Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToBeFree: Difference between revisions

ToBeFree

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (108/1/2); Scheduled to end 18:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

ToBeFree (talk · contribs) – When it comes to candidates for adminship, there are essentially two types: editors who basically appear to be everywhere and whose names pop up all the time, be it in a positive or negative manner. And editors who quietly do the most important work of keeping the whole thing running behind the scenes, those who eschew the spotlight and internalize the reason why the symbol for adminship is a mop and not a microphone or a quill.

Tobias (ToBeFree) certainly belongs to the latter group. He has been for a long time constantly and tirelessly wikignoming in the background to ensure that readers can find what they need and other editors are free to create without having to deal with those troublemakers this project unfortunately attracts. Work, that has earned him a lot of deserved praise from other editors over the years and has allowed others to concentrate on building an encyclopedia without having to divert time and attention to fighting vandalism.

But Tobias is not only a keen and capable vandal fighter, he also helps out behind the scenes. Whether it’s updating Huggle’s configuration or workshopping ways to make instructions of project pages easier to understand, Tobias is always happy to help out by doing more than just pressing some buttons. He also is willing to help out new and experienced users alike - always in a friendly, clueful and helpful manner.

So if you are interested in adding a new admin into the ranks who embodies the spirit of the role, i.e. that admins are essentially Wikipedia’s custodians and janitors and who has demonstrated that they will do a drama-free job helping the project, I encourage you to support this request. Regards SoWhy 17:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Co-Nomination

I first started noticing ToBeFree after running across his prolific AIV reports. The requests he makes at places like AIV and RfPP are consistently good, and I know that when I see a report from him I can rely on it to be actionable. ToBeFree also has a good sense for what needs revision deletion, and he frequently makes requests for revdel, which are always careful and considered. He seems to have a good eye for the different criteria, and I am always impressed at how thorough he is: more than once he has caught something that has been missed. I've also seen a number of his oversight requests, and he seems to have appreciation for the often-difficult nuance between RD and OS.

At his core, though, Tobias is a fundamentally humble editor with a wonderful temperament. He is upfront about his mistakes and is always trying to learn from them. He is kind and considered when interacting with other editors, and is immensely helpful: his talk page archives make it abundantly clear that he is always gracious, even when dealing with problematic editors. He gives out a lot of of advice on COI work, which is doubly admirable, as it's not only a particularly thorny area of policy, but often attracts a particularly thorny type of editor. ToBeFree groks the complexities involved, and has a real ability for respectful and helpful discussions with editors. SoWhy has already said this better than I could, but these are exactly the traits that make a good sysop. He's got the judgment, he's got the experience, he's got the temperament; if he had the toolset, this place would run that much more smoothly. I hope you'll join me in supporting him here! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily accept this nomination. I have never been compensated for my contributions, am not being compensated for my contributions, and will never accept compensation for my contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: When patrolling recent changes, I often stumble upon situations that require administrative intervention. I would like to be able to delete clear copyright violations, and help with page protection and blocking when needed. I'd also be willing to offer the same help at CAT:RD1, RFPP and AIV if there is a backlog of requests.

Very rarely, I stumble upon a need for history merging; I may be interested in answering history merge requests as well.

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

A: Of all contributions, having translated Alte Brücke (Frankfurt) and Fortification of Frankfurt from German probably benefits the largest amount of readers, permanently. That said, my second most important contribution to Wikipedia is maintaining the quality of thousands of articles by reverting biased additions, original research and vandalism. Together with other recent changes patrollers, I make sure that Wikipedia can remain an open, freely editable encyclopedia. Most edits are useful, and it would be a shame to prevent mostly good edits from happening. The only alternative to a volunteer clean-up team would be permanent protection of all articles and the end of Wikipedia as we know it.

Behind the scenes, I have renovated Huggle's menus in May 2018, and I will have noticeably reduced the size of instructions at WP:RFPP when the technical process at WT:RFPP#Reduce_size_of_instructions (permanent link) is finally done.

