Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Blablubbs

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (222/4/1); Scheduled to end 13:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Blablubbs (talk · contribs) – Dedicated, creative, kind, and knowledgeable, Blablubbs is someone I've been pestering to RfA for months now. In addition to his solid content work (four DYKs and new GA Wolfdietrich Schnurre stand out), Blablubbs particularly excels in the maintenance and anti-abuse work that keeps our project running. In his 40,000 edits over the last 15 months, he has demonstrated a superb grasp of the letter and spirit of our policies as well as the good judgment and temperament that will make him a terrific administrator.

His need for the tools is clear. Blablubbs is one of our best and most prolific SPI clerks – his SPI record (1 2 3 4) speaks for itself, and as a CheckUser, I trust him implicitly. Blablubbs is also a core member of the WikiProject on open proxies and an avid ACC team member, and has helped lead broader anti-abuse efforts, including the recent push on residential proxies.

Finally, Blablubbs shares the same unmeasurable qualities as Wikipedia's best administrators: he communicates well (see his talk page), he listens before speaking, he's unafraid to change his mind, and he is enjoyable to work with. I'm honored to present him to the community for adminship. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Blablubbs has crossed my path on many occasions in the past year, always in a positive way. He's been working on SPIs (and asking really useful questions), pitching in on the open proxy work, giving serious attention to undisclosed paid editing, and keeps showing up with useful comments and suggestions on phabricator tickets. It was pretty obvious to me that he'd be even more effective if he had the administrator tools, so a few months ago I asked him if there was a reason he wasn't an admin yet. This is where it gets really interesting.

Blablubbs was well aware of the expectations for administrator candidates, and was upfront that he didn't think he had done enough work yet on quality content, but that he planned to address this in the near future; then he did some very good work at Wolfdietrich Schnurre and got it up to GA. He also had taken the time to carefully review his activities to self-identify any other weaknesses. He knew that, although his account was created back in 2014, he really didn't get into editing until it occurred to him during the insanity of the global pandemic that editing Wikipedia would be something useful to do with his time. He knows he's made some faux pas on deletion discussions and requests, but has learned from his errors. He's had a few missteps on SPI, which is expected of new clerks, and has learned from these experiences as well. In other words, he's what I look for in a candidate: He knows that quality content is important. He does good work, and learns from his occasional mistakes and does not repeat them. He gets along with most people. And he has found areas where his personal interests and skills make a difference for the project as a whole. I'm happy to co-nominate Blablubbs as administrator. Risker (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words (I blushed a little!); I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay or any other reimbursement. A list of my accounts (seven Doppelgänger and a rarely used testing account) can be found here. I have never operated any other accounts, and have never, to my knowledge, edited logged out on enwiki (I made a handful of logged-out edits to dewiki about a decade ago, before my account was registered). --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2021 (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: Most of my contributions are already in admin-y areas, with the vast majority of my time being spent at SPI and Wikiproject on Open Proxies, and I plan to stick to those areas for the foreseeable future. My work there frequently involves asking administrators to use the relevant buttons to block socks and proxies and perform case merges or G6 deletions, which I could do myself if the community chooses to entrust me with the bit. I haven't actively patrolled recent changes in the last few months and focused on SPI work instead, but I also plan to keep an eye on WP:AIV, and I could see myself venturing into patrolling Wikipedia:Requests for permissions and Category:Requests for unblock at some point in the future. There are also some administrative areas where I feel that I lack the experience to be able to usefully contribute in an administrative capacity, like AfD and most CSD-related matters. I would only start working these areas once I have gained considerably more experience in a non-administrative capacity.

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

A: I enjoy working on content, and I'm proud of some of the articlespace work I have done, but I think my most meaningful contributions have been made behind the scenes: Working together with MarioGom to create technical fingerprints of most major VPN providers is neither particularly glamourous work for example, nor is the end result interesting or comprehensible to the average reader. But it did enable us to query and block dozens of (frequently abused) proxy ranges, and I hope that made a difference. I feel the same way about my work at SPI.

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: Certainly. No specific cases immediately come to mind, but I've been heavily involved with sockpuppetry and UPE-related issues; working in either of those areas often entails interacting with combative or distressed users, and being lied to is part of the job, which can be aggravating (my SPI helper script's log has almost 2000 revisions, and and I can count on one or two hands the number of cases I have seen where a user admitted to socking and apologised for it before being blocked). They are also areas that can sometimes trigger the frustrating thought that there is an incredible amount of abuse on this website and I will never be able to do enough. I try to stay calm and step away whenever that happens; I read the paper, go outside and take a walk, moan about it to friends, then open the laptop again and type a response. I had an extended "step away for a bit" moment with regard to UPE-related matters some time ago when I noticed that they were starting to burn me out. I didn't give up on the topic area, but I shifted my focus away from actively hunting for PR firm socks and towards bouncing ideas about potential methods for making detection and tracking of complex socking operations back and forth with awesome people like MarioGom and GeneralNotability, with some great results.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from John Cline

4. Regarding your userpage statement: "Nazism and similar beliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment and with the goals of a neutral encyclopaedia", are you suggesting that these topics should not be covered in Wikipedia, that editors contributing to or interested in these topics are inherently incompatible with our project, or something entirely different? Please elaborate. Thank you.

A: Something entirely different. I have previously written about far-right groups and the Holocaust myself, I think it's extremely important that we provide accurate coverage of these topics, and I am grateful that we have many skilled editors working on these articles. The statement is intended to convey that I don't believe that people who support genocidal ideologies should be welcomed as editors – it is essentially a similar point of view to the one that is expressed in WP:NONAZIS.

