the edits were being made, but is no longer appropriate. Furthermore, according to the username policy these accounts are usually now blocked on sight.

Additional questions from Rosguill

11. For each level of vandalism warning template 1–4, could you describe some editing behaviors that would prompt you to place such a warning on someone's talk page?

A: Unless the history of abuse is large or the IP is known to be static, I would not take into account warnings which are older than a few weeks, as IPs change.

• Level 1: One edit of vandalism like edits, which could be just an accidental saving of an edit.
• Level 2: A second edit of vandalism like edits after level 1 warning, or one vandalism edit which is clearly vandalism and I can’t assume good faith
• Level 3: Third vandalism like edit performed recently after level 2 warning, or where the user has a minor history of vandalism
• Level 4: Fourth vandalism like edit performed recently after level 3 warning, where the vandalism has been happening continuously and/or excessively, or where the user has a long history of vandalism (although I might start on the previous level unless the vandalism is obvious).

Additional questions from UnnamedUser

12. A user is currently the subject of a conduct discussion at WP:ANI. Due to the various accusations against him, he is very angry and vehement in his responses. Under which conditions can he be blocked for reasons relating to his high emotions, if any at all?

A: I refer to policy to answer this question, as dealing with incivility is something I have done less of. If he makes a comment towards editor(s) which is severely incivil, for example extreme profanity, threats or extreme verbal abuse, then he can be blocked for that one comment. Multiple comments which are personal attacks or harassment against editor(s) in the discussion could lead to a block, especially if he had been warned against doing so. Also, if he has any sanctions against him about how he discusses with others and if he breaks them in the discussion, he could be blocked. However, a simple anger needs to be guided and not sanctioned.

Additional questions from CaptainEek

13. You made almost no edits in August through September of this year. Could you explain?

A: My editing levels dropped in August to September this year as I was preparing to leave for university and also adjusting to university life when I arrived. I was still checking my watchlist and talk page every so often, as well as making the occasional edits.

14. Under what circumstances would you resign the mop, either temporarily or permanently?

A: I would resign it permanently if I lost the trust of the community, as the role of an administrator is a servant to the community and without their trust you cannot fully serve them. I don’t see a reason why I would resign the tools temporarily.

Additional questions from SportingFlyer

15. Why do you have so many edits to talk pages, user pages, and portal space?

A:

• I have carried out WikiProject tagging using AWB on talk pages (which is the reason why my edit count is higher this month), dealt with clearing Category:Biography articles without living parameter and tackling Category:Biography articles without listas parameter
• I think the main reason my userspace edits are so high, is down to my CSD log and the userpage which I used to mark unused portal subpages for deletion (now moved to a subpage of another user). For deleted contributions, I have tagged a good number of userpages for deletion under U5. Some portals were userfied and my edits to them moved with them to userspace.
• I was involved in portals, including tagging unused subpages for deletion. To do this I would place notices on the top of each page up for deletion. I helped in the portal namespace generally for a while too.

Additional question from Cryptic

16. What's the purpose in having a csd log that purports to automatically maintained if you manually doctor it to remove your errors? —Cryptic 05:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A: As far as I am aware I have only removed log entries when I reverted my addition almost immediately, the number of removals is relatively small, and there have been none since June. I felt at the time that if I had self-reverted my CSD nomination, because I mis-clicked or changed my mind without someone reviewing it, that I hadn’t then nominated it. I have changed my mind on this, and have readded all the removed entries to my CSD log so it is accurate.

Additional question from Leaky

17. A series of articles, comprising annual articles of the typical low quality "reality TV" genre is nominated for deletion. The articles are start class, lacking high quality sources but appear to fall within WP:GNG. What is the POLICY-based decision on such a nomination?

A: If the sources on a particular year are only routine, then the article could only cover (and sources could only support) routine information and so the year would not have any enduring value or noteworthiness. This means that the year does not merit its own article as Wikipedia is not a newspaper (specifically articles should not be news reports), so the decision would be to delete. If a particular year has more than routine coverage, then it should be kept.

Your answer has segued. Sorry if the question was unclear. If an article satisfies WP:GNG in what circumstances is a successful AFD appropriate? Because the article lacks quality references? Is that what you are saying? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear in my earlier response. This time too, I probably am being misled by the term successful AfD. Please clarify the term for me to answer appropriately. However, to clarify the remaining part of my answer, an article lacking quality references is significantly different from no significant sources being found for an article. If an article seems to satisfy WP:GNG, then in normal circumstances, one should not nominate the article for AfD simply because nobody had the time to put the sources into the article. WP:BEFORE exists for that I guess. On the other hand, if an article qualifies on GNG but the subject does not have enduring value (is of the NOTNEWS, BLP1E variety) or contravenes our BLP / copyright violation policies unsalvageably, then an AfD may be appropriate (or even a CSD in clear cases). I hope this answers your query. If it doesn't, please feel free to ask more.

Additional question from QuiteUnusual

18. BLPs are very important to "get right". In March 2018 you edited Matt McGinn (born 1978) to clean it up. With the experience you've gained in the last 18 months, what additional edits might you have made from the version you published here, if any?

A: Since my edits then, I think one of the things I have understood further is how important is it is source BLPs. I would try to source all the unsourced information or add the citation needed template if I could not. To give examples I would to try to find sources that support that the single The Long Way was written with Kim Richey and Gareth Dunlop, and try to find sources that say he was born in December 1978. I would do this because it is, as you say, it is very important to ensure that BLPs are factually correct / are [got] right. If through sourcing the unsourced information I found more suitable sources, I would expand the article with relevant information supported by these sources.

Additional question from Lord Bolingbroke

19. According to XTools, 26.5% of your edits have been deleted. Could you explain why such a high percentage of your contributions are no longer live?

A: I am not entirely sure what the main reason is (as I cannot access my deleted contributions), but my best guess is that a good amount is the requesting deletion of unused portal subpages, and also fixing common issues on portal pages where the portal pages have been subsequently deleted. Also pages listed in my CSD log which were deleted would each have an associated deleted edit of placing the CSD template(s) on the now deleted page.

It appears that the majority of these deleted edits were tagging pages for deletion, attempts to salvage pages which had been tagged for deletion, or running AWB/RefFill/etc on subsequently-deleted pages. Wholly appropriate. DS (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for posting what the majority of my deleted edits are. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Interstellarity

20. Will you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?

A: As I said in my answer to question 14, I would resign the mop if I lost the trust of the community. Having recall criteria for myself would allow me to see if I have lost the trust of the community, as they would be met if this was the case. So I will add myself to the category if I pass this RfA.

