Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Significa liberdade

Significa liberdade

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (162/31/10); Scheduled to end 22:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · she/her) – I couldn't be happier to be nominating Significa liberdade for adminship, a solid content writer and friendly backroom contributor since 2021. I first came across her work when I saw a compelling DYK hook she wrote on Maggie Tokuda-Hall; she has eight other DYKs, plus dozens more articles covering authors, poets, academics, and the occasional sportsperson :) she received the Editor of the Week award last year for her work in writing and maintaining Titan submersible implosion, where she's still the top author! I discovered later that she's been quietly doing tons of good work for the project in the trenches of NPP, where she's processed thousands of new articles – which, for her, is its own crash course in copyvio, categories, CSD, and probably other useful things that don't start with 'c'. She also pitches in at AfC and does lots of maintenance and gnoming work across the site. In my interactions with Significa liberdade, I've found her to be unfailingly gracious, open to criticism, and patient with new editors' complaints and questions. With that, I'm delighted to submit Significa liberdade for the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

When looking at Significa liberdade's experience, I could not help but think that she was more qualified than I was when I nominated myself back in December. She's active in areas that require you to think a lot, but she manages it with grace and skill. While everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, ideally we balance each other out. I first noticed Significa liberdade from her work as an active new page patroller. It's work that requires extensive policy knowledge and people skills. I think I can easily trust her with the tools. Just look at all the people telling her to go for it over at ORCP! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and confirm I have no alternate accounts, I have never and will never edit for pay, and I am open to recall. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: My primary reason for wanting to become an administrator is to use the mop to clean up messes I find rather than simply flagging messes so someone else can clean them. Through my work with New Page Patrol, I often encounter potential issues that need to be addressed by someone with the mop and/or could be supported by administrative tools. For instance, I often encounter articles I suspect are G4 eligible, but without access to deleted revisions, my best option is often to add the page to the backlog. I also encounter articles that have previously been G5-deleted, but without access to the deleted page, determining whether the creation is legitimately new or also block evasion is challenging. Dealing with these cases would be much easier as an admin because I could see the evidence more clearly and action the issue myself rather than burdening another admin. In addition to these issues, I regularly uncover articles with copyright violations that require revision deletion. As an admin, I could handle these tasks more readily rather than adding to the existing backlog.

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

A: I became interested in editing Wikipedia to improve coverage for underrepresented populations; as a content creator, I stuck to that idea by creating over 550 articles, most of which relate to women, LGBT+ folks, and people of colour. Beyond this, I have improved hundreds more articles in smaller ways by adding references, cleaning up formatting, etc., not to mention my work with NPP and Articles for Creation. In this role, I combine my skills of writing content and helping newer editors find their footing. Getting started on Wikipedia can be confusing, and receiving feedback on an article you created can feel like punishment. In my role with NPP, I try to make these early experiences less stressful and more rewarding and beneficial so these editors continue contributing to make Wikipedia better.

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: Disagreements naturally arise on Wikipedia as they do in real life. My goal in any situation is to approach with a level head and assume good faith. The latter is especially important when communicating via text when nonverbals such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures are unavailable. When handling disagreements, I call to mind and/or search for relevant policy, then seek input from the community as needed. Importantly, whenever conflicts or disagreements arise, I reflect on my actions to better understand how I could do better in the future, which has helped me continuously grow as a Wikipedian and person.

---

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 Lightburst

4. When you first log on to Wikipedia each day, what are the first few areas of the project that you look at or edit?

A: When I first log on to Wikipedia every day, I review any notifications I’ve received, then review the Page Curation tool for NPP. Beyond reviewing, I often have lists of articles to improve, whether those are existing categories (e.g., novels needing citations) or articles I’ve bookmarked for later review.

5. You make 42 edits per day and have written many articles; what motivated you to start editing Wikipedia four years ago?

A: Honestly, I’m not sure what the exact impetus was! I made relatively few edits for the first year and a half (though many related to literature), then became much more active in early 2022. I had recently moved to a new area and started a PhD, so I was in need of new hobbies. Lo and behold, Wiki was a good one!

Optional question from HouseBlaster

6. Some people find "fun" questions not strictly related to your suitability as a sysop to be a nice distraction from the stress of RfA. Others find them to be an unpleasant annoyance. Do you want people to ask them?

A: I’d welcome such questions. I can understand editors potentially finding the questions to be stressful, but I also think they can provide opportunities for the editor to showcase their personality and how they respond to unexpected situations.

Optional question from TheNuggeteer

7. Why did you continue to stay in Wikipedia?

A: As an educator and learner, editing Wikipedia taps into multiple core aspects of my identity. The more I’ve learned about Wikipedia as a resource, including its founding function and ongoing goals, the more I admire it and want to make it a valuable resource. Beyond this, as I’ve continued editing, I’ve had the pleasure of becoming part of the community.

Optional question from Tryptofish

8. Looking over your talk page and its archives, I'm seeing a large number of articles and drafts that ended up being deleted. Is there a reason for there having been so many of these? Thanks.

A: Although my talk page and archives have a large number of notifications regarding deleted articles, the articles in question are rarely my own creations. While reviewing articles for NPP, I often edit articles that may be later nominated for deletion. For example, I might update formatting or references, add maintenance tags, or remove copyright violations. Because I am thought to have significantly contributed to the article, I receive notifications when they are nominated for deletion. Of the 560 articles I have created, only 5 have later been deleted (see xTools). The deletion rate for drafts is higher, though this is skewed by the number of published drafts. Other drafts are often deleted because I started a draft article on a subject I thought could be notable but didn’t end up finishing the draft.

Oh, of course. Thanks for the very reasonable answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Levivich

9. Liberdade as in "speech" or liberdade as in "beer"?

A: This brings to mind the great debate between freedom from versus freedom to (also known as positive/negative liberty), which results in numerous misunderstandings regarding freedom. In this particular case, my editing and contributions are free (as in “beer”); otherwise, our freedoms to/from need to co-exist in a harmonious society (as in “speech”). Wikipedia is most valuable as a free (as in "beer") and open (as in "speech") resource , but we also need guardrails to protect both the encyclopedia and its editors.

Optional question from an IP user

10. Some administrators believe that it is a good practice to "procedurally" decline "stale" unblock requests based solely on the fact that no admin cared to attend to them for an extended period of time. What are your thoughts on that subject? Would you ever "procedurally" decline a "stale" unblock request?

A: At this time, I am not interested in blocking/unblocking users. As such, I would neither decline nor accept a “stale” unblock request.

Optional question from Cullen328

11. This is by no means a trick question and I ask it out of genuine curiosity. I had to work my way very slowly through college in the 1970s and it took me quite a few years to earn a bachelor's degree due to my personal financial realities. I would have loved to pursue a PhD but it was not possible due to marriage, two children, home ownership and starting a small business. I notice that you wrote I had recently moved to a new area and started a PhD, so I was in need of new hobbies. That surprised me a bit, because looking back, if I had the opportunity to pursue a PhD, that would have occupied the vast majority of my mental energy, and new hobbies would not have been a priority for me back then. All people are different, but I am a bit curious about your desire for new hobbies at that specific point in your life. Can you shed any light on that?

A: Before I answer, I want to share my sympathies that you were unable to pursue further education. I believe higher education would greatly benefit from more diverse perspectives that are often excluded due to systemic barriers. The direct answer to your question is three-fold:

1. Prior to the pandemic and starting my PhD, I had been active in my community in various capacities. Unfortunately, when I moved, I was disconnected from that community and my new community. I suppose Wikipedia felt like a way I could continue giving back with my time and energy.
2. I believe work-school-life balance is important, and we all should have something in our life beyond work and school that brings joy and meaning to our lives. I am fortunate in my circumstances to have excess time in the day to devote to such activities.
3. Contributing to Wikipedia has intermingled with my studies. For instance, I have created several articles for notable academics, and occasionally, I have created and/or expanded content related to a subject I’m studying.

Optional question from Ganesha811

12. Early in your tenure on Wikipedia, you added copyrighted material to a couple of pages (Best Fiction for Young Adults and Catch-22). An experienced editor noticed this, revdeleted the copyrighted content, and dropped two notes on your talk page. There was also a problem on a draft a few months later, which also resulted in a note on your talk page. This is a common issue for many new editors. In each case, you eventually removed the note without commentary and they no longer appear in your talk archives. To be clear, I don't think this is remotely disqualifying - none of the issues were egregious, they were early in your time here and evidently without ill intent, and have not reoccurred. However, I am curious about how these incidents shaped your editing, and how they shape your approach to working with new editors now. As an administrator, how would you make sure you are getting through to new editors about our policies? How do you balance making sure policy is followed with the danger of driving away productive contributors via rule-laden warnings?

A: Working with new editors requires a certain amount of patience, understanding, and guidance. Occasionally, I come across a bad actor, but most frequently, I work with editors who simply don’t know the rules and guidelines. Given this, it’s important to inform them about the expectations while balancing your responses between being too bitey and too lax. This balancing act is even more challenging in the asynchronous, online environment where you can’t have a conversation with someone to make sure they understand the guidelines fully, which means they may err again. At this point, it can be helpful to point out specific, relevant issues—as Diannaa did with me by explaining that book summaries must be written in your own words. Further, when I see a recurrent issue, I find it valuable to check the time passed since the last misstep, as well as their contributions since that misstep. For example, did they receive a copyright notice last week, then make the same error this week? My response will be different in this case compared to someone who received a copyright violation warning a year ago, made a handful of good edits, then added a small amount of copywritten material. My goal is always to assume good faith editing (unless there’s evidence to the contrary) and lead editors down the right path.

Thanks for your answer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Shushugah

13. Thank you for volunteering. What areas of Wikipedia do you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED in and would refrain from acting in admin capacity?

A: Due to my areas of administrative interest, I do not foresee many issues related to being involved, except where involvement may be more direct, such as anything relating to articles I’ve written, closing AFDs in which I’ve !voted, or acting as an admin with users with whom I may have disputes. If I ever consider myself involved with a topic, I would not engage as an administrator.

14. Academic and Wikipedia writing styles differ. What do you wish academics and non-academics alike would understood better to bridge these differing background? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A: Although some key differences in genre conventions exist (e.g., audience, organization, language), I think the most significant differences that sometimes cause a disconnect relate to tone/purpose and source use. In academia, we’re (almost) always arguing something and trying to make a point. However, the goal of an encyclopedia is to describe and explain. This changes the language used and organization, among other factors. Additionally, as someone advances through the ranks of academia, they are expected more and more to contribute new ideas to literature, but this would fall under the category of original research on Wikipedia. The differences in how academics and Wikipedians use sources differs, as well. The main difference I struggled with when getting started on Wikipedia was using secondary sources rather than primary sources. In academia, we prefer using primary sources so we don’t end up with misinformation. However, because sources on Wikipedia are used both to verify information and establish notability, secondary sources are preferred, which is understandable. Going between the two realms, it’s important to remember the overarching goals, which can help bridge the gap.

Optional questions from Cryptic

15. A newish user, say around 500 edits, creates a stub - short, perhaps, but neutral, referenced, and not in an A7able category - in mainspace and a very slightly longer version in draft. A somewhat more experienced editor redirects the mainspace version to the draft one, and a few hours later a much more experienced editor tags it for deletion as a {{db-r2}}, which you discover in CAT:CSD. What do you do? —Cryptic 19:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A: Given that the mainspace article was good, I would reject the R2 and revert the cross-namespace redirect. If the draft were awaiting review, I would reject the draft, noting that a mainspace article exists, and recommend the editor to expand the mainspace article. If the draft was not awaiting review, I would suggest the editor(s) merge content from the draft to the mainspace article. After the merge, the draft could then be redirected to the mainspace article.

So how come, a week and a half ago, you were editor #3 at 2000 Tehran airport disaster (current draft; its revision when the mainspace version was redirected)? —Cryptic 02:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, Cryptic! First, I want to recognize that I initially misread your question and was thinking of a situation in which two editors had created the same article–one in mainspace and one in draftspace. That said, with my noms’ help, I have looked into the history of the page in question for further information. In this case, the same editor was working on an article in both mainspace and draftspace simultaneously. That is, they first created an article in the main space (9:26 UTC), then shortly after created the same article in draft space (9:35 UTC). They and another editor expanded the draftspace article before Editor C redirected the mainspace article (10:24 UTC). Between this time and the time I nominated the article for R2 (14:42 UTC), the article creator further expanded the article in draft space. Since that time, both Creator and Editor B have continued to improve the article in draft space. Although I could have reverted the BLAR, the creator's use of the draft space communicated to me that they preferred working on the article in the draft space rather than the main space. Upon reflection, I should have contacted the creator to ensure that was the case. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Therapyisgood

16. You see someone threaten suicide on wiki very seriously, and you're the first to see it, who do you contact?

A: It’s important to take all claims seriously and react immediately by taking the following steps:

• Contact the the Wikimedia Foundation’s emergency line (emergency@wikimedia.org) with the necessary details per WP:EMERGENCY. If I did not response a response within one hour, I would contact WMF’s back-up emergency line (ca@wikimedia.org)..
• Remove the content and provide a discreet and kindly edit summary.
• Delete the revision and request oversight.
• Privately contact other admins, as is advised at EMERGENCY.

17. How strong is your password for Wikipedia?

A: My end-to-end encrypted password manager says my password is "very strong."

Optional questions from Indignant Flamingo

18. If someone is creating articles that would survive AfD but are consistently tagged as missing key parts (e.g. a plot summary for a book article), and they request the autopatrolled permission, would you grant it?

A: I want to take this opportunity to address both your question and the concerns you raised in your support !vote. As a reader of Wikipedia, I understand it can be frustrating to find articles with incomplete information. I’ve certainly felt that frustration – sometimes finding that the information isn't merely lacking but does not exist at all. Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedic project full of incomplete information, and it’s up to a bunch of volunteers to try to create a valuable resource. I’m impressed with how much good we’ve done in the past couple decades!

Given this, I think it’s valuable to explain why I create book articles without always including an plot summary. As stated in my nomination statement, I have been drawn to creation on Wikipedia to help address certain known information gaps (e.g., women’s representation). I find that many notable books and authors are not represented and thus, seek to fix that. Sometimes, I create book articles without plot summaries because I do not always feel confident creating a plot summary based on reviews without reading the book, though I have been trying to include at least a few sentences in the lead (as evidenced by the book articles I created this past month: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]). If I do not include a plot summary, I add the {{no plot}} maintenance tag so another editor can more easily find the article to add it.