Optional question from TheresNoTime

5. Lately we've seen significant drama at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with deeply entrenched beliefs causing significant rifts in opinion, so I'm afraid I have a difficult question for you... Is it pronounced A-N-I, or annie?

A: After extended emails with my nominators where we debated weighing in on such a contentious issue, I have decided to just go ahead and say it: I'm on team Ay-Enne-Eye. All the way.

Optional question from Djm-leighpark

6. Question removed/struck by Primefac, 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

A:

Optional question from Lomrjyo

7. What are your thoughts on the possibility of getting CheckUser?

A: Given my focus on SPI, it's certainly something I would consider somewhere down the road.

Optional question from WaltCip

8. Tackling vandalism, proxy abuse and SPIs can be a thankless job. As you've outlined above, it can be stressful managing such abusive use of Wikipedia scenes. So why do it? What motivates you?

A: The short answer is: Because most of the time, I really enjoy the work I do here, and because I think it's worthwhile. The long answer is that I've always enjoyed Wikipedia as a reader – I learnt English at quite an early age, and that is to a large extent attributable to the fact that I realised that the English Wikipedia was far more comprehensive than dewiki, so I started looking up things in English instead, and occasionally made small contributions. Fast forward quite a few years, and I discovered recent changes patrol for myself. I wasn't in a great place in real life and didn't really have the mental bandwidth to write content, but I did feel that I was doing something useful by trying to give something back to a project I had learnt so much from. And it was a fascinating experience to me: It made me realise how fragile knowledge can be, and it was mesmerising to observe in real time which topics people from all over the world care about enough to edit war and vandalise. At some point I became interested in undisclosed paid editing, which led to interest in socking, which led to interest in proxies. I've always enjoyed investigating things, drawing connections and finding patterns, so it was sort of a natural fit. I made some great friends along the way, and work in these areas has also taught me a lot, both about technical (when I started editing, I didn't know what a /64 is, or anything about networking, really) and social matters; that's rewarding in its own right.

Optional questions from BrxBrx

9. Hi Blablubbs and thank you for running. I see you are an experienced SPI hunter. In a hypothetical situation, how would you handle such an incident where you are accusing an editor of UPE, but the editor's works in question turn out not to be. In this situation, how would you balance vigilance against undisclosed paid editing, and assuming good faith (and assuming others assuming good faith)?

A: I'm afraid I'm struggling to parse the hypothetical – are you referring to a scenario where I ask a user about UPE and they state that they aren't editing for pay?

10. Unrelated question, but from your answer to q4, in particular, intended to convey that I don't believe that people who support genocidal ideologies should be welcomed as editors, I'm curious how you square that with our 5 pillars - in particular pillar 3 and 4, which in my view, would suggest that it doesn't matter what crank ideology an editor may subscribe to - so long as it is kept off wikipedia, and does not impact their positive contributions to the project, they shall be allowed to contribute?

A: I don't advocate for some sort of political purity test that people need to pass before being allowed to contribute. If support for an abhorrent ideology is in fact kept entirely off Wikipedia, then I have no way to know about it. But if those views become apparent, either through contributions or through open identification with them, our policies and guidelines are inherently being violated: If someone denies the Holocaust, then that's an NPOV issue, and potentially abuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda platform; if someone puts a statement on their userpage that says "my political beliefs align with those of the NSDAP", then that's a civility issue because they are essentially expressing support for the murder or mistreatment of a good chunk of our editor base. I don't believe much WP:ROPE should be extended in such cases.

Optional question from Hawkeye7

11. You said the "I have previously written about far-right groups and the Holocaust". Can you tell us about these articles, and your contributions to them?

A: I translated Dachau camp trial, a dewiki-GA that didn't exist in English, and Hannibal (network), which I later rewrote completely. I also significantly expanded Wolfdietrich Schnurre, a biography about an author whose works were strongly influenced by his experiences during the Second World War and under Nazi rule.

Optional question from Nosebagbear

12. I was aware of your NONAZIs position, but from the extra detail you've provided in this RfA I would like to ask: where do you draw the line on what might be called similar infringements (userpage support being a civility-breach)? For example, we've had no-consensus MfDs for things like the PKK, and there are plenty of other polities/organisations both more and less problematic than them

A: It's a good question, and I'm afraid I don't have a clear-cut answer. Context and specifics matter; "no nazis, period." is the only hard line I can really draw. In very general terms, I believe that people who advocate for ideologies that inherently support violence against people based on their ethnicity, disability, religious beliefs, sexuality, gender, or nationality (that's not a complete list, just the first few things that came to mind) in any namespace inherently contribute to a toxic editing environment. Regarding the specific example, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the PKK or the specific userbox to have a strong opinion on whether it should exist or not. I can say that I certainly wouldn't act without precedent and consensus which, I believe, exists for people who openly support Nazism.

Optional question from RZuo

13. What tool were you using, or what page were you watching, when you suddenly became active on 11 June 2020 (having only 55 edits from 2014 to 2019)? How did you learn about that tool or page and learn how everything works?