Additional question from Interstellarity

21. Will you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles?

A: Yes I will add myself to that category if I pass this RfA. This is because I believe that editors with a genuine reason for requesting a copy should get a copy. However, depending on the reason for deletion and the deleted content, I may decline to provide a copy. For example I would not give copies of deleted articles which are copyright violations, or copies of deleted articles which are attack pages.

Additional questions from Puddleglum2.0

22. How long have you considered running for adminship?

A: I first thought about running for the mop when I opened an Optional RfA candidate poll 13 months ago. I have not been aiming for the mop, but I did decide that I would want to at least get some feedback on my chances of passing an RfA around a year after my ORCP closed.

Additional questions from Banedon

23. How would you explain your apparent backtracking in requesting blocks and unblocks (currently oppose reasons #3 and #4)?

A: As I detailed in my answer to question 5, I had some personal issues which at the time meant I was going to need to retire and a block would help me keep retired. These issues subsided around 10 days later, which I did not envisage would happen. This meant that retirement was no longer needed and so I decided that I was going to come out of retirement. Because the personal issues were no longer an issue and that the self-requested block was also not helping me to focus on exams, I saw no reason why remaining blocked would help me. Therefore, I requested an unblock. I apologised at the time for being indecisive due to the time spent by administrators placing the self-requested block and later unblocking me, and the time that any other editor spent as a result of my block / unblock.

24. Oppose #4 currently claims that you attempted to enforce a Wikibreak because of exams, and were back to editing the next day. This seems to contradicts what you said above. Are you saying the oppose reason is factually incorrect?

A: I am not saying that the oppose reason is incorrect and I believe that my answer above does not contradict oppose number 4. This is because the oppose reason refers to my use of the Wikibreak enforcer script for a separate Wikibreak back in September 2018 (around 6 months before the self-requested block). As mentioned in the oppose, I added the script for a 15 day break for exams (I can add that these were specifically mock exams), but removed the script a day later.

Additional questions from Demetrius Tremens

25. Will you please explain why you feel you need the additional tools that come with adminship?

A: Please read my answer to question number 1.

26. Will you please explain why you felt you were unable to walk away from Wikipedia and take a break on your own, instead asking to be indeffed?

A: Please read my answer to question number 8.

Discussion

• Links for Dreamy Jazz: Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dreamy Jazz 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 per WP:NOBIGDEAL. There are no red flags (I have the first vote!)Taewangkorea (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as nom, obviously. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support, excellent choice for admin, no issues that I'm aware of. creffett (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, despite the lack of dirty limericks from your co-nom, per Blades and the poetic Lourdes. I read your ORCP at the time when you made it 13 months ago and you've nicely handled the points that got raised. As a very minor note, they have one of the more interesting global rights I've ever seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support - L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Almost any editor who helps or has helped with discussion backlogs, such as the nominee has with WP:RM in the past, is good in my book. This editor meets that bill for me. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   ...And regarding the self-requested indef block. Everyone on here takes breaks, and some choose to advertise their breaks more than others ... so I'm not seeing how it is a grounds for opposition and stand by my support. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

7. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Support per User:Lourdes' nomination Chetsford (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Support. Excellent participation in requested moves. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
10. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
13. Support. Have encountered this user many a time in AfD / AfC, and have never had a negative interaction with them. I only see good work put out by this user, and I do not believe I will have problems. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Support Solid candidate, does good work. ST47 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
15. Support If I had known that this was happening, I might have offered to co-nominate. I am happy to see Dreamy Jazz running and wish them the best! Clear net positive (at the very least) and has clue. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
16. Support, I don't see why not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
17. Support. W00t! Good user that I am glad is running. Only ever had positive experiences with Dreamy Jazz! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
18. Support. looks like a valuable user with enough experience to step up. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
19. Support Good answers, trust the nom, and the only argument the opposes are making is flat-out ridiculous. The candidate has 12k edits this year and 2k in the last two months; this is more than sufficient experience for the mop. The self-requested block to try and focus on off-wiki work is totally understandable. If anything, it's a sign of the candidate's maturity and clue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
20. Support As nom and per above. Lourdes 07:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
21. Strongest possible support - I'm delighted to see this RfA, which is long overdue. If I knew this was coming, I would have co-nommed, and I've never nominated anyone for anything before. We will be nothing short of fortunate to have Dreamy Jazz serving as an admin. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
22. Support a worthy candidate. The contributions seems good to me. Anyone who sees a problem in the month count or edit count should read this excellent reply by Tony. [1] and [2]--DBigXrayᗙ 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
23. Support No concerns, not a jerk, has clue, can write articles. Opposing because the candidate has only created 20 articles despite improving another to GA is insane - most of the real work on the project is improving existing content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
24. Support The candidate is very impressive. Capt. Milokan (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
25. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
26. Support. Good candidate - experience and temperment. I have given up many things/distractions in order to improve exam focus, only to re-start them again a few days later realising that those things/distractions were also important to helping me de-pressure during the stress. Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
27. Support precious welcome portal maintenance --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Support. Strong candidate with a long period of service. With regard to the four opposing, I have no problem with candidates being offline for a few months, or asking for their name to be popped through special:block. These developments are actually everyday practice and are immaterial to this RfA. AGK ■ 11:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Support per Ritchie and AGK. originalmess^{busta rhyme} 11:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
30. Support: I am seeing support from admins I like to see supporting a candidate, I'm a tad concerned about doctoring logs as while practiced you'd be surprised what people can see at times ... I'm voting a tad early in this and if something serious comes up I might have to revisit but touch wood I don't. In terms of break/reset/re-engage and RL then so be it and others with the MOP team can cover.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
31. Support: good chance this person will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
32. Support. As AGK says, self-requested blocks aren't a big deal, I've requested them, Wikipedia can be addictive and we're all human. Yes, I'm not running for adminship (because that would be snowballed really quickly) but you get the point. I've come across DJ at requested moves before and their closures, relists and votes there give me confidence in their ability to determine consensus, understand policy and competently implement it. SITH (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
33. Support, on balance. Deb (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
34. Support. I'm seeing a very solid candidate, and I'm not concerned by the oppose reasons. Besides, how many candidates get a nomination in song? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
35. Support. Need more admins. The concerns raised aren't dealbreakers to me. Haukur (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
36. Support, seems to be a good candidate. Chandan Guha (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
37. Support With no qualms about the self-requested block. Real life happens, and that was a way to focus on real life. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
38. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
39. Support lots of edits in the past year. Edit summaries were poor a couple years back but since corrected to almost perfect stats. Nothing to say they would wield the tools improperly, so why not? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
40. Support. Giving them the tools is likely to be a net positive for the project. Also, I'm not worried whatsoever about the self-requested block. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
41. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 14:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
42. Support. Positive addition to the admin corps. Dreamy candidate! (they all should be this good!) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
43. Support per nom. Questioning their experience when they have 55000 edits and 26 months of solid activity is nonsensical, IMO, and the self-requested block is a non-issue.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
44. Support - a safe choice with plenty of experience. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
45. Support - Impressed by some answers to questions by other users. No concerns here ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
46. Support, solid contributor, will be a sensible mopster. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
47. Support - the concerns expressed below about activity level are irrelevant to me. An admin that may or may not use the tools often or at a consistent rate isn't a problem. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
48. Support - A fantastic editor who will make a fantastic admin, I see no red flags here, Also the indef request imho is nothing to worry over (Boings reply has hit the nali on the head), Anyway no issues here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
49. —Kusma (t·c) 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
50. Support No red flags, enough experience with content creation and improvement to know how the process works, shows good sense in stepping back when necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
51. Support Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
52. Support I know it's kind of a cliche, but I honestly thought he was an admin already. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
53. Support. If this is the best the opposition can come up with, it looks like we've got a great candidate. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
54. Support The candidate has lots of experience. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 18:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
55. Support. Qualified & seems to be in line with our mission & have good ideas where to start with admin tasks. = paul2520 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
56. Support. I see no red flags in their background, and the one they think closest to a problem (the ND fire), they walked away from rather than digging their heels in. I think they have had sufficient experience to be given a chance, and I do not see the self-requested block as a problem: taking a break to recharge batteries is a positive step, imo. – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
57. per above. ( Moved from Neutral ) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
58. Support. Solid article creation and the person is very familiar with admin tasks. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
59. Support I think the fact he has an excellent command of CSD is a good plus point, but the absences I think need to be managed better. Communication is usually the key. I would have been number 6 but kept getting edit conflicts ;8) scope_creep^Talk 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
60. Support A sensible rationale for using the tools and competent answers to the questions. I have no qualms about the self-requested block, rather I think it shows good self-awareness. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
61. Support Though the stats may be a tad thinner than I like, no reason to oppose. Collect (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
62. Support good content creation, AFD participation and good NACs, not seeing any reason to oppose, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
63. Contributions are good, as are deleted contributions. I have read the Oppose section, but do not regard it as a problem, or even a negative, that a volunteer is sometimes elsewhere, even occasionally for some months. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
64. (edit conflict) x 2 Support for a well-qualified candidate. Opposes not a concern, and I agree with Boing! that knowing when to step back is good for the encyclopedia overall. Miniapolis 00:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
65. I see nothing to make me believe that the candidate would misuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 00:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
66. Good candidate. I give a lot of credit to the candidate for their level of self-awareness, and their entirely correct prioritization of "real life" over their Wikipedia avocation. Work has been consistently of good quality with regard to both contribution and curation. This is the kind of candidate we should all be welcoming as an administrator. Risker (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
67. Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
68. support per nomination. Per above stated rationales. per my standards. I too have struggled to balance between life and Wikipedia. After more than a decade, the struggle continues.-- Deepfriedokra 07:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
69. Support mostly because I don't see any reason to oppose - I'm not at all concerned about the self-block. I will admit this is not my strongest-ever endorsement since I would like to see more of how Dreamy Jazz would conduct themselves in AfD or ANI space, but they do seem to be a rather effective wiki gnome and I trust they have a need for the tools and will use them properly. SportingFlyer T·C 07:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
70. Support good enough, not a jerk, unlikely to wreck the joint. The oppose arguments seem to me to be very week, based on non-criteria of length of time & consistent number of edits. Not at all concerned about the judgment shown to request a self-block. --Find bruce (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
71. Support. Seems like a great editor. Very unconvinced by the opposes (as I write this, they exclusively refer to the self-requested indef). Enterprisey (talk!) 09:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
72. Support I see no issues, and some good work. The self-request block is a little silly but not half as silly as using it as a reason to oppose. Hug^syrup 10:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
73. Weak support per my RFA criteria. The absences noted by others do worry me, but they are not lengthy enough to take me to neutral by themselves and the candidate is otherwise an excellent fit for the role. Iffy★Chat -- 12:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
74. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