With that said, I want to highlight that autopatrol is granted to editors who consistently create articles that are not nominated for deletion through AfD, CSD, or PROD and are not draftified – regardless of whether those articles are technically incomplete. The goal of AP is to lighten NPP’s load, which is drastically needed given that the backlog currently contains over 10,000 articles, and has not been cleared since October 2022. As such, if an editor is consistently creating articles that pass review in NPP (i.e., not nominated for deletion or draftified, per the flowchart), I would grant them AP to lighten the load of fellow NPPers.

Notes:

19. What's an example (hypothetical is fine) of a userspace page that could be deleted under G11 but not U5?

A: I admit I'm not entirely certain about the following response, and if I encountered this scenario, I would contact other admins to verify. After reviewing the policies, I think a userspace page could be deleted under G11 but not U5 if the userspace page was promotional and the editor had significantly edited pages outside of the userspace. For example, if a user had around 500 total edits, the following could be deleted under G11 but not U5:

Significa Liberdade is the bestselling author of more than 100 books. She’s a visionary storyteller, with millions of fans around the globe. Her writing is unprecedented and unlike anything on the market today with her suspenseful plots, unforgettable characters, and out-of-this-world settings. Her works are also innovative, utilizing new technologies to create interactive fiction that bring the reader along on the journey, making every read a new, exciting adventure.

Optional questions from Hawkeye7

20. Let's try Question 13A again, since considering yourself involved if you consider yourself involved doesn't tell us much. What do you mean by being involved in a "topic"? Would a coordinator of the Military History Project be involved if they closed military-related AfD discussions or sent out mass messages on behalf of the project?

A: Per WP:INVOLVED, an admin can be considered INVOLVED with a mainspace topic area under certain circumstances, and cannot use their admin tools in that area. A "topic area" can be as narrow as a single article, where the rules are quite clear, or as broad as an entire contentious topic area. The point at which an admin can be INVOLVED in a large topic area has been inconclusively discussed (see a recently closed discussion at AN). In general, however, an admin must recuse themselves from a dispute when their history interferes with their ability to act impartially as an administrator; the more closely related or more extensive the past editing is, the more likely an admin is to be INVOLVED.

In my opinion, a WikiProject Military History coordinator would not inherently be INVOLVED with the topic of military history as a whole. They also would not be INVOLVED if they closed military history-related AfDs, given that administrative actions are explicitly exempt, or when sending mass messages. They would, however, be too INVOLVED to close an MfD of a subpage for WikiProject Military History. Personally, while my editing is more heavily concentrated in some topic areas than others (neurodiversity and women writers, for example), I don't believe my editing precludes me from taking admin actions on disputes in the same high-level topic area, provided that those disputes are not more directly related to me in some other way. For example, I would certainly be too INVOLVED to close an RfC on Maggie Tokuda-Hall (since I wrote the article), but probably not too much to close one on Colleen Hoover.

Optional question from The ed17

21. Many of the people opposing this RfA are focused on a single area: your approach to deletions. If you pass this RfA anyway, what will you change in your approach to that area of Wikipedia?

A: Regardless of whether I pass, the feedback from the community so far has given me lots to reflect on regarding my approach to draftification and deletion. Thus far, the following advice has resonated with me the most: “slow down”. This applies across numerous arenas but especially when considering some of the errors mentioned regarding draftification, G4s, and AFDs. For instance, as GreenLipstickLesbian shared, I have made some hasty calls when nominating articles for G4. I have always trusted that the closing administrator would be able to assess the articles accurately with access to the deleted version. That said, I should always take that responsibility upon myself as much as possible, and I will–regardless of whether I become an admin. This similarly applies to prematurely or incorrectly draftified articles, as well as AFDs I withdrew because I found a source in a database I hadn’t originally checked.

However, I also think it’s important to also highlight what I see as the goal of AfD: to keep as many good articles as possible. Sometimes, you can do an exhaustive BEFORE and not find anything due to the resources available to you. However, someone else might find sources because they speak another language, have access to a different database, or just know where to look better than you. This doesn’t mean it was a bad nomination; it means the community came together to save and improve a bad article. I wish there were better, easier ways to do this.

Overall, I’ve appreciated the feedback received during this RFA. If you ever have questions, comments, and/or concerns about my ongoing editing (whether in an admin position or not), please let me know. I will always hear you out.

Optional question from Andrew D.

22. Your account name, Significa liberdade, sounds like a quotation or allusion. Please explain it.

A: The account name was not created as a quotation or allusion. Rather, my IRL name means ‘freedom’, and I was studying Portuguese when I created the account, so I liked the phrase “[Name] means freedom” ([Name] significa liberdade). To refrain from putting my own name on Wikipedia, I decided to use the phrase significa liberdade. :)

Optional question from GreenLipstickLesbian

23. Sorry for slipping this question in at the last minute. If you don't get a chance to answer it, I completely understand. One of the reasons you feel admin tools might be useful to you is to help you assess whether an article is eligible for G4. Us non-admins are often in a awkward position with that tag, being able to rely only on archive sites, mirrors, and looking through the previous AFD discussion. Could you please explain to me how you currently decide to nominate articles and redirects for speedy deletion under this criteria? If you'd like to explain with an example, I'm particularly curious about these recent declines: Special:Diff/1244742761, Special:Diff/1239154999(the redirect), Special:Diff/1241387012, Special:Diff/1241367730. No pressure to provide an explanation for all of them, or all of them at once.

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support

1. as nominator :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, she is definitely an excellent, qualified user! Hope for the best! JuniperChill (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Support! I've seen Significa around in NPP circles and admire her commitment to the project and her consistently collegial attitude. I feel she would put the mop to excellent use. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
6. Support Good luck! Opposes are valid but I vote not on what they are but on what they could be. Polygnotus (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
7. To reiterate what I've said ... twice ... I am talking about what I'm talking about. No questions will be taken. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
8. i actually kind of just assumed they were an admin already... either way, i like these nominators and the answers to the questions above. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
9. You must be a fantastic editor if you get both leeky and Clovermoss to nominate you. On that basis alone I would land in support. But if that is not enough for you, Significa liberdade is a kind, productive, and helpful editor. Even if granting the mop were a big deal – and I firmly believe it should not be – I could not be more enthusiastic in strongly supporting this nomination :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

   I dislike the (new?) thing where people have to reaffirm their !votes. But I have been watching this play out and ultimately I still am strongly supporting this nomination. I will be watching this RfA for the next 25 hours, so 'crats, unless I indicate otherwise, please treat this as if I reaffirmed right before the autohold takes effect. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

10. Support More than qualified for the tools! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
11. Support I came into their WP:ORCP entry with no preconceived notions, and quickly got a strong impresssion of a productive and knowledgable user who is both kind and informative in their interactions with other users. Seems like good admin material to me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
12. Support A good user with a good disposition and is clearly competent. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    I am aware of the opposes and do find them concerning, but they aren't enough to sway me to support or neutral given her response. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

13. —Ingenuity (t • c) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
14. Support I am SO pumped to pass Significa liberdade the WP:BATON, and not just so that I never have to see another one of her G4s again. I've been working alongside her at WP:AfC and WP:NPP for quite some time and can attest that she is kind, helpful, patient, and possessing of multitudinous clues. As soon as it no longer felt like throwing stones in a glass house, I went to pester her to run. Excited to vote in support. -- asilvering (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    In light of some of these opposes, which came in after I first !voted, I'd like to expand on my support rationale. I don't at all think that the evidence here shows that SL is deletion-happy or will do harm given the extra tools. On the contrary, I see very strong evidence that this is an editor who is conscientious, polite, and collaborative, even when faced with bad-faith accusations and direct criticism. The Lauren Chen AfD, which others have cited as an example of over-hasty deletion tendencies, is a good example. Here, a new page patroller comes across a newly created BLP article on a subject who is in the news because she has been indicted for a crime. Since all the sources in the article at that time concerned the indictment, this could present a BLP issue; the NPPer first looks for other sources, but doesn't find enough to establish a WP:GNG pass, so she takes the article to AfD for community consensus. The nominator is clear that she has performed a WP:BEFORE search and was surprised to find very little; she also lists some of the sources that she did find. These are exactly the actions I would hope an NPPer would take in the circumstances. The first !voters on the AfD insist the subject is notable, without providing any sources that could be used to establish this. The nominator remains patient and civil. A participant in the discussion explicitly accuses the nominator of bad faith (the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity); she does not engage. (I'd say this is a good example of her attitude to conflict, for those looking for one.) I don't see an overactive deletion sense at work here. What I see is a conscientious editor who has observed a problem and brought it forward for community discussion. (I also see a great many very poor AfD !votes.)

    We want admins who can change their minds when faced with new information, and who learn from past criticism. We don't want admins who delete articles out of process or make snap decisions against community consensus, and who react angrily when challenged. Significa liberdade is clearly in the first of these two groups, not the second. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

15. Support: Oh hell yeah. I'm just salty I didn't get to nominate them! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    As an NPP coordinator who greatly appreciates SL's contributions, I'd also like to re-affirm my support. Can we please try to AGF more of the candidate here? People are accusing them of being a backdoor deletionist, but that's not what's happening here or what draft space is. I've long said draft space (improve your work) is far less bitey than AfD (delete your work if it doesn't meet our complicated to newcomer notability guidelines within the next 7 days). Draftification is not the same thing as deletion, but they're being equated to one another by some in this discussion. There are also some misleading numbers in the oppose section, which I'm not confident are accurate, and which also lack meaningful context. I'm one of the most active reviewers at NPP and I typically use WP:NPPSORT and the NPP Browser ToolForge tool to search for pages to review by key word, which leads to fewer deletions and draftifies because I'm searching for inherently notable topics at times. Someone who works from the front of the queue and, for instance, filters pages under 5kb would be much more likely to find items that would benefit from being moved to draft space (I actually have this filter in my bookmarks).

    As ScottishFinnishRadist mentioned, anyone who's spent time at AFD has probably done a BEFORE search that turned up nothing, to which editors immediately found sources for. A lot of the feedback is focused on a common NPP practice, but SL has shown they're more than willing to listen to feedback and improve based on it. SL's responses and temperament when dealing with the criticisms here have been exceptional and exactly what we'd want out of an administrator. I'm more confident than ever that they'll do well as an admin if given the opportunity. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

16. Support - no concerns, thanks for volunteering to wield the mop! Loopy30 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
17. Support - Why not? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
18. Support — looks good to me — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
19. Support — As someone who often creates news pages, I appreciate anyone who does NPP! Jenny8lee (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
20. Mach61 01:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
21. Support, positive interactions wherever I've seen this editor. Star Mississippi 01:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
22. Support - Healthy pie chart, adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Be a good admin. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
23. Support of course! Elli (talk | contribs) 01:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
24. Support I recognize that username! Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
25. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
26. Support. Clear use case for the tools, even temperament. I looked into the candidate's record some time ago, and I was impressed by what I saw: I was just too slow to follow up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    Re-affirming support per Asilvering above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

27. Support. I trust her to be a good admin. New admins and old admins need each other to be accountable, and she would be a good fresh admin for a fresh time. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
28. Support. Excellent content creation record twinned with excellent NPP work is a sure sign of an thoroughly excellent contributor. GraziePrego (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
29. Support. Don't see any issues here. Would be a net benefit to the project. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
30. Support - I've seen them around and they seem like a really solid candidate. I give them my support with no hesitation whatsoever. Has the right temperament and experience. Thank you for volunteering! Netherzone (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    I'd like to reiterate my support for SL as an editor who is active both in the AfD area and at NPP/AFC. These are difficult areas to work at. It may have been better for SL to wait a bit before running to sharpen some of their skills, however let's remember this is a volunteer gig, and in IMO RfA's should not be viewed as some sort of a high-stakes "job interview." To my mind, what is most important is trust, temperment, civility, willingness to learn and continue to grow as a volunteer. Personally I'd like to see a slightly higher percentage of successful matches at AfD (in other words, more than 74%), however I don't see the draftifications as problematic. Working at AfD and NPP is very hard volunteer work, and no one is perfect – this should be kept in perspective during an RfA. When things are going well in these areas there is seldom credit given, but when things are going poorly, those who boldly volunteer get the blame. Denying a draft or draftifying a poorly sourced article does not, in my opinion, chase off newbie editors - rather it helps to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia - these procedures have an instructional function for newbies. We should not be here to coddle and hand-hold newbies, but rather to clearly and directly inform them why an article or draft is not ready for publication or is inappropriate for publication. More and more I see the encyclopedia used for promotional purposes or as a webhost or as a venue for paid editing; this is problematic in my opinion. I encourage SL to continue to be bold. What DOES chase off good faith newbies is incivility, not the polite critical/analytical judgement of a reviewer or AfD nominator such as SL. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

31. Support. Ok. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
32. Support Trusted user. I expect her to use the tools well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
33. Support: Prolific producer of high-quality content with both subject matter and tool expertise. What more can we ask for in a prospective admin? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
34. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
35. Support I've only run across their work a few times but it's always been high quality. Reviewing their articles and edits all I can say is "WOW"! Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
36. Support: SLD is sufficiently experienced and qualified for the mop. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    Less than 45 hours before this RfA closes naturally, I am writing this. I've read through the concerns raised by distinguished Wikipedians in the oppose section and have come to reaffirm that I support this candidacy still. On Wikipedia, it is an important thing to respect people's opinion whether it counters yours or not, it is an important part of community building. I hope SLD takes these comments to heart and always reach out to experienced admin whenever in doubt. In fact, the reason I am confident is that this candidate is most likely going to reach out to experienced users whenever she's in doubt, it is evident from her contributions so far. NPP is an area of work on English Wikipedia where mistakes are bound to be made, I don't know if I should even call them mistakes generally or actions that other users might not agree with. All in all, we're all trying to build a diverse encyclopedia in the spirit of collaboration. This same spirit is what this candidate has used to work on this project. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

37. Support: It is a rare delight to encounter someone who spends more time improving an article than just slapping templates "needs improvement". ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
38. Support thanks for volunteering! – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
39. Thanks for volunteering! Levivich (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    I've read the opposes and they don't persuade me to change my vote. On the individual draftification examples, I don't feel that any of them (or all of them combined) are so egregious as to be disqualifying; I agree with most of them.