A: I was bored and reading Wikipedia – at the time, there wasn't much to do because of the pandemic – clicked the recent changes link, played around with the filter options, saw people reverting vandalism and figured it might be an interesting thing to do, so I observed for a while, started making some reverts of my own, and learnt by watching other patrollers as I went.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Without question - heck, I would have nominated him if he'd asked. Blablubbs has a great head on his shoulders and is both very competent and unfailingly polite when dealing with others. He has a solid use for the tools and has my trust, and will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
2. As co-nominator. Risker (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong Support One of my few regrets with Blablubbs is that even though any who have known him for any time have seen that he was always going to make a good admin, by the time I raised it with him I would later find out I was at least the 7th person to do so. I've helped him with a few VRT areas and he's always been excellent there, and the noms outline both his excellent personality and broad and talented skillset. I simply cannot recommend him highly enough to the Community. I would note from how he's continued to pick up at-need and difficult areas over time, that he has the propensity to become a go-to admin for not merely the array he's currently active in, but across the toolkit. !Vote support, and have him join the mopcorps. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Without a doubt, support. Blablubbs is a trusted user who I can see putting the toolset to good use. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Strong support - between his clerk work at SPI, account creation work, and the open proxy WikiProject, I strongly believe the project would be better off with Blablubbs having the toolkit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
6. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Support per Risker and has been around since October 2014 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
8. Strong support: I'm seeing a great temperament; very strong technical skills, knowledge of Wikipedia and overall competence; and an enormous need for the tools. Thanks for running. — Bilorv (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
9. Support, without reading the nomination statements (sorry guys...) or waiting to review answers to questions. I've been working with Blablubbs for a while at SPI, and always found him to be thorough, wise, eager to help, and very easy to get along with - I offered to nominate him myself a few months back. The tools will help him in work he has already shown an aptitude for. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
10. Support as nominator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
11. Strong support - no negatives, strong knowledge of WP guidelines and policies. Net positive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
12. Support Experienced, trusted editor already experienced with certain niche areas that are very important to the project. May he be mopped. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
13. Support, I've experience of Blablubbs in several adminny areas that I frequent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
14. Support I've seen Blablubbs around and they are always competent and civil and what more needs be said? Well, probably somebody will bring up the "content creation" bugaboo but simply counting article creations ignores the content defense that Blablubbs has already notably performed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
15. Support, with no reservations. I'm hoping the main question is just how quickly this will fly past 200. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
16. Support so glad you're finally asking for the mop. It's been long due that you've needed it. Perryprog (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
17. Support, no concerns. Bishonen | tålk 15:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC).
18. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
19. Support without reservation. Blablubbs is the kind of admin candidate we need more of - eminently helpful & polite, and also willing to work in areas of the project that are understaffed and yet critical to the well-functioning of the project and the well-being of its good-faith contributors. firefly ( t · c ) 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
20. Support Absolutely. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
21. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
22. Finally Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 15:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
23. Support – an excellent candidate.— Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
24. Support With absolutely no qualms about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
25. Support, definitely. Vermont (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
26. Support. I rarely vote at RfAs. This vote is a pleasure.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
27. Support – obviously suitable candidate. Favonian (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
28. Support and no concerns based on the entirely subjective sample of activity I've seen from them around the place. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
29. Support per the myriad reasons listed by other users above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
30. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
31. Support per temperament, contributions, need for the tools, and benefits to the project. Easy RFA.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
32. Support: I don't go to SPI often, but when I do I see Blablubbs. With a clear use for adminship and no serious issues, I think this is a great candidacy. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
33. Support - Heck yes. GAB^gab 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
34. Support tentatively, pending the answer to Q5 which will be pivotal for this nomination. Has a clue.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
35. Support I rarely, if ever, take part in any RfA, and I'm going to come out with the cliché - I already thought Blablubbs was an admin! I've only had a couple of interactions with this user, in relation to SPI cases, and I couldn't get a better service, from doing the legwork to explaining the technical side of the process. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
36. Support Clear need for the tools, great temperament. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
37. Obvious choice. — The Earwig (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
38. Support – I'll echo the comments about temperament. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
39. Support Eminently sensible editor who will be a fine administrator. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
40. Support Not only he does invaluable work at SPI and anti-abuse areas, he's also eager to collaborate with others and mentor (see User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI). Also, I trust him to make good judgement calls. MarioGom (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
41. Strong Support a fellow SPI clerk, I strongly support the mop being handed to this user. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
42. Support. RfA needs more editors like Blablubbs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
43. Support Easiest decision I've made in weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
44. per the strong endorsement of the SPI team. My first reaction was "I thought they were an admin" and my second reaction was "I thought they had been around longer than 15 months". There is less "content creation work" than I would like to see, but there is enough that I'm not going to bother asking a "talk about editing article space" question. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
45. Strong Support I have run across their work in various spaces and places around here and I frankly thought Blablubbs was already an admin. I never comment here, but in this case, I am glad to make an exception to support this worthy candidate. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
46. Support No brainer. Clog Wolf _Howl 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
47. Strong Support When this editor doesn't know something, they seek clarification from more knowledgable editors. Knowing your limitations, and asking for help, is the most important trait that an admin can have. This editor has that. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
48. Support without reservations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
49. Strong support No brainer, without reservations, whatever else you'd like me to add. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
50. Support - clearly knows what they are doing. Should be dandy with the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
51. Big Support: The majority of my RfA !votes are simple applications of "has clue, not a jerk". Blablubbs certainly has an abundance of clue (and a refreshing deficit of jerk), but to leave it at that would not be doing him the justice he deserves. He is the rare mix of a calm, collected and thoughtful chap with technical smarts and a true desire to build and protect the project. In other RfA !votes I often throw in a casual "ask why not?", but today reader, I have given you a solid why. Please join me in supporting a very worthy candidate ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
52. Support You'll make a fine admin. Good luck! Sro23 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
53. Support, good one. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
54. Support I have just had the pleasure of reading Wolfdietrich Schnurre. This is a very well qualified candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
55. Support, excellent candidate. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
56. Support, trusted user, legitimate use for the tools. Good luck! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} 17:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
57. Adumbrativus (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
58. Well qualified, no concerns from me. DanCherek (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
59. Support Will use sysop well. This page has been on my watchlist for a while. Pahunkat (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
60. Support Seen them active on SPI where they do are doing a stellar job. No worries, quite the contrary.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
61.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
62. I wholeheartedly support this candidacy. I've been impressed by what I've seen of Blablubbs' work, especially at SPI and on the VRT team. I'm particularly struck by his exceptional sensitivity and communication skills, things that are a great asset for adminship and that more technical contributors are often criticized for lacking (whether fairly or not) - see for example [1] and [2] (sorry, VRT members only). I'm sure he'll make good use of the tools. Spicy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
63. Support. MER-C 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
64. Support Apart from my personal anguish at not knowing Blablubbs was on the RfA table/cutting board and my deeply hurt mental stature with respect to the same, I support. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
65. Support – very qualified candidate. Thanks to the nominators for bringing this forward. – bradv^🍁 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
66. Let's goooooo. — 🦊 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
67. Easily Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
68. Strong support; it's about time! stwalkerster (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
69. Strong support; "it's about time!", indeed. Also the answer to Q5...I've also on the pirate team. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
70. Support. Princess of Ara 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
71. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