75. Support - knows what they're doing, knows what they want the tools for (unlike some candidates). Opposes are around varying edit counts and a self-requested block. These don't concern me. Many editors have varying edit counts but that's just because the amount of time we have available to give to the project varies depending on what else is going on in our lives. We have no right to expect admins to be different: we're all volunteers, after all. And why provide the facility for editors to self-request a block, and then hold it against them if they make use of it? Neiltonks (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
76. Support – No concerns. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
77. Support no pressing issues stand out to me ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
78. Support No major concerns. I disagree with the concept of opposing due to periods of inactivity. Adminship is no big deal, so taking a break from it would be even less of a big deal. Wanting to be blocked to take a wikibreak suggests a certain amount of compulsivity, which is sometimes a big problem for editing but seldom so for wielding the mop. Vadder (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
79. Support Looks good. EPIC (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
80. Support. At this time, I see no particular reason to oppose this user. DS (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
81. Support, will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
82. Support – Great candidate. Dreamy Jazz will be a net-positive as an admin. I see no red flags in any of their responses or their behavior. Concerning the Oppose votes below, a one-time inactivity of 3 months is not a cause for concern; repeated, prolonged absences would be an issue. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
83. Support ~ Dreamy Jazz has always, in my book, been a responsible editor who cares ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
84. Support, I don't think the block should be a problem, looks good! Agree with Boing! said Zebedee. --BEANS X2 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
85. Support. Not overwhelmingly active, but enough. Is clueful. The answers to the questions so far are good. I don't see a temperament problem. I'm not concerned that someone asked for a self-block to help pass their exams. And I'm definitely not concerned with someone taking extended wikibreaks. Many of us need them, and it's a sign of good judgement to do it (you know you need it, and you actually do it = +2). This is not an editor I interact with much, but I'm not seeing any red flags, even in the current hot-button dispute over internal trivia (portals and their future).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
86. Support No major concerns. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
87. Support Does a lot of maintenance work which can only be enhanced with the toolset. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
88. Support I see lots of positives, and am unconvinced by the opposers. The candidate takes Wikibreaks: this may make them less of a net positive, but any amount of positive is still positive; they take Wikipedia (overly) seriously? Good. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
89. Seems competent and I see no reason to think the tools will be abused. I don't find the concerns about self-blocking and its indications of temperament compelling for the reason Rhododendrites gives in the general comments section. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
90. Support He qualifies and is needed. I am tired of someone finding a 'Flaw' and then others just jump on. His self block request was responsible not anything bad. Eschoryii (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
91. Support. No serious concerns here. BD2412 T 22:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
92. Support - I'm happy to support at this time. I'm not seeing major concerns regarding taking a couple months off and then coming back. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
93. Support, a solid candidate, no significant issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
94. The self-requested block is concerning, showing someone who probably spends way more time on here than they should. But this is the same site where admins routinely "quit" every time they get into a minor conflict and come back two weeks later. At worst, the candidate will fit right in. At best, maybe they'll do some good admin work. No red flags as to the use of the tools. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
95. Support – Initially I thought the self requested block/unblock was a reaction to the "portal drama", but when I looked through DJ's contribs at the beginning of this year, I saw an orderly wiki-break that was months in the making. Agreeing to recall makes me more comfortable supporting an editor I'm not terribly familiar with. – Levivich 05:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
96. Support - per above--MrJaroslavik (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
97. Support- I don't see any concerns here. The self-block isn't something I'm going to stress over. Reyk _YO! 10:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
98. Weak support. I'm not entirely convinced that the rapid-fire side of admin chores is in great need for new members, but from the candidate's answer to the questions he will almost certainly be a net positive. I haven't interacted with the candidate before but I think he'll be a trustworthy new pair of hands on deck. Deryck C. 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
99. Support. No issues Ceoil (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
100. Support - Answers to my questions satisfy me. Interstellarity (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
101. In particular per Risker. I am moderately familiar with DJ's good work here, in particular around CSDs. Even if they just delete G11s this will be a net positive! The opposes are particularly unconvincing: DJ has far more "tenure" than necessary (whatever that means) and we should be encouraging users to step away from the project when they need to, not discouraging it. Happy editors, happy wiki. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
102. Support - Looks like a good editor who will benefit the project as an administrator. The opposes do not convince me: the self-requested block is not an unusual way for a user to try to enforce a wikibreak; I am also not concerned about varied levels of activity and I think that an administrator having off-wiki commitments which they prioritise over on-wiki activity is no bad thing and can often provided much needed perspective. WJ94 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
103. Support Net positive. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 16:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
104. Support Well-qualified. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
105. Support. Especially per Rhododendrites, taking a break should not be stigmatized. Jazz will be a positive force. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
106. Support I'm happy to back this. I've seen DJ around doing page patrolling, they've always given the impression of knowing what they're doing. I'm not concerned about asking to take a break, or about asking to come back sooner than expected. The manual editing of the CSD log did cause an eyebrow to twitch slightly, but their explanation checks out and seems reasonable. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
107. Support with some hesitation: The question on the requested block does raise some doubt in my mind, just not quite enough to join opposers; in the end, i guess, i fall back on my default position. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
108. Support, as they meet my criteria, and the idea that a self-requested block for purposes of temporarily reprioritizing is a disqualifier for adminship just leaves me bemused. I totally could see myself wanting to do that if I went on vacation and wanted to make sure I wasn't tempted to 'just check my watchlist and notifications.' --valereee (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
109. Support Will be a net positive in maintenance work. No concerns about tenure or requesting a block when recognizing the need for a break; I'd actually say that demonstrates great self-awareness. ComplexRational (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
110. Support – Everyone needs a break sometimes. If you take what we are doing this seriously, you have my support and blessing to take as many breaks as you need. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
111. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. I have often seen Dreamy Jazz doing AfC and general maintenance work. All-around a good guy. He has my full support. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 19:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
112. Support. No concerns here. the wub "?!" 23:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
113. Support: Has the experience, good judgement and sufficient clue. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
114. Support. Absences from wikipedia, self-requested blocks, and changes of mind, are all perfectly normal human behaviour. Normal human behaviour should be a desired trait in an administrator, not 16-hour-a-day editing automatons.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
115. Support no issues. WP:NOTBIGDEAL.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
116. Support Competent and qualified. Will be a net positive. Lulusword (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
117. Support. per WP:NOBIGDEAL.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
118. Support - per what I said in the general comments section, on balance with NOBIGDEAL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
119. Support Candidate seems to have a good head on their shoulders and a balanced sense of responsibilities in their real life. Also, the nomination statement by Lourdes is fantastic, as are some of the support rationales by Steel1943, Coffeeandcrumbs and others. Airbornemihir (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
120. Support. Somehow, I don't recollect crossing paths with the candidate before, so I spent some time looking at their older user talk discussions, and what I saw there fits with what I see here. First of all, I agree with what Mkativerata said just above. I think that the answers to questions demonstrate experience both with content and with technical stuff, as well as articulate expression, good justifications for the use of admin tools, politeness, and a good self-awareness about not overreaching. That's what I want to see in an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
121. Support. Overall net positive. They will help when they can and we should appreciate the offer to take up the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
122. Support Never crossed paths with this editor,most probably because they hasn't been around long. But meh, always happy to support a bona fide contributor for admin.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
123. Support - no concerns. –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
124. Support Trustworthy candidate who will be a benefit to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 03:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
125. Weak support AfD stats aren't enough to get a sense of their clue there, one GA is light-on content creation-wise, but otherwise seems sensible and aware of their limitations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
126. Support No red lights seen. I don't really see an issue about the self-req block, if Dreamy Jazz wants it, he can have it. Everyone needs a break. 大诺史 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
127. --- Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
128. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
129. Support - will put the admin tools to good use and improve the encyclopedia. Overdue to be honest. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
130. Support: someone who edits well while taking breaks to balance that with real life will probably be an admin who does the same. That's healthy. Jonathunder (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
131. Support: Appears to be a great candidate. The opposers raised some concerns (see discussion below) but in the end their position was weighed, measured and found wanting! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
132. Mostly Support: This editor seems to edit with good faith, and the support reasons seem valid. The only thing that concerns me is the large number of edits that have no edit summary, as shown here. Other than that, he has made some great contributions and seems like a worthy administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghinga7 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