    On the statistical analysis, I don't quibble with the methodology, but I do quibble with the premise: just because one editor does something 10x or 30x or 100x more often than average doesn't mean they are doing something wrong. We have admins who delete pages 100x more than the average admin, or block users 100x more than average or decline/accept unblock requests more than average; it doesn't mean they're necessarily doing something wrong. We have editors who vote "keep" or "delete" 100x more often than the average user; doesn't mean they're out of touch with consensus. Some editors who only vote keep, or only vote delete, still have a very high match rate. We have admins who post many times more at ITN than the average ITN admin. Editors who revert 100x more times than the average editor, who create articles 100x more than average... I could go on and on. Being an outlier doesn't necessarily mean being wrong. Levivich (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

40. Support: It's hard work staying patient, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
41. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    Noting my thoughts after the opposes. I don't see a reason to believe Significa liberdade will abuse the tools. There is valid feedback in the oppose section, but I trust that the candidate will use the tools responsibly and carefully for the benefit of the site. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

42. Support, I've seen them around in the NPP server and have had positive interactions across the board with them, both in the context of AFC and NPP. I have no doubt that they will be a capable admin. Sohom (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    Noting that I've read the oppose, but I'm yet to see a "pattern" here. Given the number of patrols done, a few mistakes are expected (the lack of them would indicate a propensity to only patrol easy articles). None of the examples show that the user has "deletionist" tendencies or does not care about articles. In fact when the math is mathed, the statistical significance of all of the examples fall well below the threshold for significance required by most scientific methods. (5 misdraftifications out of 1221 is 0.40%, below 5%).

    Also, there is a assertion that a high draftification rate somehow implies that the candidate is out of line, and consistently overdraftifies articles. I disagree with this assertion, being a outlier does not imply that they are doing anything wrong here. Sohom (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

43. Support: Happy adminship. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
44. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
45. Support It's a yes from me.--A09|(talk) 11:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
46. – robertsky (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
47. Support — have seen them doing good work at NPP. And of course I would trust a nomination backed entirely by plants. Cremastra (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
48. Support I have noticed their good work at NPP, best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 12:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
49. Support Looks good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    Fuck yes Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 14:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC) § c-Queen of Hearts-20240918192200-Neutral 19:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

50. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
51. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
52. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 15:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
53. Support - Thank you for volunteering your time with Wikipedia. jengod (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
54. Support: No concerns. I've come across her a few times at WP:DELSORT/LIT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
55. Support Leijurv (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
56. A-OK --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
57. Support. Not much, if any, personal experience with this candidate. But ... two nominators who have been nothing but a credit to the project themselves since getting the mop, one of them even recently named Wikimedian of the Year (sorry, had to mention that), and a lot of other high-quality support make this an easy call. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
58. Support per nom! Ryan shell (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
59. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
60. Support - I've run across their efforts through CSD and have no issues. Thanks for stepping up. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
61. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
62. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
63. Support. Sure, why not. Good luck with the mop!. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
64. Support, glad to see you here :) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
65. It says something good about how the nom spends their time here, or bad about how I spend my time here, but I haven't run into them before. That just means they don't lurk in the various sloughs of despond we have. That, plus noms, plus attitude when answering questions, is all I need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    At 89% as I write this, so I'm not sure this is needed. But just confirming to the closing Crat that I've read the opposes that have come up after my initial support, and still believe they would make a good admin. They seem thoughtful and open to feedback. I don't think we want to make perfect the enemy of the (really) good. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

66. Support: Good candidate. C F A 💬 21:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
67. Support - Yep, definitely good for the mop. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
68. Support I looked into the candidate’s record and it is impressive. They make an average of 42.3 edits per day, without drama and they perform valuable NPP and content work. The candidate has been active and made 62k edits in four years. They have also demonstrated a need for the tools. Of the two nominators of this candidate, CM has been kind and communicative with me. I hope the candidate will be more like CM after becoming an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
69. Support - Hold up, you're telling me she's not already an admin? - ZLEA _T\^C 23:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
70. Support - happy with answer to my question, clearly a sensible and valuable contributor who will do useful things with the tools. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
71. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

    For the record, I have reviewed the opposes that have popped up since my initial support, and am not persuaded. It is rare that a candidate for the mop won't have some issue in their background that can be latched onto. In this case, I don't believe the issues are weighty enough to cause me to doubt their judgement and I have confidence that Significa liberdade will have taken the concerns expressed onboard and will proceed with due caution in using the tools. I am therefor reaffirming my support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

72. Support Excellent user, no concerns. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
73. Support Heck yeah, lord knows that NPP could use more admins. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
74. Support – Great work so far on Wikipedia, including maintenance, and no reason to think this'll change if she gets a mop. The closest thing to an issue would be the high number of declined G4s in her CSD log, but I think her answer to question 1 addresses this satisfactorily. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
75. Hi! Fathoms Below (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
76. Stephen 04:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
77. Support Great candidate for the mop. Nobody (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
78. Appreciate your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

    Just want to indicate that I’ve been following and though I understand the concerns, I don’t think they rise to a level that makes me anticipate SL would be a problem admin. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

79. liberdade and Beans has works on some articles together. The Beans thinks liberdade is qualified for the mop. Best, Reading Beans 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
80. Support I don't remember ever coming across your username, but among other things, I liked your answer to #14. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
81. Support My only interaction with the user was very positive. NPP definitely seems to need more admins, also. Coeusin (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
82. Support Yes. I learnt from them. Maliner (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
83. Support -Volten001 ^☎ 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
84. Support --Enos733 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
85. Support I'm quite a new to this editor and had to check her contributions. She seems eminently qualified to become an admin. I'm not convinced by the oppose comments. I could yak on about it, but too tired at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
86. Support Not a big deal. GMG^talk 19:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
87. Support It's not that deep. fanfanboy (block) 19:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
88. Support Oh heck yes. I don't think we've had any on-wiki interactions, but she seems like a truly dedicated Wikipedian. Working in the NPP mines is a challenging and thankless task - amazing job, and don't mind the perennial opposes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
89. Support based on her record and answers. Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
90. I never expected myself to participate in another RfA again -- but here I've felt the need to comment. Significa liberdade is an excellent New Page Patrol reviewer and while there may have been a few shake-ups, her work is largely a net positive. I find the opposes unconvincing, on a couple of attributions and notes: Significa liberdade's responses to the questions above are good enough for me to not lean towards the opposing side, and I completely agree with Asilvering and Theleekycauldron's points in that section below. Not seeing any red flags here, at least ones enough for me to oppose. Also, I didn't look at how many articles she's made before – an astonishing amount, by just looking at the totals. And the great RfA noms too. Enough said. Giving a support! ~ Tails Wx 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
91. As a reader of the encyclopedia I have encountered this editor's work about books on several occasions, and I've been able to guess this page creator by the particular combination of a) tons of quotes linked with minimal text and b) an almost complete lack of indication of what the fucking book is about. The Empress and the English Doctor is saved by the subtitle, but what is My Monticello about? How about Apple in the Middle? Or The Beach at Summerly? Or Liars' Legacy? Or The Forgotten Room? The reader in me is an irritated oppose voter. However, as a contributor who has seen lots of people grow into responsibilities given proper feedback, I see an editor whose impulses to do something are admirable, and who gets a rhythm going once she's mastered a particular pattern of activity, but who needs to put more time and effort into each decision, even and especially if that means doing nothing rather than the less helpful thing (see also the concerns of oppose voters). Because I have hope that this growth will happen in response to the feedback from this process, I land here. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
92. Support -Justiyaya 00:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
93. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
94. Support I've learned plenty from Significa liberdade's work at new page patrol and have confidence in her ability despite the concerns raised due to her accuracy in the sheer volume of pages reviewed. Reconrabbit 00:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
95. Support per everyone above. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
96. Weak support with prejudice, meaning I'm unfortunately late both to the party and on time so I haven't had the time to read anything except the oppose section, thus my opinion may change.
    I have been crossing paths with Sig recently with the most notorious venue being her controversial nominations of Lauren Chen and Chen's associate. As a member of A25D (link on my userpage), I !voted keep. However, I do not think that this shows a criminal lack of BEFORE: For one, she provided an assessment of an impressively large amount of sources. All I see here is someone who knows the brave spirit of WP:BOLD, the idea of not letting things remain just because they are there, and when to back off and wait for a close, as she did 2 days after nominating.
    Moreover, he nomination may have been premature or benefited from prior tagging, but I seriously doubt this will impede on Sig's abilities to wipe the goddamn cutting-room floor. She knew that the nomination would be controversial and skipped PROD, which is when she would've deleted the page as a nominator if the opposers' arguments stood. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

    Changing to weak support due to SilverLocust's concerns well said. However, I also concur with Kylietastic that I'd like to see how this goes in the future and whether Sig's familiarity with deletion policy will be shown to have improved. I've read everything now. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

97. Support. I thank the candidate for challenging weak content and condemn those who wish to protect it through wikilawyering. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
98. Support - competent, active and helpful from what I can see in their contributions. Not worried about a few one-off mistakes noted in the oppose section, nor with their draftifying new pages if that falls within current community norms. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
99. Support. Great, very trustworthy editor. I disagree with draftification as a practice, but whether I like it or not it is a community norm and the way they use it is in line with the norm. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
100. Support. Best of luck comrade! Ahri Boy (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
101. Support after reading her response to the first oppose !vote below. Maproom (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
102. Support. No concerns. Rzuwig^► 07:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
103. Support - leeky and Clovermoss must be right!--NØ 08:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
104. Support - only slight reservations from the opposes, but I hope that Significa liberdade takes on board the criticism there and modifies their approach in these areas. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
105. Support — phenomenal editor and all the evidence suggests she'll make a great admin. I'm unswayed by the draftification arguments, maybe because I have no problem with draftification personally (it seems better for readers to not encounter unsourced incomplete articles in article space, and it strikes me as odd to argue that being asked to work on an article in draft space rather than article space would cause any harm to editors or editor retention, though maybe I'm just dense), but mostly because I don't think there's any indication that an editor favoring draftification in new page patrolling would lead to any sort of tool misuse. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

     None of the examples of bad draftications discussed below involve unsourced articles. That's the point. If you put yourself in the shoes of a new editor who took the time to contribute a new article and, as asked, list your sources, only to have it rejected from mainspace because it's "unsourced" or "needs more sources" for nonspecific reasons that aren't written down in any community policies or guidelines, you can probably see why bad draftications are bad for editor retention. This is relevant to this RfA because admins, like NPPers, are supposed enforce the community's written expectations of editors and content -- no more, no less. – Joe (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

106. Support No red flags from my perspective. Seems to be a productive and trustworthy editor. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
107. Support weighing the strength of the nomination and the concerns raised lands me here. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
108. Support Wonderful and qualified editor. Nagol0929 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
109. Support Good experience, good answers. LemonOrangeLime (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
110. Support ForksForks (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
111. Support. Seems like a generally reasonable individual and I did not know that this user was not already an administrator. I am somewhat concerned regarding the draftification and backdoor deletions, but I don't think that the admin toolset really does anything related to that inasmuch as it doesn't require advanced permissions, and as such I don't think this user will abuse tools in that regard. So, on balance, I land in the support camp. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
112. Support NPP needs more admins. I also clicked through the examples in the oppose section over draftification and see that issue as more about improving edit summaries than substance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
113. ltbdl☃ (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

     i echo what floquenbeam said: I don't think we want to make perfect the enemy of the (really) good. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

114. Support - Candidate seems reasonable. She has given answers to optional questions and even direct criticisms (which speaking on the RfA page at all when conventional wisdom says not to is commendable within of itself, really) in a level manner. We need more administrators. WP:RRFA is an option if the community becomes considerably unsatisfied with her performance. I'm not worried about "backdoor deletion" as, based on the participation at this RfA, I'm sure plenty of administrators will be keeping an eye on her deletions for a time. Candidate has expressed that criticisms will be taken and reviewed in stride. I do not believe the issues stated combined with candidates attitude warrant withholding the toolkit. —Sirdog (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
115. A good editor, but maybe she should slow down a little while draftifying. However, this issue doesn’t change my vote to oppose. GrabUp - Talk 11:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
116. Support. I'm not convinced by the concerns about AfD/article deletion. Their match rate is still >75% at AfD, and doing new page patrols one is expected to be nominating a lot. AfD also isn't deletion, it is a discussion about if an article is suitable for inclusion. Lastly, I've often done a BEFORE search and turned up nothing, while other editors often find sources. Due to the vagaries of search algorithms and general enshittification/dead internet search results can vary widely, and be padded out with dumpters full of hot garbage. I'm willing to AGF that BEFORE was followed and no sources were found. That is why we have a community discussion at AfD, many sets of eyes are better than one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

     @ScottishFinnishRadish, I am taking these words you've said above to my personal archive. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

117. Support - Maybe keeping an eye on AfDs etc. I don't think this is a problem that can't be handled provided there's another set of eyes checking their actions and as they acclimitize themselves. Iostn (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
118. Support: Answers to all of the questions are very good. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
119. Support Excellent candidate. Wikipedians' tolerance for substandard and poorly sourced articles runs along a spectrum, and I don't see Significa liberdade's actions at NPP/AfC as falling outside of, or even towards the end of, the deletion side of that spectrum. NPP work can be thankless work, as is demonstrated by some of the opposes. She is quick to take the concerns of others on board, is a good communicator and listener, and I think she will make a fine admin. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

     Wise words. scope_creep^Talk 20:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

120. Support Looks strong in every respect and unusually strong in several. A common theme of the few opposes seems to be opposition to a common practice of NPP draftifying new articles than need something essential vs immediately taking them to their final disposition. IMHO it's not right to express an opinion on this common and accepted practice via opposing an excellent candidate for following a common and accepted practice while serving Wikipedia in a difficult job. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
121. Support Strong track record of content creation; candidate with good communication skills, and while acknowledging opposes below, agree with Ponyo above and feel that the candidate would be a net benefit to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 17:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
122. Support. The issues of the Oppose are correct. However, having scanned through the circa 560 articles they have created, this is an editor with a lot of (1) skill and (2) passion for Wikipedia. An admin misusing the tools will attract a lot of 'heat', so the candidate would be foolish to ignore the concerns of the Oppose. Having read through their articles, the candidate does not strike me as a fool, and I think we should always err on the side of optimism in any admin vote — we are not short of ways to remove failing admins imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
123. Support. We often end up discussing imperfect processes at RfA when people mostly act in accordance with these processes (with the occasional mistake). Draftification is one of them. We don't force new article creators through a wizard, where they need to add at least 2/3 sources or indicate the topics meets a SNG. So we have to teach these standards differently. Draftification is perhaps the least bad current option to do that, even with an overly backlogged AfC process. We should spend more energy making the process less BITEy imo, and not judge too harshly the individuals involved. Anyway, competent and kind editor, so my support is there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
124. Support Like other supports, I find the nominee to be competent and knowledgable. Good luck with your PhD btw. I am not holding our processes at NPP such as draftification against anyone working in the area - they are what they are. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
125. Support I ended up not being convinced by the opposition. There may be some examples of less-than-ideal AfD noms or draftifications - but nobody is perfect, and on balance, they seem like a net positive to the slog that is the NPP backlog. Other than that, has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
126. Support I think this RFA has been good for Significa liberdade to see where the community has concerns and I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she will take this feedback constructively and with caution. Separately, I am disappointed with amount of badgering being directed at the oppose and neutral !votes. Mkdw ^talk 06:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