    For the record, the second oppose is another excellent reason to support this candidate. Having another admin willing to make tough blocks against neo-nazis is a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

72. [Was gonna try to camp out #100, but I'm impatient.] Even if I didn't know Blablubbs as a mentor in the field of countering abuse; one of my SPI clerk trainers; and a kind, caring friend, this vote of strong support would still be a no-brainer. He is ubiquitous at SPI, keeping afloat a beleaguered critical part of our anti-abuse infrastructure. He already probably does more admin-level work than most admins. I think the perfect administrator is one who has both grit and empathy, and he surely has both in spades. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
73. Net positive, support this user becoming an admin. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
74. Support Happily. Always had good experiences, even when we disagree. Vexations (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
75. Strong support Blablubbs has been my go-to resource for anything relating to SPI or proxies for some time now and has been unfailingly patient and helpful. No question whatsoever that he will use the tools well. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
76. Support, good work at SPI--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
77. Support Will clearly do well with the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
78. Support I believe Blablubbs would be a good addition to enwiki's admin team. All my interactions with Blablubbs were without any issues. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
79. Support - Not a jerk, knows what they're doing. A little surprised they aren't already an admin. Pronounces ANI correctly. — GhostRiver 19:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
80. Support Obviously; it's about time! — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
81. Support I've already come across some of their contributions and kinda thought they were an admin already – which I think is a good sign. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
82. Support Absolutely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
83. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
84. Support - Has the right temperment, is trustworthy, and has done stellar work re: SPI and COI/UPE. Would make an excellent admin. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
85. Support - excellent SPI clerk and fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
86. Support- No issues at all as far as I'm concerned. Good Luck.-   Aloha27  talk  20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
87. Support – here's a mop as a thank you for your work at SPI and WPOP ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
88. Support - Blabb is another "why aren't you an admin?" editor, and I'm glad he's finally gone and run. Best of luck, my friend, and prepare to be miserable for the next six days. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
89. Of course. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
90. Support Absolutely, seen you around in the past, hope to continue seeing you around as a sysop! Leijurv (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
91. Support A fine candidate, good luck JW 1961 ^Talk 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
92. per comments in Neutral section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
93. Support, one of those people who I thought was an admin already :) --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
94. Support Glrx (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
95. Support. Great candidate, trusted noms, clear need for tools. Speaks native German, Swiss German and French level 2? Party, Bonus! Welcome to the wild, wild world of mops. BusterD (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
96. Support. Absolutely in the category of Surely They Are Already?! Fantastically conscientious and useful editor who will be a great admin. DBaK (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
97. Support, yeah per the many "are you really not yet?" comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
98. Clear need, clearly trustworthy, clearly has the right disposition. Excited to be able to offer this support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
99. Yes please. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
100. Great work at SPI; I genuinely thought he was already an admin. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
101. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
102. Kirbopher2004 support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
103. Support Very pleased to see this pop up on my watchlist. What took you so long?! Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
104. Support Superbly qualified, greatly enthused by their work at SPI. Great chap in general! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
105. Support Finally! S0091 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
106. Support Great work at SPI! NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 22:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
107. Strong support – I could write about how he'd be a fantastic admin, but I'd be wikt:preaching to the choir. Short version: somebody give this guy a mop. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
108. I've checked a random sample of this user's contributions and I didn't find anything of concern.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
109. Support: To quote George, MOP ON and CU JIMMIE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
110. Support Great interactions with this user. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
111. Support Excellent candidate. scope_creep^Talk 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
112. Has done good work, should do more work. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

     But I'm disappointed by Q5: Ah-knee is correct for German speakers. So only 99.99998% support :) —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

113. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
114. Support I've had very cordial and professional interactions with Blabubbs at SPI, where they do great work. Seeing the other things they do here, how could one say no? Additionally, I thoguht they were already an admin. --- Possibly ☎ 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
115. Support. The only thing I can say that's negative is that they blew me off when I tried to nominate them earlier this year. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
116. Support. Awesome technical knoledge that I can only envy. Will be an even greater asset with 'the tools'. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
117. Aye ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
118. Support, there does not seem to be any reason to oppose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
119. Support, excellent editor, great SPI work. The one oppose outstanding at this time is entirely baseless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
120. Support, seems like a really good candidate. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
121. Support, looks good. Dracophyllum 00:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
122. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
123. Support. — Goszei (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
124. Support — No reason not to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
125. Support, strong candidate with activity in places that need help and measured discipline. Kuru (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
126. (edit conflict)Support for reasons given by nominators and several supports above. I'm not a big fan on judging AfD participation by "agreement", but I have checked participation there, and Blablubbs consistently provides well-explained, policy-based reasons for his !votes. I am particularly impressed in a case where the close was opposite of his !vote, involving personal attacks against the candidate, which Blablubbs handled calmly and rationally. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
127. Support. Adminship would greatly benefit the work Blabs is doing at SPI, where he's always been positive and helpful. He even took the initiative to fill the admins in on some information I left out of my report. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 01:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
128. Support. This user was a major help in getting m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura drafted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
129. Support Definitely. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
130. Support really strong candidate. Cavalryman (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
131. Support. Looks like a very qualified candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
132. Support - Absolutely qualified candidate who is a pleasure to interact with; Blablubbs' having the toolkit would be a clear benefit to the project. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
133. Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
134. Support lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 03:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
135. Support excellent candidate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
136. Support Yes, please! The more help at SPI and AIV, the better! Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
137. Wait, you're not a sysop yet? --pandakekok9 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
138. Support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
139. Support No issues with temperament, two nominators, experience with SPI and other technical projects, doesn't like Nazis. Check, check, check, and check. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
140. Support Well-rounded user who will benefit the project with the tools, has my trust. Spencer^T•C 05:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
141. Support, Blablubbs has the need to see deleted contribs and the SPI backlog will be greatly reduced if Blablubbs will do the admin actions on all the many cases he handles instead of requesting administrator assistance.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
142. Support with a little surprise, I thought you already were an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
143. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
144. Support, I've only noticed good things from this candidate. Graham87 06:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
145. Support: Even aside from the incredible work at SPI, Blablubbs having the tools would be a major net positive for the project. They have demonstrated an ability to work well with others in disputes, to handle responsibility with advanced toolsets, and levelheadedness that sometimes seems in short supply. Waggie (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
146. A candidacy long overdue. I've long held the view that Blab is the best candidate for sysopship that we currently have, and am overjoyed to see him run at last. All the best! JavaHurricane 07:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
147. Support. Clearly a good candidate. We need more admins. --Bduke (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
148. Support. Great candidate. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 08:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
149. Support I have no doubt I will not agree with all of his decisions but even an admin is a human being and so am I. There is a lot of work to do and I have trust in you. The Banner talk 08:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
150. Support - Overqualified :). Full trust. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
151. Support I have every confidence he'll make an excellent Admin, just as he's been a great SPI clerk. I've been looking forward to his RfA - meant to vote yesterday but forgot, great to see so many supports already. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
152. Support. In a relatively short time Blablubbs has mastered some of the most vital but technically difficult areas of the project. Apart from his main work at SPI, I've found his comments at AfD to be very well-considered, even when the consensus goes the other way, as are the handful of closes he has made, and would have no qualms about him also working in deletion as an admn. I have no idea why he would be worried about his content record, either, which just shows a commendable focus on quality over quantity. I have no doubt he will prove just as adept with the mop, and with his SPI experience I hope he will put himself forward for CU as soon as possible. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
153. Support ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
154. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
155. Support shares my beliefs on IP masking. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
156. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
157. Support Blablubbs has done loads of creative behind-the-scenes work with the tools already at his disposal. It's hard to imagine a stronger candidate for the admin toolset. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
158. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
159. Without question. Would probably have nominated if asked. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
160. Though I do have some reservations about someone who doesn't pronounce it "Annie". GMG^talk 12:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

     🎶 Annie, would I lie to you? 🎶 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

     Annie...are...are you okay? GMG^talk 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