     I noticed that too. Someone must have pointed it out to them, because since June 2018 the percentage of edits with summaries has been 97 to 100%.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

133. Support —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
134. Support The self block thing, and coming so recently, raised some questions. But I've seen them around, they have always been pleasant, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
135. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
136. Support Looks like a solid editor with no red or yellow flags. FWIW I'm not a fan of blocking editors who are not behaving disruptively, but I also recognize that this is a subject where there is not a strong consensus and a number of admins will do "courtesy blocks." All in all the opposes are not persuasive and I think DJ is almost certain to be a net positive with the tools. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
137. Support - per above. I am not overly familiar with them, but I don't see any huge red flags here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
138. Support More than enough experience in content contribution and maintenance areas. Importantly: good communication, interactions and temperament. Good answers. The self block is no problem since the candidate was using it as a tool and it was intended to be for a brief period. Variations in edits by users at different times is not uncommon, especially for users who have been around for at least a few years. I would be more hesitant about a candidate with modest experience coming off a lengthy complete absence. That is not the case here. The CSD log changes have been adequately explained. Adding the entries back shows good faith since I think the explanation was enough. Tryptofish has a good summary analysis. The candidate has established trustworthiness and should be a net positive. Donner60 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
139. Support Sure, I'll support. Seems to be a worthy candidate. Quahog (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
140. Support Dreamy Jazz gave me the opportunity to nominate him for adminship. Unfortunately, I became very busy with my personal life that I could not do so in time for him to run. I support him with arms open and with the anticipation that he'll continue to learn and that he'll serve as a civil, kind, respectful, thoughtful, intelligent, giving, and serving administrator. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
141. Support, in the absence of any reasons to oppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
142. Support – After checking the work that Dreamy Jazz did at WP:RM, including one move closure in a complex case that was well reasoned, I'm giving my full support. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
143. Support No issues. Pratyush (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
144. Support Opposes aren't convincing. The block doesn't bother me, nor does the gap in editing. Life happens. – Frood (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
145. Support LOL, the poem by Lourdes is funny. 23:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumrezarock100 (talk • contribs)
146. Support -- FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 02:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
147. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
148. Support Tolly4bolly 05:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
149. Support I don't have problems with people wanting to be blocked. Requesting a block and then requesting an unblock one day later is more troubling, but it seems the "block" was a self-imposed one (not one by an administrator) which isn't something to worry about either. I don't see any other reasons to oppose, so I'm supporting. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
150. Support No big issues. Solid application. Welcome. Victuallers (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
151. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 10:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
152. Support. Obviously a fully qualified candidate. Stood up well to a barrage of questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
153. Support. I'm surprised he isn't an admin already, in all honesty. He seems to also be good at calming himself down, so I think he'd make for an excellent admin. Invalid^OS (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
154. Support Coming in late but agree with the support expressed above. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
155. Support for several reasons: 1. I trust the nominators a great deal. 2. I have seen DreamyJazz around some, and have always come away favorably impressed. He has the necessary experience in both edit count and longevity. 3. Has demonstrated, in Q3, how he would be an asset to Wikipedia if he had extra tools. 4. His demeanor and answers to questions at RfA, a stressful endeavor, are positive. 5. I see no evidence of "bad behavior", not counting the occasional goof/error we all make. So that's five good reasons to support. I have contemplated the self-requested block. I think the candidate gives a reasonable explanation for that, but my thinking is similar to JzG's here. However, since I have 5 good reasons to support, three of them strong, and only one reason for concern, and which is weakish (in my own scales, I am not saying Guy's argument is weak), I am in favor of this candidate obtaining extra tools to help out around here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
156. Support. Somewhat limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
157. Support - a good and qualified candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
158. Support: all looks fine, decent experience in a variety of areas and no particular concerns from anything I've looked at. The small point raised in the oppose section regarding the semi-recent block-request incident - this does, to me, possibly suggest a slightly unhealthy relationship with Wikipedia at times, but this is by no means grounds to refuse the ability to do more useful work. It's just something for Dreamy Jazz to consider, rather than a true red flag that actually outweighs all the good work done. ~ mazca ^talk 18:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
159. Support Also surprised by the recent self-request for an indefinite block. But I guess we all get a bit like that now and again, don't we, boys and girls? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
160. Support A decent and qualified editor. Mgasparin (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
161. Support Good luck. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
162. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
163. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Needs more experience and time in the trenches. Month counts are far from consistent. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   As the comment on months was added after my comment below, I'll also address it: in the 25 full months since October 2017, Dreamy Jazz has been "highly active" (100+ edits a month) 20/25 months. They have been active (5+ edits a month) in all 5 of the remaining months. When you have peaks of over 1,000 edits a month, 100 looks small, but by any reasonable standard they have been active for over two years. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose, regretfully at this time. I agree with WWGB that this editor needs a bit more time. While their AfD stats are statistically good, they are very limited. They are also woefully short on article creation, with only 20 articles, of which only a single article is above start level. But the most troubling issue I have is the recent request for an indef self-block in just March of this year. I don't think I've ever had any interaction with this editor, as our interest do not seem to overlap, but I think they should take some more time to gain experience in different WP areas. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   So, they've been consistently editing since October 2017. That's roughly 26 months (rounding up since almost December.) For anyone curious, after about 26 months of active editing, I was a CheckUser and Oversighter, and I had passed my RfA after 14 months of active editing. This isn't some far away time period a decade ago; this was 2017 and 2018. The idea that someone needs more experience and more time after 55,000 edits and 26 months of editing is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. The self-requested block thing is a bit weird, but we've had worse behaviour from admins who are held in high-esteem by the community this year.

   In short, I see nothing in the above opposes that makes me want to oppose, and I consider the more experience argument at this stage to be unduly high for what amounts to advanced twinkle. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, my oppose was based neither on their months of editing, nor on their number of edits. Rather it was based on their choices made during that time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose The combination of recent inactivity for over three months combined with a recent self-request for an indefinite block is a red flag that this editor may burn out with the added pressures of being an administrator and end with a dramatic request for ‘deadminiship’, retirement and another self-request block. More experience and a greater time without red flag drama warning signs is needed before I could support this request for adminiship.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   While we obviously want admins who are active, why don't the 2k edits in the last two months assuage any concerns about burn-out? I hardly see a slower period in the last year as a 'red flag' on its own, especially when there's no conduct/judgement concerns raised thus far. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