     I just wanted to echo the concern about badgering. I have yet to vote in this one (and may not), but I do find the badgering disappointing as well. Responses by the candidate are one thing...prolonged engagement by the noms (and others) are something else again. Intothatdarkness 12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

     I'll take that into consideration. I was trying to limit my feedback to direct counterarguments (I think it's only fair to offer all perspectives, even if reasonable people may disagree with each other). I don't think it's badgering to do that when RfA is a consensus-building discussion, although I get why you'd prefer to hear from the candidate themselves. I didn't really want other people responding for me in my RfA but I also happened to be a self nom. Obviously there's an art to knowing when to reply or not but I don't think I edged beyond that? I'm open to further feedback and discussion on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

127. Support - doing valuable work, can do it better with a mop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
128. Support - There are valid concerns raised by the oppose voters, but I am satisifed with SL's responses to the questions and to those concerns. Happy to support! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
129. Support for a candidate who's a net positive. Concerns raised in the opposes will be resolved by experience. Miniapolis 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
130. Support. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
131. Support per Ponyo, SFR, Josh and others. I have read through the opposes but do not see anything that causes alarm or suggests they will abuse the tools. S0091 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
132. Support I disagree with the oppose voters that someone who processes hundreds of new pages should be dunked on for a few errors during the process. If a page really is notable, the process will sort itself out anyway, but I don't see erroneous nominations to the point of disruption. This seems like precisely the kind of task that one would have a valid need of admin tools for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
133. Support the nominating statements and answers to the questions demonstrate that Significa liberdade has a need for admin rights, existing trust from the community, and a large volume of good work in areas that need attention. Rocfan275 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
134. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
135. Support -- great responses, great edits. Maybe a bit too fast on the draft button for some, but we definitely need more level-headed people willing to take the mop, so go take it! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
136. Support. Opposers bring up reasonable concerns, but I don't see these as disqualifying after reading through the page. The candidate is obviously here and will take them to heart. ― Synpath 01:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
137. Support. No concerns about deletions, some concern about the candidate really only having picked up Wikipedia space editing in the last year or so, but I've been crying out for more admins in The Signpost for years now, so here's my money where my mouth is. Thanks for volunteering! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
138. Support At AfD I have previously raised my own general concerns about draftification as backdoor deletion - so I understand the reason for the discussion - but for myself I do not see the views raised below as weighty enough to tip the balance. There's demonstrated willingness to cooperate and civility from this editor. Net positive. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
139. Support the issues in the opposes are of concern but after spending some time looking at the totality of their work in differnt areas I belive these issues are more missteps in an overall sea of good work and good attitude. The AfD results looked sub-optimal from what I would expect from an admin at first but if you account for self-reverts and treat the group of station noms in July 2023 as one decission they look fine. The draftification is a concern, but I belive it is used too much in general: it is a nice idea that it's beter that AfD, but in practice many are never editing again in draft then deleted, where at AfD at least it has a chance of being saved. I urge them to take the critisisms onboard and when if comes to deletions and draftications just a small slow down and mental double checking should resolve any issues. Overall net positive. KylieTastic (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
140. Support as per the many arguments given above DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 12:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
141. Support It took a lot of time to come to this decision. Reading all the opposes, neutrals, comments, questions, and answers to questions, gave me some pause. But seeing several users I highly respect re-affirming their support above, I am convinced that Significa is a competent, level-headed user who will not abuse the tools. Comments on the wider policy that has embroiled this RfA: 1. The true cost of AfD in editor time is constantly underestimated. Independent source searches, reviews, and reasoned opinions from a nom, two !voters, and a closing admin (the minimum for a proper AfD) totals about an hour of work. 2. The draftification process is imperfect. However, although they may not know this, any editor can object to draftification for any reason they like. This means that it should be harmless. It is up to the community, not the candidate, to make sure draftification works as intended, so that people like Significa can use it as intended. Toadspike [Talk] 13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
142. Support I have considered the opposes, but I do not feel that Significa liberdade's draftifications are outside of community norms. I trust that she will take on board the feedback here and act with caution when it comes to deletions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
143. Support. Everybody makes mistakes. Overall, I think she will do fine as an administrator and I trust the judgment of the nominators. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
144. Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
145. Support. I agree with Joe Roe and with most other opposes, but not making this editor into an admin will not fix the issues as the candidate will remain an NPP and will be able to continue doing the same things. Let's be very practical here. What are the consequences of the outcomes we are dealing with? Candidate needs to take the feedback and improve while being an admin. Opposing is a statement of principle but doesn't look forward. Looking forward is making more strongly worded P&G on unilateral draftification. Editor is collegial, reasonable, and takes feedback.—Alalch E. 17:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
146. Support (moved from Neutral) After giving this a lot of thought, I land here. I can, however, see a good case for declining the request in order that the candidate spend some time demonstrating that she has understood the draftification concerns, and then come back for a second RfA. But I've decided that this is not necessary. I think that Joe's argument, about the draft where sources had been removed by another editor, and how that could discourage a new editor, is an important one. The fact that one of the noms would have persevered does not mean that a new editor would have. So the decision for me came down to whether or not I feel I can trust the candidate to learn from the feedback here, or whether this is some sort of fundamental flaw in the ability of the candidate to handle deletion properly. I'm convinced that I do trust the candidate and, ironically, the discussion over my neutral comment did a lot to bring me here. Seeing the candidate link to an actual conflict, in which she actually asked for advice about how she could do better in the future, provided me with evidence that this is someone who does learn from experience. So I think she will learn from the experience of this RfA, and do just fine as an admin. She is clearly smart and thoughtful. I think the problems with the drafts and deletion come down to a pattern of trying to do too much, too quickly. So my advice if this RfA passes is to slow down. In effect, approach the use of the tools from the perspective of WP:BEFORE, and don't make hasty decisions. RfA should not be about whether someone has made mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. It should be about whether they can be trusted to learn from past mistakes, and do better in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
147. Tentative support: Generally clueful, civil, productive, and otherwise what we look for in admins. The opposition is entirely on the basis of some draftification and deletion-nomination errors and alleged errors (many of the latter subject to considerable disagreement). These are matters that someone can get better up-to-speed on quite quickly; it's a matter of slight adjustment, and there is no evidence of a fundamentally wrongheaded approach. To the extent I retain a concern, EggRoll97's quite concise oppose (and followup response) nail it, but again it's something that's a matter of adjustment to administrative norms, not a matter of an inimical pattern of behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
148. Support On balance, I think they'd be a net positive as an admin. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
149. Support after reading objections about AfD and draftifying activity, along with candidates responses/responsiveness and the reactions from some who even raised concerns. I think the candidate is acting in good faith, I'm not convinced that draftifying is such a big problem here, and I would expect this prolific editor would learn from (or adjust to) the concerns raised. ProfGray (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
150. Support net positive. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
151. Support per the opposes. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

     ^That's the kind of support that ought to get badgered. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

     It would be nice to see no badgers, but considering what has happened in the oppose/badger section this support !vote deserves a — KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

152. Support -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
153. Support The opposition here is just ridiculous. NPP has a backlog of nearly 10,000 articles with dozens and dozens of very poor articles created every day. It's actually disheartening to see an experienced, dedicated editor subject to such criticism for literally just doing their best to make Wikipedia better. There's so many poorly sourced and poor quality articles already here - why are some editors determined to add to that? I thought RfA was supposed to have improved from its days of nit-picking witch hunts? AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

     Moving an article to draftspace actually excerbates the NPP backlog because when it moves back it has to be reviewed a second time. And in the mean time it has probably also been reviewed by one or more AfC reviewers, and since most NPPers are AfCers and vice versa, that's taking from the same pot of volunteer time.

     Regardless, I don't think many editors want new page reviewers to summarily execute other people's work for being "crappy". We have rules for draftification and rules for deletion for a good reason, and the opposition is based on the conclusion that the candidate hasn't been so consistent at following them until now. – Joe (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

     That's the thing, that's an opinion not a fact. I actually very much disagree that it makes the queue worse, and I spend more time working on the queue than most (5k+ article reviews over the past year). Also, most NPPers are not AfC reviewers, there's actually less overlap working in the areas than you might expect, despite the similar but different goals and purposes. Hey man im josh (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

     Well no, it is an objective fact one way or the other, though I'll admit I don't have enough evidence to prove my hypothesis. That is what I've long said we need to actually tackle the backlog: hard evidence on what causes it and what works in reducing it, not deletionist or inclusionst polemics or extrapolations from personal experience (however extensive that may be). But that's a discussion for another venue. Here, I just wanted to challenge AusLander on the implication that a large backlog justifies makes NPPers immune to criticism – that's an old canard. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

     Where did I suggest it made people "immune to criticism"? I'm saying the criticism in this case is wholly unfair, not that criticism is prohibited. AusLondonder (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

154. Support - enthusiastically. I find the arguments regarding draftifying spurious. I think the project is well-served by editors who focus on the quality of the content on the project, rather than the quantity. If editors feel that draftifying is "bitey", then they should work at improving the crappy articles that get moved to draftspace. Personally, when I was reviewing, I did most of my work at the back of the queue, and when I did move to the front, I tried to stay away from pages created in less than a day. However, there is nothing wrong with reviewing the front of the queue. I find the examples of their draftifying work to be perfect examples of the use of draftify. Draftify is for articles that have a chance of becoming suitable for mainspace, but in their current incarnation leave something to be desired. That was the case in each of these instances.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
155. Support with some reservations. On her merits, I think it's very likely that SL will be an excellent admin. I have bumped into her in content spots, and I have personally experienced her making an error, responding well to constructive criticism, and doing what she could to fix the mistake as quickly as possible.
     I don't have any general opposition to draftification as part of NPP, but I do think some of the examples given show some carelessness. For example, the Adelaid list that is first on Joe's list should not have been drafitified with a message of "no sources". There may have been other reasons to draftify, as we have developed a culture of valuing inline citations, and since all of the sources were old enough that at least some of the content could not possibly have been verified to them. All that said, we do need to communicate well when pushing things toward deletion.
     SL is not an admin yet, so WP:ADMINACCT doesn't yet apply, but I am disappointed not to have seen her address these concerns either in general discussion or as an answer to Q21. I still hope to see it. Either way, I have confidence in all the rest that I know about her, the strength of her overall AfD record, and the wisdom of the distinguished nominators. I hope also to signal to anyone considering adminship to go for it (I'm available as a nominator), as we need waaaaaay more admins, and it would take flaws much larger than these for me to oppose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

     I'm very happy to see an answer to Q21. After I passed my RfA, I had a short conversation with some other admins about the huge mindset shift of having the power to use the tools, as oppose to just requesting their use. I felt pretty paralyzed and over-cautious, a feeling I and others have found to diminish with time but never disappear. I think most editors with the right temperament naturally undergo the "taking on responsibility" process that SL describes in her answer, and I think there's good evidence she has the right temperament. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

156. Support Bruxton (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
157. Support – per Tryptofish, mainly. While there are valid concerns raised in the oppose section, the candidate appears to be open to feedback and willing to learn from experience, so I trust that she will be mindful of these concerns. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

     Moved to Oppose Support The G4's I brought up (three of out four of them, anyway) were pretty troutable. If what SL took from them, and the disputes over her use of the draftify tool and its automated edit summaries (thanks for turning those concerns into a referendum on draftification, everybody), that she needs to slow down because she is ultimately responsible for her edits? I'm satisfied. Supporting mostly per Firefangledfeathers, Clovermoss's comments in the general comments section, asilvering's re-affirmation, and hey man im josh. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

158. Support along the lines of the comments of GreenLipstickLesbian above Kazamzam (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
159. Support I first became aware of Editor Significa when I vetted her for the Editor of the Week award in July of '23. Nothing leads me to believe that she will be anything less than competent, focused and energetic. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
160. Support per nom —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
161. Support My review of this RFA and related links leads me to conclude the candidate has what it takes to succeed in the role. The opposes lead me to suggest that generally consensus in the areas they have concerns with is in practice more diffuse, broader, diffident, or context dependent. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
162. Support Per many others, competent and accepts feedback and learns. I think this more important than being perfect now. <humor>Though as per usual they should have done some plant article editing so I could have jumped in with support eagerly and much earlier. Why don't more candiates kowtow to this most important of all Wiki factions?</humor> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While Significa liberdade strikes me as a very conscientious editor in other areas, I've unfortunately had significant concerns about her NPP reviewing for some time. Specifically, in a little over a year she has unilaterally moved 1221 new articles to draftspace. That number alone should raise eyebrows (for context, last year's most prolific reviewer, who reviewed ten times as many articles as SL, has draftified just 332 since January) but even just sampling from the last month turns up multiple errors:
   1. Draft:List of closed railway stations in Adelaide was draftified two days ago because it had "no sources", but at the time it listed general nineteen references in line with WP:LISTVERIFY.
   2. Draft:List of Scheduled Castes in Uttarakhand and Draft:List of Scheduled Tribes in Uttarakhand were draftified because "more sources needed" but each had a reference to a government source fully verifying the list contents.
   3. Draft:Satō–Kishi–Abe family needed "more sources to establish notability" – but is there really any doubt that a family producing three prime ministers of Japan is notable? And if there is, why is it in draftspace not AfD?
   4. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky was draftified two hours after it was created, while the creator was obviously still working on it (the first edit summary was "create skeleton").
   Again, this is not a comprehensive analysis – just from clicking around in logs from the last month. Whatever you think about draftification as a general practice, contradictory or nonsensical reasons are extremely alienating to new editors and not something I would expect from any moderately experienced NPPer. If SL maintained a similar error rate with the admin tools, we could be looking at quite a lot of damage to both content and editor retention.
   Liz cautioned her about overuse of draftify back in July 2023 and received no response. I regretfully didn't raise my concerns with her directly before this RfA, but I believe I've reverted several of the individual draftifications (explaining why in the edit summary), which also could have been an opportunity for SL to course-correct. I don't know whether her continued overuse of draftify on articles that, at worst, have minor content problems, is carelessness or a disagreement with the community-established boundaries on its use, but unfortunately neither is something I can look past in an admin candidate. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   @Joe Roe, I agree that draftification can be really alienating to new editors (I'm with you, that I think it should be used much less often than it is). But I don't think these four are strong evidence for Significa liberdade being out of step with draftification norms. The caste articles and the Sato-Kishi-Abe family both just had one source; I would generally expect NPPers to take some kind of action on an article that only has one source, whether that's draftification or deletion tagging (and here I disagree with you in general - I think draftification is much less likely to alienate new editors than deletion). For the fourth one, that too appears to be a very standard draftification to me - the editor hadn't made an edit in nearly two hours, and it's one hour that is the boundary for draftification. Myself, I'm a pretty slow writer, so I don't at all like that one hour is our rule, and think it should be extended, but I can't fault SL for following that rule. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you for raising these concerns, Joe. :) Although I did not respond to Liz’s message on my Talk page, I did significantly change my reviewing practices. I will note that I received Liz's comment during my first week reviewing. Since then, I have applied all feedback received. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   @Asilvering: Even putting those aside, there is the first example – an article citing 19 sources draftified because it has "no sources". But I don't agree that the others are within community norms. The community's minimum expectations for sourcing are stated plainly in WP:MINREF and all of these articles met them. There is no policy or guideline that says that articles need to cite more than one source. It is not listed as an accepted reason for draftification in WP:DRAFTIFY or in the guidance given to NPPers in WP:NPP or any of the flowcharts included there. Based on several years of regularly patrolling NPP reviews and draftified pages, I can tell you that it is not something most reviewers do. Even after I posted my comment above, she draftified Draft:TAO (brand) for not having sources – missing the fact that another editor had removed the sources listed by the creator just a couple of hours earlier.