161. The oppose votes convince me that my positive impression of the requestor is sound. —JBL (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
162. Rcsprinter123 (comment) 12:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
163. Support - should make a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
164. Opposes not convincing. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
165. Support After reading the questions and support opinions I felt the need to support this candidate. Then I read the opposes and I was even more convinced! Delete stuff that needs deleting? Y - No nazis? Y - Block open proxies? Y! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
166. Support Has a clue not a jerk^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
167. Support My interactions with the candidate have only been positive, and Blablubbs should be given the tools to help his work. – Anon423 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
168. Support, Seems to have a clue, no visible evidence of being a jerk. No convincing opposition. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
169. Support for many reasonsParadise Chronicle (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
170. Support all the way. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 14:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
171. Support - Does great work at SPI, an area where we need (much) more admins. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
172. Support - Definitely deserves the green name... I mean adminship on enwiki! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
173. I've had only good interactions with the candidate whenever I've encountered him. He seems extremely competent and is a good fit for the tools. Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
174. Support gladly. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
175. Support Eminently qualified. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
176. ...absolutely. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
177. Support I see no issues. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
178. Support Seems good. 18:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
179. Support Good record of contribution and a good fit for the role in my mind. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
180. Support Thanks for all your works at SPI. Next is getting the Checkuser perm. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 18:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
181. Support - shows a need for admin privileges investigating sockpuppetry, and a good track record with the right mindset for the job (good interactions with other users). Bibeyjj (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
182. Support, to paraphrase a few of the comments above, per the "oppose" !votes below. I had positive interactions during the Wolfspam cleanup a while back, and nothing raised here has shaken that impression. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
183. Support. Persuaded by the oppose section (so I appreciate those who responded.) Have also had limited but positive interactions with the candidate and trust KevinL. Thank you both for your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
184. Support – no concerns regarding misuse of the tools or temperament. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
185. Support I've had the pleasure of working with Blablubbs in several different areas and have no concerns. Also per JayBeeEll. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
186. Support - I rarely vote on RFAs, but Blabubbs is clueful, an asset to the project, and has good reason to need the tools. SnowFire (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
187. Blablubbs, is overqualified, they possess the right temperament, have a near perfect knowledge on our PAG. This honestly has been “about time” Congratulations mate. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
188. Support: the work I've seen from them, mainly at SPI and ANI, has been excellent. I've seen them ask for help in a complicated situtation – exactly the temperament I want to see in sysops. I join those above in rejecting the oppose vote rationales so far as being variously irrelevant, inaccurate, and abhorrent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
189. Support User doesn't seem like a jerk; seems to have a legitimate use for the tools; and looks like they can be trusted with them. The opposes are so farcical that I'm better to keep quiet for fear of saying something unbecoming about those who posted them (seriously? opposing because this user supports WP:NONAZIS?), so no issue there, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
190. Support - great record, and no concerns from me. Loopy30 (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
191. Support; I've been waiting for this. My interactions with the candidate at SPI have been universally positive, and he has been diligent and hard-working. Given a clear need for the tools and recommendations from respected CheckUsers (who would obviously work with him far more than I), I see no reason to oppose. His stance on pronunciation has only increased my willingness to support his candidacy. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
192. Support Looks good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
193. Support, passes my RFA criteria. Clovermoss (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
194. Strong support; Blablubbs' work in SPI and UPE investigations is of such magnitude that it took me a while to figure out how he could do that and not be an admin. There is a clear need for the tools, and I can't think of a more reasonable person to have them. jp×g 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
195. Support. Their work on SPI and the like suggests that they could be trusted not to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
196. Support per all of the above––especially TNT's glowing praise: "has an abundance of clue (and a refreshing deficit of jerk)"! Knifegames (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
197. Support. Having administrator tools will make Blablubbs' SPI work easier. Not convinced by any of the opposes so far. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
198. Support, solid candidate, with tools will aggregate a lot. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
199. Support. Solid candidate, certain they will make good use of administrative tools. Good luck. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
200. Support EN-Jungwon 09:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
201. Not only do I see nothing to make me believe that Blablubbs would abuse the tools if given, I trust them implicitly. SQL^{Query Me!} 09:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
202. Support I was going to ask some more questions, but given how stressfull RfA's already are and the satisfactory responses from candidate so far, I'm happy to already express my support. Clear need for tools and willingness to learn in areas less familiar with. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
203. Support If reading the Q&A hadn't convinced me then the oppose votes below convince me that this is a great candidate. Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
204. Support I have seen brilliant work by them in SPI and AIV. Certainly someone you can trust with the tools. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
205. Support per everyone above - I see no red flags here. The opposes don't concern me. Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
206. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
207. Support - I've had the fortune to observe him for a few years now. He's always been helpful, courteous and dedicated to the project. He will make a great admin. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
208. Support, no probs here at giving them a mop. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
209. Support. Not personally familiar with this user (not that I can remember), but the people vouching for them say a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
210. because the answers to the questions are very sensible and also because some of the oppose arguments are risible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
211. Support passes my RfA criteria. Nick (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
212. Support His SPI contributions are awesome. I already thought he was an admin! codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 18:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
213. Support - User seems rather competent.--Catlemur (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
214. Support. I see no issues. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
215. Support - Net positive for the project.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
216. Support I agree with the dissenters that we need more admins working in SPI like we need another remake of Zorro. I accept that it is complex and obviously fulfilling work for some. As a disclaimer, I should also state that I once blocked someone for being a Nazi after a discussion on ANI in which we could were uncertain as to whether we were dealing with a Nazi or a troll, but blocked on the basis that the disruption was the same either way. In this case I am convinced by the quality of the work in Q11, and by the endorsement of Risker. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
217. Support - Excellent candidate! I think they will do great! -- Dane ^talk 23:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
218. No concerns evident from a quick run through of this page and user's contribs. Good luck! Daniel (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
219. Unconditional Support - Love this editor! Will be a good admin here on Wikipedia! Heart ^(talk) 01:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
220. Support good content work and hard worker at spi, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
221. Support I trust the CUs/clerks and VRT members who have worked with him, as well as the answers to the questions. Also echoing the sentiments of above editors who found the opposes rather lacking. eviolite (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
222. Support Appears to be a good candidate. → Call me Razr Nation 04:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Absolutely NO for a deletionist.--RZuo (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   The only significant interactions I can find between these two users is c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lusccasdeutsch. Is cleaning Commons of softcore pornography really "deletionism"? And does it have anything to do with this RfA? – bradv^🍁 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   1. where are the "penises and porn" in File:Gloria Sol beautiful model with red skirt on Bir Hakeim bridge for my photoshoot in Paris by night.webm and File:The beautiful model Gloria Sol on the Bir Hakeim Bridge in Paris by night for my photoshoot.webm nominated by this user?
   2. why did this user vote to delete a lecture from Yale, an interview of Bwalya Sørensen and an interview of Ilhan Omar?