4. Regretful oppose. On contributions, Jazz would make an outstanding administrator. However, I feel their need for a block, rather than just ceasing activity, to focus on real life indicates a lack of self-control, compounded by this instance in September last year when they attempted to enforce a wikibreak until the end of the month due to exams and were back to editing the next day. – Teratix ₵ 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I had a self-request block for 3 months once, and I also blocked myself when I decided I'd had enough of Wikipedia for good (and requested unblock a couple of years later). And on the whole, I think most people would say I did OK as an admin. If you think it's a sign of poor self-control to ask for such a block, perhaps you don't appreciate the infuriatingly addictive effect Wikipedia can have on those who are passionate about it? I personally think it shows good judgment (well, I obviously would, wouldn't I?) to recognize when you need a bit of help to focus on more important things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   I think, in general, admins act better when they are not addicted to Wikipedia to the extent they need to be blocked to focus on real life. – Teratix ₵ 11:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   You are very possibly right, and I do sometimes think I might have done a better admin job at times had I not been so addicted. But I also see wisdom in knowing what might cause distraction and taking action on it. Anyway, I guess we judge the balance differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   I too feel the need for a block, rather than just ceasing activity, to focus on real life indicates a lack of self-control...gives me pause. Otherwise a great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Per above concerns about temperament vis-à-vis the requested indef self-block.--WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose, regretfully. Initially I was going to be neutral because of the strength of the nominators, but I don't think it's fence-sitting time. My opposition is on the basis of a recent indefinite self-block request and then a reversal. The potential holder of a mop, for me, isn't about stats but temperament and insight. Asking for an indefinite block and then reversing within 10 days demonstrates potential problems with both. Ifnord (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose Changes of mind are allowed in all aspects of life. I'm afraid, however, that this time I concur with the opposal rationales. A potential admin should judge the importance of a block, this is not a game.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose Poor show. Bad behaviour to admin. No thanks MapReader (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   Would you mind providing examples of this "bad behaviour" you mention? –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

9. Oppose Not enough experience. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   Debresser, can you elaborate on this? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

   Agreed, more elaboration is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

   No, more elaboration is not needed, unless you also intend to ask those with similar support blurbs to elaborate also. GregJackP Boomer! 04:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

   As the RFA page says, Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers. P-K3 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

   I don't agree that it is acceptable to badger oppose !votes and let supporter slide. If someone who opposes has to clarify, then the supporters should also have to do so, and if supporters get a pass, so should this individual who doesn't think that the candidate has enough experience. GregJackP Boomer! 12:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks for the input! It was very helpful in making up my mind. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

   BTW I tend to agree with Debresser that 'supporters' should be able to back up their position. However I was disappointed at Deb's failure to back up her own position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

   Her? Debresser (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

   I don't see how my point can be elaborated upon much. This candidate has little experience outside article mainspace, IMHO. I don't count his reports of problematic usernames, which, excuse me for being frank, makes for a rather irritating impression of this editor. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

    Interestly enough, User:GregJackP/Admin criteria says "See User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, I completely endorse Ritchie333's position.", yet my essay says "I have seen this essay (and variations of it) be misinterpreted as "All admins must have multiple GAs / FAs / created xx articles / to pass RfA", which is complete hogwash." I would support Carrite at RfA despite him being a longstanding critic of the GA process. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

11. Oppose - I find requesting a self-block, and especially an indefinite block, to be troubling, and a likely indication of poor judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Knowing they will likely pass, but per WWGB (too green/weak content creation); Onel5969 (recent request for indef block - drama); Literaturegeek (recent inactivity - hat collecting?); Teratix (poor self-control - immature); Robert McClenon (poor judgement - again, drama, immaturity). I see no compelling reason why this user NEEDS the admin tool kit, but I do see indications of immaturity and poor judgement. If one cannot step away from Wikipedia on their own volition, but instead need to be indef blocked to get space, then ten days later reverse that choice, it is unlikely they have a healthy relationship with Wikipedia. I'm kind of surprised at how many supports they have gotten. Maybe we should just make everybody admins, and take the bit away from those who abuse it (kidding). Demetrius Tremens (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Don't have a ton of experience with this editor - I see no reason to oppose at this time, and I do question both opposes above, but I am curious as to why they have gone away for three months and then returned and how they averaged 7.3 edits an hour for the month of October 2018, so am holding here until more questions are answered. SportingFlyer T·C 04:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC) moved to Support.

Leaning to support; however Oppose comment are convincing as well. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Leaning oppose: I have interacted with Dreamy Jazz on a few occasions, and I have seen them around. It has given me a feeling that they dont like to be corrected and/or given advice to. This is just a feeling based on over-all experience. No hard evidence, except this one, where I suggested them something, and they noted it, and immediately told the bot to archive the discussion. I understand nobody is perfect. I dont expect admins or admin candidates to be perfect either. But the candidate seems to be trying to show that they are very knowledgeable/perfect. An admin should have the trait of accepting, and understanding their criticism, and listening to suggestions. The Q16 sort of highlights this issue again, which has placed me in neutral section. In general, I also get the feeling that the candidate has been making efforts solely to get the adminship, rather than editing and then getting the need for tools. Running for RfA directly after three month gap doesnt feel good either. It again shows the desire for tools, than the desire for helping the community. Candidate should have edited consistently at least for two months before RfA. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   "where I suggested them something, and they noted it, and immediately told the bot to archive the discussion." Not quite. You posted the message on 28 August, they replied to you on 29 August. The correct diff you should show is this where, after DreamyJazz replies to you, you reply with a smiley 7 hours after Dreamy's reply, and 4 hours subsequently, Dreamy archives the discussion. I think it's perfectly fair to archive a discussion more than 24 hours after it has been active and especially after you have replied to it hours before. Lourdes 13:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   @Lourdes: you are right, and this is the reason why i am outright opposing. But it still doesnt feel right given overall experince with the candiate/my observation. I dont know how to put it in words. But if this was the only incident, I wouldnt have been in neutral. Its just, a feeling from overall experience. I hope you understand what I am trying to say :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