   And it's not just the error rate that is telling here, but how heavily SL uses draftification in general. Over the last year she has draftified 91 new articles for every 100 she has marked reviewed. That is compared to an average of 3 articles draftified for every 100 reviewed by the top 10 reviewers over the same time period. In other words, SL is draftifying articles thirty times more often than even the most active NPPers. Is that alone not evidence that she is out of step with what other reviewers are doing?

   As SL acknowledges above, she was made aware that she was exceeding the accepted boundaries of draftification within her first week of reviewing, so ignorance of the guidelines is not an explanation. So the only explanations I am left with (and SL, I do appreciate any input or correction you can offer here) are that this is carelessness, and contrary to suggestions above way beyond the level of a 'one-off mistake' (again these are five errors from the last thirty days); or that SL is applying a standard above that of written expectations of the community, which is a problem because the people who write articles only know the written standard, not SL's. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   The sources that were removed by another editor didn't mention the brand at all. I don't think it's out of bounds to draftify something like that. In its entirety it reads: Tao was a prominent brand that supplied to brands like River Island, targeting the rave scene, particularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Tao was known for its distinctive style of clothing that reflected the vibrant and eclectic culture of raves. Their designs often featured bold colors, psychedelic patterns, and historical elements. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   I recently read an article in which you were quoted on some excellent points about the need to make Wikipedia more accessible to a new generation of editors of we're going to remain relevant. Imagine you're one of those new editors. You create an article and list your sources. An hour later, someone removes all the sources, and two hours after that you receive a message saying that your contribution is not acceptable because it doesn't have any sources. Do you think you'd persevere with Wikipedia? What if the sources weren't even removed, but just ignored (is in the first example I gave)? – Joe (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   I think I would persevere, yes. I don't think this approach contradicts anything I've ever said about encouraging newcomers. I don't expect newcomers to be perfect but I also don't expect people to understand all the nuances of Wikipedia right away. Learning in draftspace can be a valuable experience and if a draft is declined by an AfC reviewer, you can read why that happens. Ideally you're getting more personalized feedback or you're asking for it if you're confused, but it's not rocket science to read these messages and figure out what you should be doing to get a different result. For the TAO draft, I think I'd realize that I need to cite sources that actually are about the subject given that the one editor removed them for that reason (saying so in the edit summary) and that's comparable to citing no sources at all (what Significa said was the issue with the draft). As for the first example, I would point out that I had cited sources and ask the person if they made a mistake or if there is something I should be doing instead. I actually had a similar interaction as a relative newcomer myself with CaptainEek when they declined one of my drafts [10]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   I actually think this is missing some meaningful context and, though they may draftify more than others, thirty times more isn't accurate. One thing to consider is that I don't think the "top reviewers" (I'm #4 on the year with over 4k article reviews) usually work from the front of the queue (we try to prioritize the back when we can and typically ask reviewers to do so). When I do work from the front of the queue my draft rate is definitely much higher. I think if the numbers were examined with this sort of thinking and context in mind (some folks clean up at the front of the queue), then they become more understandable and less eye popping. I will also acknowledge I would not have draftified everything that they did, but that's fine, Significa has shown they're willing to learn and adjust during our interactions at NPP and I've found them to be someone who does try to help and coach other editors when they can. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   You're welcome to calculate the draftification rate of a broader sample. Until then this is just special pleading. – Joe (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Well that's pretty dismissive of a reasonable point to consider. "My number is right until you prove it wrong", is that what you're essentially saying? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   That is indeed the scientific method. If there's some frustration in my response, it's because nobody in the support section is being pushed to provide rigorous statistical analysis to justify their !vote. – Joe (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   That's true, but none of the support votes made statistical claims. (And I thought the scientific method was testing a hypothesis, not believing it until it's disproven.) Levivich (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   I think you could certainly cast the claim—made by many in the section above—that SL's use of draftification is within the community norm as a statistical one. As I see it, I've at least tried to test that hypothesis, while Josh has just said "I think you picked the wrong sample for comparison" without bothering to propose or carry out a more appropriate one. But the double standard applied to oppose vs. support !votes is typical of RfA, and not really worth discussing again.

   In any case, the mean draftification rate of the five editors above and below SL in the list of top reviewers is 4 per 100 reviews. The mean draftification of a random sample of ten editors from the top 100 is 9 per 100 reviews. So we can conclude that SL draftifies articles thirty times more often than the most prolific reviewers, twenty-three times more often than her peers, and ten times more often than the average reviewer. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not going to criticize your math here but I do think that Hey man im Josh has a point. A lot of reviewers approach NPP at the front of the queue mostly (including me) and review obvious passes. If you're patrolling a lot at the back, you're left with a lot of iffy cases that people previously skipped, so I don't think an average figure is really that useful. Other people may disagree. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   I suppose you could calculate the standard deviation, which would tell you whether SL is within the normal range. But I think I've provided ample empirical evidence at this point. I could, of course, have not bothered to do so, and like others here fell back on an argument from authority: say that I've reviewed from the front, the back, the hindquarters and every other part of the queue for eight years, evaluated hundreds of requests for the NPP permission, and patrolled thousands of draftified articles, and I can tell you that whichever way you look at it SL is very quick to draftify things. – Joe (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

   Regarding the Adelaide list, I think "no sources" might be not necessarily accurate, but I'm satisfied with the draftification because the issue is that it has no *inline* sources. The sources listed are a number of general books and journal articles about the railway line (some of the references actually look irrelevant, e.g. what does "The jetties of South Australia" or a book on railcars have to do with these railways?) in question. If I was to want to verify any particular statement I would have very little idea where to begin. For this reason the article was denied AfC, and I'd tend to take being denied AfC as making an implication that the original draftification had some logic to it.

   You can make the argument that draftification is hostile to newcomers but I think that's an issue with the process, not the actions of this particular editor. Fangz (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Regarding Braden, the guidance on your linked page is "e.g. there is an under construction notice or there have been constructive edits made within the last hour". But the article in question had no such notice and there had been no edits for 90 minutes. So within the guidance provided, their action is not a mistake. This is also part of the built in behaviour of the move to draft script - it does a one hour check for new edits. Fangz (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Having inline citations is one of the good article criteria, not a requirement for all articles (see WP:GENREF). We don't remove things from mainspace because they're imperfect. If we did there'd be very few new articles left. And AfC reviewing is wildly inconsistent these days -- it's not a good barometer of anything. That article was split off from a mainspace article and should be in mainspace now.

   The guidance in WP:DRAFTNO (which I know because I wrote it) is not to draftify an article while the creator is working on it, with an hour given as a rule of thumb. This is reiterated in WP:NPPHOUR. NPPers should not be relying on automated scripts to tell them what to do. – Joe (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose I am concerned about the errors that Joe Roe raised. I can see several people querying mistakes the candidate has made on their talk page, and although they were polite, I'm unsure an administrator should be making that many errors, as it can still lead to an unpleasant ANI thread. Some problematic edits I found included tagging Château_de_Versailles, a plausible redirect to Palace of Versailles, one of the most famous pieces of French architecture, as WP:A10. I saw a similar questionable A10 tag on Shadow Cabinet of Anas Sarwar. I also found a challenged WP:G12 tag on Kick Sauber C44 (see discussion here), and I see a lot of declined WP:G4 tags, such as A. Lorne Weil. Like Joe, this is not a comprehensive deep dive into every single NPP action the candidate has made, but the amount of errors made here, combined with their intent to work on deletion, lead me to grave concerns about trusting them with the toolset. I assume I have a minority view here, and if this RfA passes, I advise SL to use the deletion tool sparingly and exercising caution, checking the full page history carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   There's quite a bit to respond to in these two comments, and Significa liberdade has told me off-wiki that she needs some time to put answers together. For now, I do want to point out that of her logged CSD G12s, that's basically the only one that was a mistag. One other one was removed by a non-admin (even though it did look to be G12 eligible), a few more were rewritten to avoid deletion, but nearly all of her G12s hit the mark. Both of the A10s were months ago (and she's avoided the mistake since), and the only way to know whether an article is G4-eligible without being an admin is to nominate it, so it's no surprise that there are some declined nominations – it's one of the reasons she expressed interest in the tools. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   Non-admins have no way to check G4 other than tagging it. I do not recommend holding a high G4 error rate against someone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   "Non-admins have no way to check G4 other than tagging it." They can see how long ago the previous AfD was, and if it has been some time, search for sources and start a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   I usually recommend a check at the Wayback Machine. It'll fail for an article that went directly from NPP to AFD and was deleted there, with no time spent non-noindexed, but does work most of the time. —Cryptic 19:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

3. I came here minded to support, but Joe and Ritchie have unfortunately swayed me, especially since the candidate expresses interest in deletion work in her answer to Q1. Should this RfA succeed, which it presently looks like it will, I wish Significa liberdade the best as an administrator and urge her to exercise great care with the tools. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose Given that my most recent interaction with Significa liberdade was the premature draftification of Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky highlighted by Joe, I find it necessary to oppose this talented candidate. As Dylan620 said, when Significa liberdade becomes an admin either now or in the near future, I urge greater caution in new page patrolling. WP:NPPHOUR allows patrollers to act an hour after an article's creation, but it does not obligate them to do so when the page shows signs of activity, especially given the vast backlog of days/months-old unreviewed articles. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 13:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   You should have disclosed that you were the author of that article. After looking at it as part of our discussion below, I disagree it was "premature." Levivich (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Sorry, figured that was clear from Joe providing the diff that indicates me as the author BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

   You've been here five years. Why did you create an article with zero sources? How was the move premature given WP:DRAFTIFY states "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is acceptable for mainspace"? AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

   As Joe noted, my first edit summary was "create skeleton." WP:DRAFTNO discourages draftification if "another editor is actively working on the article" and only gives the "Under construction" notice and one-hour timer as examples. Did Significa clearly violate policies/guidelines by draftifying? No, but I am still entitled to vote oppose if I think that editors should be applying a rule of lenity when they choose to patrol the front of the queue where the risk of trampling active editing is much higher. I hardly see how this badgering of belittling my initial edit based on my tenure is relevant to discussing approaches to draftification BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

   One question is not "badgering" by any stretch. I stand by my opinion that an experienced editor should not create new articles with zero sources. That's literally what draftspace is for. It was two hours with no sources added before the article was moved to draftspace which is entirely appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

   Your argument suggests that if a novice editor left the article that way, it would be less deserving of draftification when our consensus suggests the opposite: experienced editors can be expected to build articles knowing the need to add multiple sources. For example, WP:Drafts#During_new_page_review justifies draftification by NPP if "the page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor" (alongside other criteria), clearly contrasted against experienced editors. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

5. Oppose, reluctantly. AfD nominations such as this, this, and this, all from the last few weeks, make me worry about the candidate's due diligence in nominating for deletion. Those aren't isolated cases; going back a few months, we have 4, 5, 6, and others. I commend the candidate for promptly withdrawing her nomination in several AfDs, but many of the others could have been avoided with a proper WP:BEFORE. Combined with the opposes I see above, and her answer to Q1, I get the sense that this candidate is too eager to "clean up messes" using administrative tools, when constructively fixing the issue would be the preferred route. Again, I hate to discourage such a diligent, productive and responsible editor, but I feel like she'd benefit from another six months of honing her XfD and draftification skills. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you for bringing up these concerns, OwenX. Looking through my recent “failed” AFD nominations, I notice two patterns. First, some discussions/nominations were more contentious and policy-based, demonstrating the need for community input (e.g., discerning whether Lauren Chen was notable enough for an article prior to being indicted, which would bring up concerns regarding BLPCRIME). Second, while I do always do a BEFORE search to the extent possible, database and language barriers prevent me from conducting an exhaustive search, leading to some nominations being closed as keep based on sources I could not access. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

   Hi. Since any editor can nominate an AfD, I myself don't see this as a concern for an admin. The six AfD linked all seem to be done in good faith. I do agree that the candidates search skills (for RS sources) could be improved. Fwiw, #6 may have wrongly kept because the first comment cited a policy WP:BKCRIT #5 that does not apply (i.e., the author is not at that level of significance, which is obvious because none of his other books are blue linked). ProfGray (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