   does a careless deletionist only behave like that on a specific project? RZuo (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   The Ilhan Omar interview is an upload from The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth, a commercial series on Showtime (TV network). In my opinion, the odds that this is a copyright violation are about 99.9%. Why would a business like Showtime freely license their content? So, the uploader looks to me like someone with zero understanding of copyright restrictions and an obsession with nudity. Many of these uploads are very fishy, and it will take a lot of work to figure it all out. The notion that asking for the problematic uploads of a user like this to be reviewed on Commons makes this candidate a "careless deletionist" is utterly absurd to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   The source YouTube video appears to be uploaded by the copyright holder, and the video info indeed claims it's licensed under CC-BY, so this is not a slam-dunk license laundering case, but it is nonetheless rather suspicious. — The Earwig (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Ah, okay, so just on Commons for a second there I was worried it was on a project where he was running for admin! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   Excuse my badgering, but what a daft oppose vote rationale - this appears to be something which has zero standing on Blablubbs's English Wikipedia contributions. Commons could do with a damn good scrub ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   His AfD stats suggest that despite having a lot more !delete rationalities than !keep, they are almost always in keeping with the community at large... Which is usually a good example of a trusted user Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   the exceptions prove the rule: all three are votes to delete but articles were kept. -- RZuo (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   "Number of AfD's where vote matched result (green cells): 51 (92.7%)". I rest my case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   I've known Blabb for a little while and I would not describe him as a Deletionist. I would, in fact, describe him as a user interested in the quality of this Project, and this oppose as baseless. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   Vami IV, er, the last five words seem to be unnecessarily personalising the discussion. Your point is as well, or better, made without them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   Just a gentle reminder that it's currently 95-1-0. Those who think this is baseless can probably afford to ignore it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

   But then how will I consume my unnecessary drama? Izno (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose , user states that they agree with the page "WP:NONAZIS", however, that essay (which is not a policy or guideline) has actually been used to try to justify blocking right-wing contributors by calling them "fascist" and then when the right-wing contributor explains that they are right wing but not fascist, the "NONAZIS" supporter says "a fascist would deny that they are a fascist". TOA The owner of all ☑️ 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Regardless of your opinion on the presence of right-wing extremism on the platform, is it really appropriate to blame the nominee for the actions of others based on a tenuous reference to some essay? /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   WP:NONAZIS basically says that users should be blocked for their beliefs even if their edits on Wikipedia are in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The obvious problem with such an idea is that it leads to users accusing other users of being a Nazi and/or fascist and therefore deserving of a ban. If the candidate says they support such practice, then I believe it is reasonable to oppose the candidate because I oppose the idea of being able to be banned just because someone thinks you're a fascist. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 06:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   The actual statement by the candidate on his userpage is "Nazism and similar beliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment and with the goals of a neutral encyclopaedia." Do you disagree with this statement? – bradv^🍁 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   As WP:NONAZIS says, "the only way for administrators to recognize this form of disruption is if these individuals make it known on Wikipedia." The essay does not advocate a witch hunt of innocent users whose comments are merely similar to what Nazi would say. WP:CRYRACIST, a section of the same essay, reminds users that they should not try to get other users blocked in a dispute by claiming they are racists. I would still expect editors to cry racist in disputes. TOA, I'd like to read some cases of blocks (or attempts to block) that you are talking about. wikinights _talk 14:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Blablubs stated that users who support genocidal ideologies are incompatible with this project. Your !oppose nom claims that Blablubs is in favor of blocking right-wing contributors. As Kobe Bryant once famously said, that is a bikram yoga stretch. WaltCip-(talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose We need fewer rather than more admins addicted to the bloodsport of sock-hunting. Recklessly blocking open proxies and VPNs just because they exist has caused untold damage to the project; those who would contribute to it require not reinforcement but reeducation. With that in mind, the candidate's answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 leave me with no choice but to oppose. "[B]eliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment[,]" says the candidate('s user page), apparently. I couldn't possibly agree more! Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   I'd say an individual RfA is relatively unsuitable for changing a local policy (WP:PROXY) and the global blocking procedure performed by Stewards (meta:Proxy). The opposition appears to be about policy-compliant contributions – okay, your opinion –, but linking these concerns to a text about Nazism seems wrong. I guess Godwin's law applies. I don't really expect it to happen, but it would be tactful to remove that portion of the statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Just because an edit can be made—because it's technically not a policy violation—doesn't mean that it has to be made and neither does it mean that making it is a good idea. There are certain such edits that can be made that I don't believe should be made. If you make these edits that I disagree with all day every day, and you then apply for advanced permissions with the express goal of making these edits that I disagree with more efficiently, I'm going to oppose your application. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   FWIW, I disagree with the claim that blocking VPNs and proxies has caused "untold damage" to Wikipedia. I am currently the target of a very dangerous LTA who frequently abuses a specific type of proxies. Having recieved threats of libel cases, criminal intimidation and doxxing on and offwiki, and having recieved some extremely abusive emails, I can safely say that Blablubbs's work in blocking those proxies has made life a lot easier for me and reduced the disruption caused by the LTA. Many such LTAs are at least partially prevented from disrupting Wikipedia and allowing users to concentrate on more constructive things than the game of whack-a-mole that has to be played with those vandals. JavaHurricane 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   I'm happy to hear the candidate's contributions have made your life a bit easier. Unfortunately, in the big picture, preventing constructive edits through proactive IP range blocking causes more damage that it stops. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Iaritmioawp, describing SPI clerks as people 'addicted to the bloodsport of sock-hunting' is genuinely offensive. You're talking about people who volunteer their time to prevent people from abusing this platform. Some people use socks to vandalise our articles; some of them do it to create promotional content; others do it to harass and abuse our contributors, or indeed to harass people in real life by posting private information or vile commentary about them on wiki. You are welcome to disagree on the policy of proactive range blocks, but if you could see some of the horrible things that I've had to rev delete to prevent genuine harm to the project and its contributors, you might be less quick to castigate people who are willing to work in that area; if you think we need fewer people with the ability and permissions to do that sort of work and share the load, you are sorely mistaken. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   hear. hear. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Girth, I wish I had extra thank buttons for this post but damn. I don't often swear on-wiki but fucking well done sir. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