   Leaning support: I’m not swayed that someone changing their mind is quite as dire as others may feel. In volunteer world you need to meet people where they’re coming from and strive for the best from there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Moved to support. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Leaning towards supporting the creation of a category named after @Dreamy Jazz:, but would Origami Harvest fit? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Leaning oppose but happy to be talked out of it - The request for a self-block is a big red flag for me, as is the low number of determinable AFD votes (67 - many days there are this many articles nominated). The tool for checking AFD closes crashes when I use it, but Non-DelRev'd NACs at AFD can be easy to rack up - just close the non-controversial ones and do what the consensus says - so I'm not inclined to consider this a very convincing metric. AFD votes seem to be largely "Keep/Delete as above" or "Per WP:GNG/sources", at least from just clicking on a number of them (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8), which does not convince me that they are familiar with the rules related to article deletion and indeed might actually just be a case of trying to farm good AFD stats for when they got to RFA (most of the votes were made in October 2018 and April 2019, however, WP:AGF). However, I am not familiar with their other work, a very brief review of their edit history shows them to be an OK editor, and the project needs admins. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Most of the question answers are okay but suggest a lack of depth in understanding. I asked the BLP question expecting an answer that included things like addressing the tone and NPOV issues as well as the poor referencing. In a way it was a very easy question to answer just by looking at what subsequent editors did (like these edits by Guliolopez). Not poor enough to oppose but can't support. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral – so far I find the support arguments stronger than the oppose ones. However, I'm a bit concerned that the answer to my question (Q11) made no mention of the possibility that for particularly egregious acts of vandalism (e.g. clearly unconstructive edits + slurs in the edit summary), it may be appropriate to go straight to a higher level warning (or as an admin, to go straight to a block). The given answer isn't wrong, so it would be disingenuous of me to oppose outright (and I may yet be swayed to support). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral This is my first vote for RfA so I'm checking how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillofrances (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Neutral in the sense of: ask again in a couple of months. The Wikibreak is an example of sound self-knowledge and a coping strategy, but I know that tensions can rapidly re-escalate so I'd suggest deferring. Guy (help!) 13:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral: Would be support per WP:NOBIGDEAL, but my only red flag is the recent (March 2019) request for indefinite self-block... comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• although the nomination states "four years of solid editing", candidate made 357 edits in 2017/11, and became active since 2018/03. More info can be found here. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting point - it looks like a phrasing error by the nom (obviously it will have been read by the candidate, but as a somewhat secondary point, as a spacing/phrasing issue rather than a deceptive choice), at least from what I can see. They're fine on both edits and tenure, but might warrant a stated correction. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I had missed this while reading the nomination and have contacted Blade about it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

i wasnt implying any deception :D but just wanted to clear it up :) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my fault. I'll tweak it a little bit to clarify. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Moved on to [even more] general discussion - which is fine, but let's continue at WT:RFA#Separate discussion from polling?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Do we have to have people arguing with every oppose? It creates such a poor atmosphere that Oppose !voters gets attacked in every RfC and Support !voters who post trite supports ("No big deal", "Why not?", etc) never get questioned over it (and I've seen people who do question those !votes get attacked for doing so). It's not about "having a discussion" in the RfC - these are people who just get attacked for having a different opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hi SchroCat: in a clerking capacity, I reviewed the four responses to the four oppose comments currently placed: I’m having trouble viewing them as “attacking” the participants - RfAs are still a discussion at the basic level and these counter-arguments are delivered in a calm manner (save for the word “ridiculous”, which does add a bit of heat) and mostly speak to the arguments being made, not the participants. I understand that it can be somewhat uncomfortable (and effect a chill) to have to defend one’s position (or for one’s position to be questioned) in this context, but this is the consensus process as it exists at RfA today. Speaking generally (and this should maybe move to WT:RFA), but I wonder if this “uncomfortableness” would be lessened if we attempted to separate the polling from the discussion, so specific arguments or reasons in support or opposition to the candidate would be cataloged and discussed individually in sections, and then the polling could be done separately with only brief remarks referring the “Oppose due to oppose reasons 2,4,5; reasons 3,6 are irrelevant to me; moral support due to support reasons 1,7” and no threaded discussion would occur in that section. What do you think? –xeno^talk 11:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I certainly think that comments and !votes should be separated. We have people putting in a support vote, then attacking the rationale of the opposers - it's a bad look and will keep people away from contributing. I've seen people being berated for questioning the more trite support !votes, and yet a thought-out oppose (whether others agree with it or not) will automatically come under fire. Look above, a couple of people think the edit levels are not good enough to support the candidate: we don't need three people to jump on them and tell them they are wrong - they are no more right or wrong than the supporters who do not think it a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I have previously suggested separating discussion for counter-arguments, to avoid repetitive conversation threads, and so certainly support this approach. This will make the conversation more effective and depersonalize discussion, thereby making it less confrontational. It would also be more conducive to building up a consolidated list of pros and cons, which can provide a concise recap for anyone looking to join the conversation or review what has gone on since they last participated. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  As one of the four opposers, I definitely don't feel attacked by having a point challenged. It's a reasonable difference of opinion. – Teratix ₵ 11:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) While you yourself may not feel it, there is already an attacking air for anyone who feels they do not want to support this candidate, but does not want ot be attacked for doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support !votes are (and should be) challenged if they are felt to be wrong. Here's one example and here's a challenge I made. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Initial opposes at an RfA regularly recieve pushback that early supports, some of which could be challenged here, don't. It's one of the ways I've identified that help make RfA right now favorable to the candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  There are currently six supports that show insufficient or trite rationales. I know that if I press all six of those to given some decent rationale, I'll be pulled up for harassment or badgering (I've seen it happen to others when they have tried to get people to explain). One of the reasons RfA can turn into a bear pit from time to time isn't people attacking the rationales of the support votes, but those attacking the rationales of the opposes. No-one wants to see time wasting opposes or abuse of candidates, but if any opposers are going to have their opinions trashed at each and every RfC, then it will inevitably turn sour from time to time. -SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  While the default position is 'promote', I've previously commented in bureaucrat discussions that bare supports (and the like) will typically carry less weight in close call situations. –xeno^talk 14:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Why count them at all? If people are unable to leave even a basic rationale, then it's not a discussion or a consensus-weighing process, but a straight vote, which is not what this is supposed to be about. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I typically don’t heckle opposes, but I think when the initial criticism is something as ridiculous as saying someone who has over two years of experience and has never dipped below active editor status in that time does not have enough experience or that their activity is inconsistent, that does need to be pointed out lest we have a meme effect. To xeno’s point on the word ridiculous: it’s a fair description of the view that over two years is not enough time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tony, that's your opinion (and I think I agree that two years is sufficient), but just because someone else has a different opinion, it doesn't need people to pile in and argue the opposite. Telling them they have the "wrong" opinion seems wong. Surely they are allowed to have their opinion without people sniping at them? Or should we allo mass sniping and criticism of all votes based on all opinions? The 'crats are sufficiently proficient in weighing up whether it is a viable Oppose or not - it doesn't need everyone else souring the atmosphere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Personally, I’d make RfA a straight vote so we didn’t have to worry about any of this. I think that would be substantially more fair to everyone and would lower the temperature in the room significantly. The community has for reasons beyond me decided that it thinks RfA should be a discussion, which means that opposes tend to draw discussion if people disagree with them. I think people should be prepared to defend their view if challenged, but those challenging them also should know when to stop.