6. Oppose I'll admit I'm just generally opposed to NPP folks (or anyone else really) sending articles to draft that wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion--I just think it can often become a backdoor deletion mechanism when we have very clear rules about our deletion processes. But the particular cases listed above are concerning enough that I think things that would make it at AfD are being removed from mainspace without discussion. And that's a problem. I just wouldn't want someone who is making decisions like this to have the admin toolbox--the damage is large enough without the toolbox. As others have said, if you do get that toolbox, I'd urge you to take this feedback on board going forward. And I really think we need a discussion about just not allowing anyone to move something to draft unless either a) they are significant contributors to the article or b) the article would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   @Hobit: You're probably aware of this, but your opinion on draftification is very different compared to current community norms. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is pretty clear that anyone that has an issue with one can move the article back to mainspace. I'm not the candidate but I'm also active in NPP, so there's a lot that people consider when reviewing pages (I rarely draftity myself). That said, there's way more to consider than AfD or speedy deletion (see this flowchart). AfD can even result in a draftification (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton House Preparatory School for a recent example of that). But draftifying is not meant to be a backdoor to deletion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Yes, but A) we should require anyone moving things to draft space like this to leave a note saying "hey you can move this back". Instead people just assume they cannot and we end up driving away the newbies (but not the experienced editors who know the rules) B) I 100% agree draftification is not meant to be a backdoor to deletion. Yet it clearly is. I've not run the numbers, but I'd be happy to bet that 80%+ of NPP moves to draftspace result in deletion due to them expiring in draft space. But to your larger point, if this user were following expected norms I'd be hesitant to oppose on that basis. But they don't appear to be (per Joe Roe's statement). So that is enough of a concern for me to oppose this RfA. And, thank you for the comment, I think I wasn't as clear as I should have been and I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Hobbit. I have only looked at very recent actions, and there are some clear red flags for me regarding adminship. Looking quickly through the list of draftified articles from September, I'm seeing quite a few, for example Surf (graphics program) or Castes in Uttarakhand, which, while scarcely at featured article level certainly wouldn't be speedily deleted. I strongly disagree that the community believes stubs with significant content should be summarily draftified, and I am entirely uncomfortable with draftification being used to WP:BITE budding content creators or as a backdoor to deletion. It shouldn't be this easy to find problems with the work of an admin. Looking at their talk page, I find myself less than impressed with the interaction under "The Deep (Dunmore novel)". From what others have mentioned, this is rather a typical interaction, and although it's polite, I'm not keen on the tone and lack of time and care for a content producer. AKAF (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   It is a bit disengeous to select two of the worst written articles I've seen and then make a comparison to featured article standard, when both articles are straight copy-paste numbers that are not only unsourced but do little service the requirements of the average reader. I don't believe that a comparison can be made. They are natural draft candidates. scope_creep^Talk 09:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Neither article is (or was) unsourced. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Neither move called out no sources as the reason for draftification, but both clearly need more sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   I do not agree with mass draftification of stubs, clearly a point on which we differ, and thus do not agree that there is a "natural draft candidate" as you appear to. If the articles were "straight copy-paste numbers", i.e. copyvios, then draftification is also not the right response, but G12. Neither article was unsourced, and I do not agree on reflexively draftifying stubs rather than tagging as unsourced.AKAF (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Replying to myself, considering the term "natural draft candidate". I clicked on "random" and the first two articles were these:

   • 2021–22_Atlantic_10_Conference_men's_basketball_season
   • Urucuiana

   Each of which has a single source. Are they also "natural draft candidates"? I'm genuinely interested. AKAF (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   @AKAF: Articles older than 90 days are not eligible for draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

8. Oppose Backdoor deletion concerns makes me very apprehensive about giving this editor the power to carry out CSDs without oversight. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
9. Candidate's approach/judgement about deletion is unconvincing with several poor draftifications and CSD taggings pointed out above, not to mention recent poor AfD nominations like Tenet Media or Lauren Chen. Double Crossing doesn't inspire confidence either, though that was at least speedily withdrawn. I would expect significantly better judgement from an admin than what the candidate has shown. Sorry, but I can't support right now on this evidence. JavaHurricane 13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   While I was the one who raised the AfD issue as a reason to oppose promotion, the Double Crossing AfD is a good example of why the candidate will ultimately make a great admin. We all make mistakes. We differ in how quickly we admit and correct them. Significa liberdade withdrew that nomination as soon as she saw evidence of notability, and speedy-closed it the same day. This is exemplary of the attitude we need from an admin. As for the experience needed to make fewer such mistakes, it will surely come soon enough. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   I'd digress say otherwise. That AfD shouldn't have been started in the first place, and the failure of the candidate to do an adequate WP:BEFORE before the nomination, or lumping in over 30 articles into one AfD, simply isn't (in my eyes) the sort of judgement I'd want to see in a sysop. These are elementary errors I'd expect to see in a relative newbie in NPP, not a candidate for the mop. JavaHurricane 13:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   "Digress" means to stray off-topic, not disagree. It's usually used at the end of a tangent with "blah blah blah, but I digress [(from the main topic)]." I've made the same mistake before... but I digress. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed. I guess studying PDEs overnight can fry you brain and vocabulary... anyways, that's enough off-topic discussion. JavaHurricane 15:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

   Perhaps you... digress ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   The original answer to Q19, though since corrected, really gives me further pause. I would expect an experienced NPPer (or admin candidate looking to work the CSD queues) to have solid knowledge of the CSD criteria and be able to answer fairly straightforward questions like these on the first attempt. I hope that this was merely SL phrasing the answer badly. JavaHurricane 17:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   I strongly appreciate SL's honesty in her clarification, but lack of solid knowledge of the CSD criteria is outright disqualifying at RfA in my book. Sorry. JavaHurricane 17:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   Hi, JavaHurricane! I appreciate and recognize your concern. During my time with NPP, I have not worked directly with userspace articles and have not nominated any userspace articles for deletion. Because of this, I would contact more experienced admins on this topic before deleting an article in userspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you for the clarification. JavaHurricane 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I too share the concerns others have raised about the candidate's draftification of articles. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
11. Oppose per the deletion concerns. Yes, as OwenX pointed out, we all make mistakes. But as JavaHurricane pointed out, some of these are very recent, and they are part of a consistent pattern of poor judgement. Given that Significa stated in Q1 that her primary reason for wanting to be an admin is to deal with articles that may need to be deleted, I do not trust her with the tools at this time. I think we all see Significa as a valued contributor to the project, and I would be happy to support her in a future RFA after this issue has been properly addressed and resolved. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
12. Oppose (unexpectedly) The issues raised by Joe & Richie, of very recent cases in the exact area where the candidate intends to concentrate, are too concerning. Some more experience is needed, I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
13. Oppose I was taking a few days to consider this RfA, personally. The concerns raised about backdoor deletion are concerning, and they personally sway me over towards opposition. Non-admins cannot review deleted pages (and a recent proposal to allow such has generally petered out), so I see it as somewhat harmful to allow such a risk of inappropriate deletion. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    Are you saying they will delete articles directly from mainspace without any discussions whatsoever? This is a question based on good faith. Best, Reading of Beans 06:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    Well her answer to Question 1 starts "My primary reason for wanting to become an administrator is to use the mop to clean up messes I find rather than simply flagging messes so someone else can clean them." so it does look like she would be speedy deleting articles. ϢereSpielChequers 09:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, CSD does generally operate without discussion. The concern I have is that based on their history, the candidate does not have a track record of a clear understanding of an area they will clearly be involved in based on their responses and frequent involvement in deletion and patrolling. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

14. Oppose Absolutely perfect candidate! Wonder why they're not an admin already. I forgot about a specific incident which nearly led to the deletion of Kevin Sagra. Significa put a speedy deletion tag because of recreation against a nine-year old AFD, even though the person was notable by now. I suggest carefully looking at pages before speedy deleting them. And besides the other comments by opposers, I suggest oppose. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    That article as it stands has only two non-independent references non of which prove notability per WP:GNG. Also, as mentioned above, WP:G4 accuracy cannot be improved by "looking carefully" since Significa could not possibly have had access to the deleted version of the article to compare the sources and text present in that version. Sohom (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    Kevin Sagra is an example where you don't need to view any deleted content to know that a new AfD would be necessary. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sagra was 9 years ago and noted that he had only been in one show. The article from this year showed 11 subsequent roles in bluelinked shows, plus a mention of a band and movie. Those are obvious substantial changes, and a new discussion – including a search for post-2015 coverage – would be needed to evaluate WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. SilverLocust 💬 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    I saw multiple huge news sources, will add later. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    @SilverLocust On taking a further look, you are correct, this one of the few cases where WP:G4 wasn't the best choice of criteria. However, that's not for the reasons of the original oppose, but because there is a valid reason why new sources could potentially exist.

    @TheNuggeteer I saw multiple huge news sources, will add later. -- You should have added sources during the creation of the article and not when the notability of the article is called into question. Sohom (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

    Sohom Datta's commentary is confused at best for several additional reasons: What sources an article/draft has right this second is rather immaterial, when others can be found in seconds with any Internet search. And "could not possibly have had access to the deleted version" is wrong because Internet Archive usually has a copy, WP:REFUND can be used at any time to put the old article in one's userspace for examination (I do this all the time) unless there's a hardcore policy violation at stake (e.g. article was a copyvio or an attack page). Ultimately, when creating (or examining) a new/recent article for a subject about which an article was deleted long ago, it is not necessary to examine the originally deleted version in the first place; what is necessary is sufficent high-quality sourcing and proper writing that complies with policy now (and, as a sensibility matter, reviewing the orignal deletion discussion[s] and ensuring that the new/recent version addresses the concerns there raised). The prohibition against re-creating previously deleted content is against substantially re-creating previously deleted content, not against creating substantially new and better content that happens to cover the same subject better and within policy constraints.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

    @SMcCandlish Feel free to badger/reply to me about this in other venues/on my talk page since this RFA is coming to a close, however, as a NPP reviewer, being expected to go outside of wikipedia to search for an archived version of a article on a random website or using WP:REFUND (which might take over a day) is frankly expecting too much from a group that is pretty overburdened with a huge backlog.

    From my personal POV, if I want to check if a article potentially meets G4, I will first make sure that the new article in its current state addresses all the issue brought up in the previous AFD (which this did not, and was why I initially responded to this oppose). If this check fails, I will then go on to perform a cursory WP:BEFORE search to make sure there aren't new sources to consider. (I agree I fell short here, which I point out in my second comment). Sohom (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

15. Oppose thanks for your commitment and for stepping forward. But as those above have detailed, this candidate looks like they will be too heavy handed with the deletion button. I'd be happy to consider again in a few months if the deletion tagging improves. Perhaps a bit more work on improving articles that have potential, or just categorising new articles that start as single sourced stubs. ϢereSpielChequers 09:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    You do realize she's created 550 articles? She's also improved hundreds of articles written by other people (see her answer to question 2), which goes beyond categorizing stubs like you suggest here. I'm not sure how much more content work someone could do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

    To clarify, I'm talking about the mindset at newpage patrol. Sometimes we get patrollers who are thinking which deletion route is the most appropriate, and that's one of the paths that can lead to someone treating single sourced articles as unsourced etc. Adding categorisation as an option while doing New Page Patrol is one way to become less heavy handed with deletion tagging, as often the best option is to categorise rather than draftify or even mark as patrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 09:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

16. Oppose - based on the concerns raised by Joe and Hobit, this editor seems too deletion- and draftify-happy for extra powers to be advisable. Ingratis (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Owen. Andre🚐 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Joe Roe. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
19. Oppose. I am concerned by the issues raised here by other editors. I think this editor needs to spend more time reflecting on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and extend their knowledge and understanding. WWGB (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Joe Roe and Owen. While I appreciate that we need more admins and I hold no judgement against her as a person, the issues raised are too concerning for me to ignore. ― novov (t c) 08:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
21. Oppose - the issues shown by others, mainly Joe Roe, are concerning. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
22. Oppose The issues raised by Joe roe, and confirmed and augmented by others since, are unfortunately fundamental. SerialNumber54129 13:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
23. Very slightly opposed. (I was originally an unexplained support.) I don't expect any big problems whenever SL becomes an admin. I have some concerns about very recent CSDs, including the R2 where not all of the history was eligible for R2 (Q15), and some G4s, such as where it was not necessary to view deleted revisions to determine that G4 would not apply (see my comment above) or where a G4 had previously been declined, as should have been noticed by viewing the page history before nominating (re: List of Serie A broadcasters). See WP:CSD ("review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion"). SilverLocust 💬 00:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
24. Oppose Bad deletions hurt editor recruitment and retention, and enthusiasm for deletion processes should match discernment and judgment. Come hang out at DRV for a few months, demonstrate you've taken this under advisement, and try again. Or, if you're promoted, I strongly recommend you do it anyway to learn how not to show up there for your own deletions. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose. I went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, the overall level of experience is a bit below where I want to see it for a candidate for the bit, especially when I've never crossed paths with them in any project space and therefore can't dismiss this general concern with more particular knowledge of the candidate which may ameliorate it. That said, I have voted in support of candidates with less experience, and I was leaning towards support in this case on the basis of the candidate's fairly well-considered and re-assuring answers to most inquiries, as well as the large number of endorsements from community members whose impressions I trust. Unfortunately, after seeing some of the issues (many of them recent) that have come to light in the analysis of the candidates activities in NPP and AfD areas, I'm inclined to feel my initial concerns were justified: I just think this user needs a bit more time honing their understanding and approach before the mop is a good fit. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Joe, Owen, and others. I am concerned by candidate's zeal for deletion and would hope that an administrator would be more patient with the process. Given the candidate's responses to questions, I would say this is a "see you later" more than anything. — GhostRiver 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
27. Oppose and suggest a review of the nominee's past AfDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Crossing is simply yikes, and she has quite a few other alarming speedy keep/withdrawals. Apocheir (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

    While that mass-nom failed, as most do, the candidate later re-nominated eight of those books individually, all of which were redirected. Toadspike [Talk] 12:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Look, I don't want to pile on here: SL seems like a very nice person and useful community member--and is likely to pass regardless, so there's an argument for not doing any further quibbling. Buuuut...you do realize why that's not the most terribly re-assuring way to address the error in their approach to that AfD, surely? You're basically saying "Well eight of the thirty-one articles she nominated all in one mass nom, without apparently doing more than a slap-dash BEFORE analysis for a couple of them....eight of those thirty-one were later judged as appropriate for deletion. So, you know...only twenty-three were unambiguous errors."

    That would be kind of concerning for any candidate for the bit, let alone someone who has been particularly active in deletion/article disposition-centered areas, and wants the tools in part to put them to work in same areas. Historically, I try to stay away from the great deletionist/inclusionist philosophical debate and its war of a thousand wills, expressed daily in a dozen fora. But I'll be honest, I am a little nervous about SL utilizing the same level of attention to detail when judging AfDs and new pages as an admin, at this point in time. I feel there's an appreciable risk that we will lose some things that we shouldn't. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Hi, @Snow Rise: I completely understand the concern and how Toadspike's argument may have been taken. I wanted to add that I decided to only nominate a few of the bundled articles at a time so as not to overload AfD with 31 very similar articles. I also wanted to do a deeper search into some newspaper archives that can be a bit finicky on my devices. I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Hi, Significa liberdade--thank you for the response; it's nice to meet you. :) I think you are likely to pass regardless of whether I change my !vote, so I wish you well with the tools and the mop, and thank you for volunteering your time with them. But just to be pro forma, I'm going to make my arguments exactly as I would have otherwise; I'm sure you can appreciate the value of still having the conversation.