   The majority users of those IP ranges were vandals, UPEs who tarnish the project's image and LTAs, and I don't see how blocking proxies has negatively impacted the project. We already have WP:IPBE for users with legitimate reasons to be on the IPs (e.g. editors from China, collateral damage in case of residential proxies, etc.). The blocking of those IPs has helped most users concentrate on other things better by reducing the effectiveness of the disruptive and unwanted elements. JavaHurricane 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   I do think Iaritmioawp makes a fair point about the harms of blocking open proxies in this matter. There are millions of blocks against ranges under the open proxies policy. These blocks obviously have side effects. Blablubbs is IPBE himself but he's an established editor; is someone from China who isn't able to start editing yet going to be able to meet the requirements at Wikipedia:IP block exemption (or even be willing to reach out in the first place, just to make a little change)? Probably not. I asked a question about this at meta:Requests for comment/Global IPBE guidelines but largely went unanswered. I think the enwiki consensus is that the benefits outweigh the harms, and personally I don't think we could handle the resulting problems if some of these ranges were unblocked, but that doesn't mean someone can't make a reasonable argument for the other viewpoint. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Iaritmioawp has now been blocked with an expiration time of 3 months and the summary "Logged out editing to avoid scrutiny; previous AN/I"; details can be found at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1042597788#Logged_out_editing. The opposition to open proxy blocks may have been influenced by their effectivity in enforcing transparency about such behavior. Thanks to those who block VPNs and open proxies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   Thanks - I was going to make the point that this oppose needed to be seen in the light of Iaritmioawp's extensive history of logged-out editing but couldn't find the AN thread to link to. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   In that light, and with that context now stated, could this oppose be struck? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   They are not indefinitely blocked and their opposition is not flagrant, so no. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

   @Primefac: There are those pun addicts among us who might offer that it is not fragrant, ether. You're welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

   Oppose (Redacted) Silesian Charger (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose Wingwatchers (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

   @Wingwatchers: Why are you opposing? Noah^Talk 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

• Pending answer to Q5. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: Q5 was the most contentious question of all, but I think Blablubbs handled it well. #TeamPirate! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Moving to support, because:

  • I’m embarrassed to just now notice that User:WaltCip beat me to this joke by 15 minutes. 
  • It's not as funny when there’s now an actual oppose.
  • Q5 was answered correctly. "Annie" is grounds for a desysop.
  • I trust Risker’s judgement.
  • To counteract 1/4 of the oppose vote, which I do not find persuasive.

  --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC) 

1. Pending unanswered q's BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• That might seem a little silly and/or irrelevant, but how to properly pronounce the username of the candidate? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Usernamekiran, the little voice in my head always makes it rhyme with 'bar clubs'. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I typically read it several ways (and contact them in several ways) with "blah-blah-blubs" or "blah-blub". Perryprog (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose it's a better question than sleep schedules... GeneralNotability (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  @GeneralNotability: lolol. That question was really super embarrassing. @Perryprog and Girth Summit: my mind reads it in a few different ways, but most common is "blu-blah-bloo's" (blu pronounced like blunt. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: Holy shit but same, and I thought I was dumb for reading it like that every time. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I was always thinking the same. @Blablubbs: This is a geniune curiousity question that I don't think will hurt anything. Could you possibly weigh in? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I held off answering this because I was curious to hear how people pronounce it in their head – blu-blah-bloo's was an unexpected one – and because I was trying to figure out how to explain this because I unfortunately don't know the International Phonetic Alphabet (Tamzin might be able to help out?). When I created this account, I was probably thinking of the German pronounciation (Bl-ah-blubbs, with the U pronounced like a short "oo"); nowadays, I read it with a short, stressed A and a U that sounds similar to "cub"; that's also the way the few Wikipedians whose voices I've heard have usually pronounced it. Though given that the name doesn't mean anything, I'd say there's no "proper" way, really. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm no IPA expert (although it is what I prefer on the rare occasions I drink beer), but since you asked, I think the first pronunciation you mentioned would be /bla.blubz/ (assuming that by a short "oo" you mean something like the French "ou"), and the latter would be /blæ.blʌbz/ or /blɑː-/ depending on accent (I assume matching the trap lexical set). If this is incorrect, offended parties should forward all complaints to Blablubbs for trusting me to get it right. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the help! :) --Blablubbs (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Given I was probably thinking of the German pronounciation, I would guess that the vowel of blubb was as in, say, blubbern, with the short "oo" of English book? That would be, at least phonemically, a near-close near-back rounded vowel /ʊ/. —2d37 (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  How about how they only have an ABYSMAL 99.8% of edits with edit summaries? Clearly, this lack of communication warrants some explanation.Perryprog (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Vami IV: in light of your question 10, I can't help but feel you may have misinterpreted this percentage. As of writing and per the link in Perryprog's comment above, a total of 69 edits are missing a summary, with 40220 edits having a summary. stwalkerster (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  I uh. Fuck. I haven't had my coffee yet. I have reverted my edit to #Questions and leave this notice of that here. Don't joke around idiots like me, I guess. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

---

• I note for the record that Blablubbs has signed the access to nonpublic personal data policy (diff). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)