  Since my standard support is probably one of the 6 you mention above, in fairness I’ll expand: I don’t have much experience with Dreamy Jazz, but I’ve seen them around enough to realize they have a basic understanding of how the project works, know they’re typically pretty competent, and have never seen them behaving rudely to others or in a way that I think they will abuse the tools. If someone meets those standards, I’m fine supporting (though I typically do it in a much shorter fashion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't necessarily thinking of yours (although it is more borderline than some others), but numbers 5, 7 and 49 are meaningless in the "discussion" sense and are just straight votes (rather than !votes). Maybe going for a straight vote is the way forward. Maybe 3 days of discussion followed by three days of straight votes would be an idea, or possibly separating the !voes from a discussion on the same page. Either way, the badgering of each opposer while the supporters leave no rationale is not conducive to a free and open discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree with separating the !votes and discussion on them, as they get significantly more eyesight and means that opposition to the oppose reasoning is actually seen by anyone (not just those careful at reading everything before !voting) see it. If needs be an in-page link (similar to the ones to the talk page we do for big threaded discussions) could be put in, but that's a 2nd preference. I am happy to concede that the lack of challenging of unsupported support votes can be viewed as unfair, and I'd be perfectly happy if they were also viewed as open to discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• For those opposing because of the block, please read:

People have a wide range of strategies for eliminating distractions and focusing when they need prioritize something that isn't Wikipedia. Before seeing these opposes I would have never thought a self-requested block was anything other than one more tool in that toolbox, just like unplugging the computer, shutting off the modem, setting up a local domain-based block, walking into a different room, working at a coffee shop, turning off screens, etc. I see no reason at all why requesting a block should be stigmatized while unplugging is not. People's choice of strategies to focus on real life has nothing to do with someone's "maturity" or "self-control" in the sense of being an admin. In fact, I dare say that most of our good admins would have trouble simply walking away from Wikipedia. With RfA standards where they are, some amount of addiction to Wikipedia is required.

Taking steps to separate Wikipedia from real life is a Very Good Thing. Requesting a block is no different from any other strategy for doing so. What we don't want are admins who think they can separate real life and Wikipedia and start using their tools while stressed out because they're supposed to be working on something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Sorry, your statement needs some reply and perhaps pushback. Is that true, addiction "a brain disorder", is required? Is what you're saying is that most admins have a required "psychological and physical inability to stop consuming a[n] . . activity . . ., even though it is causing psychological and physical harm"[3] ? If so, that is horrific for them and probably menacing to the avocational editors and admins of this site, and I dare say, reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia adminship really so broken? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: It wasn't a comment on adminship, and I was using addiction in the informal rather than medical definition of a sense of habitual activity that takes time/effort and can be difficult to simply turn off. I'd imagine the the majority of us on WP:4000, not just admins, would have trouble just walking away from Wikipedia for a couple weeks without it nagging at us. Being active isn't just a matter of dedication to the 'pedia -- we do it because we get something out of it and enjoy it, and we get really invested in it. It's hard to just stop doing that and focus on something you don't actually want to be doing but know that you should be doing. Some people have a harder time with that than others. My only real point is that I see no reason requesting a block should be treated any differently than any other strategy to prioritize other activities, and that taking steps to prioritize is something we should encourage, not stigmatize. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Alanscottwalker - we shouldn't be encouraging unhealthy editing, and compulsive editing is not a good thing. FOARP (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohhhh so the reason we're shaming someone for daring to admit they spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, and stigmatizing their absolutely healthy use of a mechanism at their disposal for managing their own attention/focus ... is to help that person? Why didn't anyone just say so? I sure hope we can start monitoring the Wikipediholism page/test now to make an RfA blacklist -- for their own good!

How about instead of this wrong-headed paternalistic intrusion, we instead leave it to individual Wikipedians to understand their own psychology better than you do, to let people use the tools at their disposal that have no negative effect on the project, and to celebrate when people know when to prioritize the real world rather than stigmatize it. You want to help? Say "if a block helps you, go for it, because it has absolutely no negative effect on anything, and we want you to feel good about prioritizing the real world when you need to" and then base your RfA !vote on their edit record. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, It would be rather good then, if you not use addiction in your claimed defense of self-block. Addiction is not enjoying editing Wikipedia, nor is addiction being invested in Wikipedia. Nor should you perhaps speculate about most the 4000 having difficulties in doing other things, nor in them being under compulsion, when the likelihood is they, in the main, have no problem prioritizing their involvements, like most people do. Because if someone is addicted, the reasonable, and correct thing to do is not enable the addiction, nor endorse the addiction.

As for your unreasonable and unfair claim of stigmatizing taking time off, no one is against taking time-off. But even you have suggested above that someone who needs to have a time-off enforced by a block has difficulty in prioritizing, when prioritizing is an essential skill on Wikipedia, and not just prioritizing, self-direction, and self-regulation, and in not getting someone else to block your participation because you can't stop yourself from something you should not be doing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If I responded to this I'd just repeat myself. Color me disappointed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: One can always find a problem in the history of an editor or candidate. I am not sure why some editors see this self-imposed block as a dealbreaker. I do not think it is about anything more than a forced break. Everyone has to !vote based on their own criteria, but is this really your dealbreaker? The editor is not uncivil and as a whole, the editor makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Does not appear from their history to be someone who will abuse the tools. Anyway...carry on. Lightburst (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have to say: what we see here today are some of the lowest grade, barrel-bottom scraping, groundless speculating, and minor-league dropping opposes of all time, TLDR; "If someone's spending too much time on Wikipedia, we insist that they spend more time! And if they book some time off in advance and find they didn't need to, then we insist that they stay away anyway!". What the actual. ——SN54129 12:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Without wanting to be argumentative, i don't think that's a fair representation of the positions given in the oppose statements. Clearly the opposers have given this some thought; that you don't agree that their position is sufficient is fine; that you misrepresent it this way says more about you than it does them or their position. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It does not. Happier days. ——SN54129 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• A beautiful moment - at the time of writing, the number of supporters is the square of the number of opposers. (Sorry - primary school teacher, these things jump out at me...) GirthSummit _(blether) 21:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Touché. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 05:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - and now some unobliging souls have come and added some more support !votes - the selfishness of it all! Nosebagbear (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I know - shocking! If we get up 170 supports before this closes, I may switch to oppose to restore the harmony. (Just joking DJ - I wouldn't do that to you!) GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of tempted to oppose since then support+neutral would be the square of the opposes. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Haha, I didn't notice that, but it sure is beautiful. I wonder what other interesting mathematical facts can be got from the statistics. I think that there was a point where the number of supports was the number of opposes with the number of neturals added on the end (so the tally at the top was something like 108/10/8, so 108 and 108), but this is probably more common than your observation. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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