    With regard to "I decided to only nominate a few of the bundled articles at a time so as not to overload AfD with 31 very similar articles.", I think that can be a reasonable approach, but regardless of how you present them, every article proposed for deletion requires its own due diligence with regard to process--most especially the elements of WP:BEFORE. And, I promise I'm not seeking to be snarky here, but there's a reason that section of the AfD guidelines is named as it is. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    Snow Rise: Thank you for your reply. I certainly do not expect you to change your vote, and I don't intend to quibble. However, I will note that BEFORE also recognizes that editors do not all have access to the same resources and does not require editors to search every potential database. Rather, it includes a list of minimum searches an editor should do before nominating for AFD. In each AFD nomination discussed above, I searched for sources far beyond the minimum requirements. In the case of Double Crossing, Cunard found sources through Newspapers.com, which does not work on my devices for whatever reason, basically making it a database I do not have access to. As I stated in A21, my goal of bringing articles to AFD is to keep as many articles as possible. Sometimes, that requires further input from the community. Again, I don't mean to quibble, and I don't expect your vote to change. I just wanted to clarify. I hope you enjoy your weekend! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    But when you came back to the table with the second round of proposed deletions, you only put forth 8 out of the 31. So are you saying that, of the 23 books that ultimately proved to be notable, they turned out to only have sources on that one website that happened to be a blind spot for you? I take it for granted that not every user has to scour every database. I'm more concerned that WP:BEFORE#D is followed in general. If you tell me it was in this case, I'll believe you. But I'd equally accept and respect "Well, no maybe not completely, but I see the issue with that now."

    Because, afterall, I'm less concerned with your own history at this point (whatever has been said above, I doubt anybody is actually going to harangue you about your previous AfDs as a result of discussion here), and more concerned with making sure what your administrative actions would be if you saw a similar situation playing out. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

28. Oppose as per Joe Roe and others. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
29. Oppose as per Joe Roe and Hobit. Ciridae (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
30. Oppose per Joe Roe and a few others. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
31. Strong Oppose Copyright violations, such as poorly attributed copying from last month and promotional copyvio added to article text as of last May are disqualifying. Special:Diff/1223655817 appears to copy from [11], which is troubling due to its promotional nature, and the fact it was copied from text she didn't cite. This is a dealbreaker for me, unfortunately. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    I ran it through Earwig and doesn't look copyvio and doesn't read as WP:PROMO. I'm puzzled. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Scope creep Someday, people will rely on their own two eyes and brain rather than pointing at earwig. Especially when I give them a source.

    The Anthony Awards are among the most prestigious awards in the world of mystery writers and have helped boost the careers of many recipients - SL added this text in 2024.

    The Anthony Awards are among the most prestigious awards in the world of mystery writers and have helped boost the careers of numerous recipients. - present on the website since 2014. Not cited, so Earwig won't always pick it up.

    Now this isn't the biggest example, but it's word for word, and the claim is taken directly from the company website in a massive WP:ABOUTSELF violation. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

    I admit its not best line but its a list article and a tiny part of the article on its own. Difficult to formulate it any way as an intro sentence. Earwig did pick it up when comparing a single website url to the article. More so, it seems to be a content thing, rather than in the administrative thing. Considering the amount of work the editor has done in content work in general, I wouldn't write off somebody for a single mistake. Its almost orwellian in its consquence, when it seems inconsequential. Even something that picked up in copyedit. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

(moved) I logged in today tentatively expecting to support, but now that there are some significant opposes, I'm going to take some time to digest what they say. I'm not going to stay in neutral, and I'm still leaning towards support. But I decided to post here for now, in order to bring up a different concern. It's the answer to Q3, the standard question about conflicts in the past. I think I'm seeing a growing trend towards answers like the one given here, and I want to give some pushback against answering the question that way. Basically, the answer reads like a series of bland platitudes. So you approach it "with a level head"? If someone were to criticize a candidate with that little specificity or evidence, it would rightly be seen as an aspersion or personal attack, so we should expect the same level of evidence-to-back-it-up for things that are positive. I think an ideal answer to that standard question would include links to actual conflicts, showing how the candidate navigated the situation. If one has had enough experience to be an admin, one has unquestionably observed disagreements and formed some sort of idea about how to deal with them. I can understand how, sort of like real-life political candidates, RfA candidates might not want to get specific, but the community should expect better. Candidates should avoid vague answers, and nominators should discourage that. At some point, I might actually start opposing candidates for these kinds of answers, but for now I just want to put these ideas out there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying only people that have got into conflicts can be admins? The question says "Have you been in any conflicts..." but you say "If one has had enough experience to be an admin, one has unquestionably observed disagreements" which is totally different. Observing is not being part of, and disagreements are not conflicts. I have always found this question odd as I would expect editors that are level headed enough to be trusted as an admin to be able to avoid a disagreements becoming conflicts, but maybe the problem people are seeing this question mean different things? To me disagreements are discussions and if one side cannot persuade the other we bring in others to gain a consensus, conflicts are when things start to degrade, points are repeated, civilly breaks down and the discussion diverges from reaching any agreement. However, if some are thinking conflicts means disagreements then surely most have had numerous mundane disagreements. I have always read Q3 as basically have you lost your cool before and learnt from it, and I would really hope that many who come to RfA have not. Although I agree that it is difficult to tell someone who has not got into any notable conflicts from someone who is giving the politicians answer. KylieTastic (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll explain it this way. You can get into a conflict without having started it. You can be editing constructively, not doing anything wrong, and still have someone get furious at you. (How dare you revert my vandalism?!) And if you spend enough time editing here to be experienced enough to be an admin, that will have happened to you. If an RfA candidate has had someone post something confrontational on their user talk page, and then responded in a way that deescalated the problem, that's the kind of thing I'd like to see. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable ask. I don't think it would be very kind to an editor who showed up and said something rude to me on my talk page to put their rude behaviour in front of several hundred RFA participants. Especially not when the aim is to demonstrate that the candidate isn't going to cause conflict to develop unnecessarily. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

When I answered Q3 for my own RfA back in February, I considered (and discussed with my noms) the question of how to provide specific examples without putting editors with whom I've disagreed on blast. I also once experienced being referenced in another candidate's Q3 as someone they had a conflict with.

On the one hand, the RfA spotlight is harsh, and no one besides the candidate has consented to it, so RfA is not an appropriate venue to scrutinize anyone else. On the other, conflicts necessarily involve multiple parties, and Q3 is important.

Ultimately, I handled the situation for my RfA by listing enough examples for Q3 so as not to put too much of a spotlight on any one, and by generally avoiding directly naming other editors I referenced in Q3 and others.

Given that these mitigations are available, I'm overall sympathetic to Tryptofish's stance. The candidate's insight about nonverbals in Q3 here is fine, but the answer would have been a lot stronger with examples, and we should push for those (or seek them out in our vetting). I do think that broader discussion outside this RfA on Q3 expectations, and the balance of allowing scrutiny of the candidate while avoiding scrutiny of others, might be useful.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 07:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Tryptofish. In that case the range of ways people can interpret Q3 is even wider than I had previously been concerned about. I don't consider that I've ever been in a real conflict on here, but I've had hundreds if not thousands of vandals and promoters etc shit-post or threaten me. I would not consider it a conflict unless both parties are 'engange' in it, so maybe Q3 needs re-wording as this is not the first time this has come up. Maybe consider using your second question to ask the candidate for clarification in line with how you view conflict? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you have an idiosyncratic definition of conflict. Levivich (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you actually want people to respond to troll posts (to supposedly "deescalate")? I get nonsense threats, vandal/troll posts, etc. all the time. Why should I bother responding to them? If anything that just makes it worse. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. C F A 💬 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Well folks, I guess we are progressing from the RfA problem of badgering opposes, to badgering neutrals. Honestly, I think you are all trying too hard to find reasons to nitpick, without really engaging with the basic idea. It's unreasonable? Oh, please. Q3 has been a standard question since the Jurassic era, and we have had many, many successful candidates who answered it with specifics. Is there really no such thing as a middle ground, between a troll and being brought with good reason to ANI? Yes, of course there are times when it's best to ignore trolls, and it's hardly a personal attack on a troll to link to an example of when you ignored them. Are you all really so inexperienced in deescalation? Can't you think of times when you were working on content, and some editors wanted to do "A", while others wanted to do "B", and they were at odds, and then you suggested "C" which satisfied both sides and got consensus? Can't you think of times when you reverted someone, over something more substantive than trollish vandalism, and they were unhappy about it but you smoothed things over? As far as I'm concerned, citing specific examples is a better way to demonstrate accomplishments, than is talking in generalities. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can't you think of times when you were working on content, and some editors wanted to do "A", while others wanted to do "B", and they were at odds, and then you suggested "C" which satisfied both sides and got consensus? Sure. But isn't this what KylieTastic is talking about, regarding not seeing that as conflict? This kind of situation you're describing just sounds to me like a normal day on Wikipedia. Regarding rude and trollish comments, we can see how a candidate deals with that sort of thing by scrolling up their Talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Well of course that's a conflict, and it's deescalation. (If editors are "at odds", then they have a conflict.) And yes, it's a normal day on Wikipedia. But being the editor who comes up with "C", instead of being one of the editors who had dug in their feet for "A" or "B", is a sign of someone who knows how to navigate a content dispute. If RfA participants can find something by examining the candidate's talk page, then the candidate can also save them a step by linking to it, and, by linking to it, demonstrating how they knew what to do or not do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I just wanted you to know that the candidate is thinking about what she'd want to say here and has some things in mind. Hopefully you're willing to wait a little longer? She needs to get some rest. I just wanted to give you a heads up that your comment isn't being intentionally ignored. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, of course, no problem. I'm already leaning towards supporting, but I think the issue I raised is something that needs consideration. It's not really finding fault with the candidate (except that this particular answer ended up being so illustrative of the problem), so much as bringing up an issue with how RfA candidates should approach the process, in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, Tryptofish! In alignment with what KylieTastic mentioned, I often do not see disagreements as conflicts, and typically, disagreements I’ve had with another editor are sorted in a single response that highlights existing policy and/or explains the inner workings of Wikipedia (either by me or the other editor). However, I recall a discussion, which I will summarize for the other editor's privacy in light of asilvering's comment. I'd be happy to email you a link to it if you'd find that helpful in better understanding my approach. I noticed that an experienced editor draftified an article while it was actively being edited. I pointed them to WP:DRAFTIFY, which suggests refraining from draftification for at least an hour after the article's last edit; they responded that DRAFTIFY is only an explanatory essay. While the discussion went back and forth a few times, I asked them to clarify their position, explained my perspective and understanding, and conceded where I felt I'd made a mistake. When I felt as though an agreement could not be met, I offered to request a third opinion; a talk page watcher offered theirs, which helped clarify the situation. I hope this helps! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Everyone, not just Tryptofish, should have the opportunity to directly review the example. (A precedent of candidates self-describing conflicts without linking them just isn't workable, since such descriptions are too easily distorted.) Asilvering's perspective, while understandable, is not persuasive to me. Sdkb ^talk 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Significa liberdade, and you were as prompt as I would want any candidate to be. Although, as a matter of how the community does these things, I think Sdkb makes a valid point, and I appreciate the agreement with my concerns, I don't think it's your responsibility as the candidate to fix that problem, and I definitely do not see this as a reason to have concerns about your candidacy. I'm happy that you can cite an experience in which someone questioned what you did, and you responded in a constructive way, and even came to accept that you had made a mistake. (I also need to think about how you talked about draftifying here fits with the concerns raised by some of the editors who oppose.) I'm going to take a bit longer to think about what has been said in the oppose section, but I'm entirely satisfied with what you told me here. And I'm pleased to see that, on further reflection, other editors agree with me that we should expect some specificity in Q3 answers in future RfAs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

After receiving consent from the other editor, I feel comfortable linking to the discussion in question. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions and/or would like additional examples. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just moved to Support, and I urge those editors who disagreed with providing specific examples when answering Q3 to look at what I said there. When SL provided that link just above, I could see her asking for advice about how to avoid making mistakes in the future. And that was specific evidence that led me to conclude that she can be trusted to learn from the feedback in the RfA about draftification. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Support - sure why not? ResonantDis_tortion 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Strike pending further review. ResonantDis_tortion 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   (moved to support) I think they'd likely be a good admin, but I have run across their New Page Patrols before and had questions about the honesty of their draftifications independent of the examples already provided by Joe. For example, I decimated the article Draft:Noho Island due to copyright violations. I believe I could have had it G12-ed, but the user who created it was obviously acting in good faith, the island was clearly notable under WP:POPULATED, so I decided to reduce it to a stub and make a note that it could be expanded with Japanese language sources. One of our many location stubs. Not very good, but I'd already destroyed most of the newbie's contributions and I didn't want to destroy any more. The candidate, coming across it in the new pages queue, moved it to draft with the argument that it needed more sources to establish notability when it very clearly didn't. Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace? That would have been fair. But more sources? I'd provided a massive link to them. There were sources. Responses to this comment, negative or positive, are always welcome.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

2. Moved from support. I want to continue my support, and maybe I will go back to support, but the opposition raise good points that I feel I cannot continue my support. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

   I think the opposition is enormously underwhelming... AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

3. Neutral This will be my (third) time moving around my vote, but I've been on the fence about several things regarding draftifications in the past few days, and several strong and well-written opposes and neutrals in the last day or so have made me again change my mind. I wish you the best of luck. SirMemeGod  20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Neutral per concerns raised by Hobit and Tryptofish. Not a bad person by any means, I just hold the same concerns posed by the response to Q3 and hasty NPP work. Kline • talk • contribs 00:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Haven't thoroughly evaluated the candidate, so I don't feel confident supporting, but just commenting to say I don't find any of the oppose rationales compelling. Although I rarely use it, I think draftify gets too much heat as an option when the disadvantages of alternatives like AfD (wasted editor time) is rarely even considered. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   The alternative to draftifying an article for an incorrect reason (like not listing sources when it lists nineteen sources) isn't AfD, it's leaving it alone. What are the disadvantages of that approach? – Joe (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   crappy articles ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   ...that spread misinformation. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   The problem is that this has been happening to articles that did not contain misinformation. GrammarDamner how are things? 19:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   This one did. It stated a legal rule (Ahrens v. Clark, 1948) without stating that the legal rule had been overturned just two years later and no longer applied. No doubt the author would have added that information eventually... but they should do that in draftspace, so that readers who read it in the meantime are not misinformed. I'm glad NPP reviewers like SL are making sure this kind of misinformation doesn't stay in mainspace. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   First, I am perplexed by why you wrote "no doubt the author would have added that information eventually" when I did go on to add that information within 4hrs of the article's existence. Second, referring to this claim in a legal case's "Background" section as "misinformation" is incorrect because the claim is still true! In 1948, the Supreme Court decided the specific issue of judicial jurisdiction over Ellis Island and then distinguished its verdict in Braden, but the legal rule in Ahrens still stands. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   You did it after draftification though. Would it have been particularly bad for the article to have been returned to the mainspace after you've finished writing it? I don't think it's unreasonable to put incomplete articles that are being worked on into the draft space. (Another option would have been to use a work in progress template tag, but such tags are meant to be used by the editor in question) I would personally regard an article as mainspace (as opposed to draft) if it's fine if the original editor walked away from it and never edited it again and it only got picked up by some other editor a year later. Fangz (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not sure why Levivich said this. Ahrens v. Clark was not overturned just two years later, at least not according to anything that I can find. There was no misinformation in that article. Even if there had been, that's completely missing the point. Nobody is saying that all of Significa's draftifications or AfD noms were bad. GrammarDamner how are things? 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   "But developments since Ahrens have had a profound impact on the continuing vitality of that decision. First, in the course of overruling the application of Ahrens ... Congress has indicated that a number of the premises which were thought to require that decision are untenable. A 1950 amendment to the habeas corpus statute ... 28 U.S.C. § 2255."

   That's from the text of the court case (Braden) that is the subject of the Wikipedia article I linked to. That Congress amended the law in 1950 to (at least partly) overrule the 1948 Ahrens decision is not mentioned in our article about Braden, even though it's the first thing the Braden court talks about, and even though the court described it as having a "profound impact." The first reason given by the Braden court for not following Ahrens is Congress partly overturning it in 1950, but that's not mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

   Bottom line: I agree with SL's draftification of this article (and disagree with it being returned immediately to mainspace). Levivich (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Bottom line: I also agree with many of Significa's draftifications and AfD noms, but that doesn't change the fact that she has made too many mistakes to be given deletion tools at this time. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   You don't know how many mistakes she's made. Oppose if you want to, but don't act like you've done a thorough audit of her patrols and have calculated an error rate to determine if her mistakes are "too many" or not. (Just like you haven't fact checked the articles she's draftified and thus don't know how much incorrect information they had.) (Neither have I of course, neither has anyone else.) Levivich (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   We've seen more than enough, and many of them were very recent. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   No, we haven't. You keep doing this thing: you're welcome to have an opinion, but don't state your opinion as fact. I haven't seen many errors at all; I've looked at what other people call errors, like the specific draftificatons, etc., and I don't think they were errors, I agree with them. So, "we" have not seen more than enough, you have, and you're welcome to your opinion, but it's a minority opinion. As CM said to you below, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   I did not include Congress' 1950 amendment to the habeas corpus statute because it did not directly address Braden's issue of whether the federal district court overseeing the sentencing state court has the jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus. Thus, my choice to exclude this minor prong of the decision hardly qualifies as "misinformation" because the verdict in Ahrens was never overturned. Perhaps I could have included the "Under construction" template, as suggested by Fangz, but I was operating under the understanding that the detailed NPP flowchart only authorizes draftification if a Google search does not return reliable sources. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   The NPP flowchart isn't a wikipedia policy or guideline so it doesn't really authorise or unauthorise anything. There's an unfortunate lack of policy or guideline on the use of draftification. Even WP:DRAFTNO is explicitly not a policy or guideline and it's "reasons to move" are written as not exhaustive. I think if a google search suggests reliable sources do not exist that would be a reason for deletion, not draftification. The fact that the movetodraft script includes "needs more sources" as a rationale selectable by checkbox would induce users to believe this is a valid reason to make such a move. Yes - policy by javascript is rather silly, but hence my point that the real culprit is the lack of clear policy. Fangz (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Well, the objection is that there doesn't seem to be a clear identified pattern of bad draftications. The particular drafticiations (which I'm supposing represent the worst of their behaviour) that are brought up as problematic seem *arguable* at least, perhaps overly harsh sometimes but within the (very vague) guidelines given and do not seem to have caused any harm. If these examples of bad behaviour seem weak, there's not a lot of evidence there to oppose, especially if we are trying to argue that given admin powers, SL would have Speedy Deleted these articles instead. In the Braden case SL accepted the return to mainspace without moving to AfD the article. I find it very hard to believe SL would have speedy-deleted. Fangz (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   I will say there looking in the draft log there's possible examples in the past where there is issues where moving to draft might have had negative consequences where (inadvertent) "backdoor deletion" may have resulted. But I regard that as issues with the drafting process and not a failure on SL's part. Fangz (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Not every time, but regular reviewers will typically tell you that draftification and AfD are often alternative options to one another. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

   The disadvantage is that an article can be abandoned in a poor quality state. Once an article passes NPP the likelihood of it being looked at by someone with experience reduces and a NPPer has no idea what the intentions of the article creator is. The only other avenues to communicate that "the present quality of the article is not acceptable" would be AfD (which is over the top) or jamming on a dozen or so citation needed etc tags. I'd tend to think draftification is less hostile than the latter (especially because as per Wikipedia:DRAFTOBJECT an editor can just unilaterally disagree and undraft) and it takes less time, so why not do it? Also wikipedia as a community has had a pretty poor record of actually addressing citation needed and fact tags (some of which have endured for DECADES) so draftification is useful in terms of compelling action. Fangz (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

6. Support. Clearly can make good use of the tools and has the correct temperment to be entrusted with them. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn with regret. Regardless of the outcome here, I do hope that the nominee takes the above advice into consideration in their use of the tools moving forward. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
7. I'm landing here at neutral leaning oppose. My thoughts are similar to SilverLocust's up in the oppose section. (I actually edit-conflicted with him yesterday trying to reply to this comment, about how almost all of Kevin Sagra as of its G4 tag was about things that happened after the AFD, and how challenges of G4s where the AFD is more than three or four years old are almost always successful at WP:DRV.) I'm not entirely happy with the answer to my Q15 followup; I'd have accepted something like "ack, I missed that version in the history" - after all, everyone, everyone makes mistakes, what's important is how you deal with them - and the newish user's parallel version in draft turns out to have been the result of some not-great advice. But then, an admin actually deleted the redirect anyway, so yeah. You'll probably do as an ok as an admin, but please be more careful; and try to remember that, unlike page protection and even blocks, there's no such thing as an entirely uncontroversial deletion (I've had G7's, of all things, blow up in my face), if only because most users can't review exactly what you did. —Cryptic 02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
8. Neutral I think there's a separate conversation to have about how the draftification process might be improved to not be alienating to newcomers. But I don't think an editor should be castigated for using a wikipedia process for the reasons it is intended to be used for (to allow time, eyeballs and space to improve articles), even if different users have different tastes as to which processes they prefer to make use of and how. The movetodraft script is relatively new, so some users will use it much more often than others and make more mistakes. Sometimes the candidate might have made marginal decisions or mislabelled reasons, but I think the guidance about when draftication is to be used is pretty unclear and not very concrete. I think the candidate has acted in good faith in the examples I've looked at. Fangz (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you for basically writing my thoughts out for me. Toadspike [Talk] 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, I would be in favour of (a) trying to remove the stigma around moving an article to draft and (b) having firmer guidelines about when it is desirable and when it is not. I think it's an useful tool that we should probably all use more often. Fangz (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

9. Thought this over and decided to put my oppose comment in the neutral category. This will close as successful soon, and I'm content to leave this here and hope the candidate takes the opposition's comments on board, even if they're in the minority. More or less per Joe, Hobit, Owen, etc. Misuse of draftspace is a personal bugbear, but what I find more objectionable are admins content to look the other way or even condone improper draftification. I've just talked to too many new users over the years who lost their enthusiasm or gave up on the learning curve when their attempt to contribute gets zapped by someone who just drops a template on their user page. I know NPP and deletion-related activities are important, often thankless tasks, and that everyone's a critic. I also know there aren't enough reviewers/participants, which means it's hard to spend a lot of time and personalization on each one. But, and I can't emphasize this enough, that time you spend on a review and interacting with the author will typically be that newbie's most salient interaction and play a huge role in shaping their understanding of this place. I want reviewers to understand that, but I really want admins to understand that, and to understand that evidence like Joe presents is a problem when they see it in other people's logs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
10. Neutral I cannot recall interacting with the user. They are fairly new and this meant our peak times never crossed, so I won't hold it against them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Putting my name down as a WP:MONITOR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ! There's a place up top where you can add your signature as monitor :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Neat; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  The best kind of lizard! Polygnotus (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• What happened to waiting a day to !vote? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @L3X1, the trial is over, so we're back to the status quo ante for now. -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @L3X1: that was a trial run that expired at the end of the last RfA. Feel free to weigh in on it! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  thanks, y'all ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  very nice to see you again L3X1! —usernamekiran (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• HouseBlaster, you're a genius. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you :) People can express their thanks by supporting this fantastic nominee. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• How did I manage to be the first non-nominator commenting on this, especially when theleekycauldron and Clovermoss are two of my favourite users? I never thought that they are both nominating Significa liberdade and that I (just about) secured first place! It's nice to see them both here. I managed to even write at least a full sentence on both the comment and the edit summary! Good thing I refreshed by watchlist page. It's my luckiest time ever at RfA and Wikipedia! JuniperChill (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Another thing is that leek is a plant, so is a clover, and so is a juniper. Three plants were the first three votes. Interesting. JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose count is broken at Template:Rfx report. NotAGenious (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, I think. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

---

FYI, WP:CENT is down, so this RfA (and other centralized notices aren't being advertised per usual. SerialNumber54129 17:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129. Is it still down? Is there a link to a discussion somewhere about fixing it? I'd be interested in helping to fix it if it's still down. T:CENT is displaying a link to RFA for me though so appears to be working for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: It's a bit odd. I saw a comment to that effect ("CENT being down") elsewhere, and true, it wasn't (and isn't) showing for me. I've checked my prefs; no restrictions on banners etc. Unfortunately, I can't for the life of me find the original discussion/comment, as I think I just read it rather than comment. SerialNumber54129 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• I think reasonable people can disagree about many things (whether that's draftification or other aspects of the project). I think Significa Liberdade is thoughtful, cares a lot about following current community norms and policy, and is here to build an encyclopedia. I wouldn't have offered to nominate her if I didn't believe that. I do ask people that are on the fence to consider that Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation is in the works. I think she should be given a chance to prove that she can be a good admin. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• I am not sure if I'll !vote in this RfA but I do want to make a general comment regarding our current draftification practices since draftification is a topic of substantial concern in the Oppose section here. The WP:DRAFTOBJECT section of Wikipedia:Drafts states that "Other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD." However, the standard page notice about a page having been draftified, Template:Uw-articletodraft, makes no mention whatsoever about the existence of this right to object to draftification or how to exercise it. IMO, this is a significant problem that needs to be remedied since newer (or even many more experienced editors) usually have no idea that they can object to a page they created having been draftified. By contrast, both the PROD and Speedy Deletion notification templates clearly specify how to raise an objection. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in this trainwreck discussion on the Village Pump from this past May (and June, and July) about exactly this issue. —Cryptic 13:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I do agree that we as a community could do better and be more clear about draft space being optional. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• Just as a general observation and not looking at anyone in particular... When doing NPP and coming across an article with lack of evidence of notability and/or inadequate referencing, one has the options of draftifying it, requesting speedy, or starting an AfD discussion (assuming that the reviewer doesn't want to research the subject and develop the article further, which is of course possible but not really what the reviewer is there for). In my experience, if you draftify, someone will squeal and tell you in no uncertain terms you should have gone for deletion instead. And if you go for deletion, you will get heat for not draftifying. (Also, if you request speedy, you'll be told you should've gone for AfD, and v.v.) I think the technical term for this is "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't". --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  And if you go for deletion, you will get heat for not draftifying. Nobody should probably be doing this, considering WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Sure, draftification is something that can be tried. But if it gets even a single objection, AfD it is. So it seems AfD is the more "official" process. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that Significa has been starting AfD discussions for articles that did not have a lack of evidence of notability and/or inadequate referencing. GrammarDamner how are things? 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  And on that front, I agree with the general principle I heard from MB at his RFA (god rest his account after that crapshoot): WP:BEFORE is a great thing to try and follow, but making a stray bad nom to AFD here and there isn't the end of the world. It's a community process, and it puts more eyes on the article to determine things like sourcing and notability. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  As Significa has already stated in this discussion, she does do a BEFORE before her AfD nominations. I object to GrammarDamner's statement that she did not do her due diligence and that these articles did not have a lack of evidence of notability and/or inadequate referencing. I think all her AfDs were worth a discussion and I'd argue that Aaron Liu's and ScottishFinnishRadish's support votes are good at explaining why that is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I did not state that Significa did not do her due diligence. Perhaps you are confusing my statement with OwenX's. Looking at Significa's AfD nominations, it is clear that she puts a lot of time and effort into them. The problem is that she still too often nominates articles that aren't even worth discussing. You may object, but that won't remove the notability nor the references from the articles mentioned by other editors in the oppose section. GrammarDamner how are things? 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't confusing your statement, I was just disagreeing with the conclusion. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't had *too* many complaints (I count two in my talk page archives, but there may be more somewhere), although I draftify frequently. This is probably because I almost only draftify when there are no sources or severe promotional text problems, not for notability issues. Cremastra (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Significa liberdade's (SL) use of draftify was discussed in the oppose section; the use of draft might be one of the least jarring actions a new page patroller can make. I try not to make unforced errors when doing new page patrol, but it has happened. Oddly enough, earlier this year SL advised me about my alacritous draftification at NPP. SL was right and I took their advice. Above, editors are advising SL about other deletion-related mistakes while patrolling. I hope that SL will speak to the concerns. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• Oppose - The use of draftify to the degree it has been is very off putting to new editors, wait until the experience grows and come back in future having addressed the concerns raised here. The ‘it will fix with experience‘ arguments are bad as it assumes experience leads to corrections when it can lead to entrenchment. The corrections need to demonstrated first. LawNerd123 (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because editors must be extended-confirmed (30 days and 500 edits) to cast a numbered !vote (WP:RFA#Expressing opinions), I have moved this one to the general comments section. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)