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: I had once maintained a log of my worst edits at User:ToBeFree/Controversial edit log, but I have since stopped beating myself up. I frequently interact with other editors; maintaining encyclopedic quality is not a hit-and-run task. The most incivil thing I have ever done is quoting someone else's personal attack in April 2018 (permanent link). I have dealt with it by apologizing to the attacked user and learning from my mistake. In hindsight, regarding all the various mistakes in the log, I believe that having made and learnt from errors is better than never having been in controversial situations.

---

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

Additional question from ToBeFree

4. Will you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If so, under what criteria?

A: I have copied this question by Levivich from GermanJoe's RfA because I'd like to point to my recall page at User:ToBeFree/recall. It is a rough translation of the German Wikipedia's recall criteria, taken from de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl. The procedure exists since 2009, with 227 recalls resulting in 46 voluntary resignations, 48 desysops for not starting an RfA, 55 failed RfAs and 78 successful RfAs.^[p] The amount of users required for a successful recall may seem high, but nothing prevents me from accepting criticism below that threshold, and a link to the recall page will be clearly visible to extendedconfirmed editors on my user page. I also explicitly allow others to link to my recall page during noticeboard discussions.

Adminship is justified by community trust; the community needs to have a way of dealing with a loss of justification.

Additional question from AnUnnamedUser

5. As a sysop, how do you plan to involve yourself in high- to medium-profile disputes between Wikipedians?

I hopefully won't, especially not as a sysop. As SoWhy has nicely noted, I eschew such spotlight and prefer to avoid drama. There are some other pitfalls to watch out for, too, such as the "sensitive IP addresses" I personally would avoid blocking.

That said, I'm human, errors do happen and there is never a guarantee not to be suddenly involved in unwanted drama. I will be accountable for my actions, I will stay calm during disputes, and I promise never to bury my head in the sand after having made mistakes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

6. Someone copies and pastes material from an elementary school's website to create its article. Which criterion/a for speedy deletion apply(ies), and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: I assume we are talking about a mainspace article, noting that such creations are now less common due to WP:ACPERM, requiring mainspace article creators to be autoconfirmed. The more common case will probably be a draft creation, to which all the "A" speedy deletion criteria (ACSD) do not apply.

As an elementary school is an educational institution, it is explicitly exempt from WP:A7, "no indication of importance". The article likely lacks neither context nor content, has nothing to do with other Wikipedia languages, is not a musical recording, does hopefully not duplicate an existing topic and was clearly not "invented": ACSD do not apply.

The page likely qualifies for a WP:G12 copyright infringement deletion. Exceptions exist: If the website content is available under a compatible license, I will fix the lack of attribution instead of deleting the text.

When in doubt, I ask other administrators for a second opinion. If the page is already listed in CAT:G12, I can simply ignore any doubtful request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Reyk

7. What, in your opinion, is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?

A: My personal favorite is the verifiability policy. Neither original research nor biographies of living persons would need to be addressed by separate policies if all content on Wikipedia was verifiable, and if all material "challenged or likely to be challenged" had a reliable inline citation "directly supporting" the statement. Even concerns about undue weight, part of the neutral point of view policy, are already mentioned in the "WP:ONUS" section of my favorite policy.

That said, having separate policies for complex issues does seem to be a good decision. There seems to have been a large discussion about this in 2007, at WP:Attribution/Poll: An attempt to merge two of the core content policies has failed. Issues such as the Seigenthaler biography incident must be prevented, and the verifiability policy alone did not fulfill this need. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Interstellarity

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

A: Probably not. I personally believe that, with few exceptions that require privacy or accountability, requests for administrative action should be made on central noticeboards. The relevant noticeboard is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Especially off-Wikipedia requests for administrative on-Wikipedia action can lead to severe issues. Deleted pages are invisible to non-administrators for various reasons; privately relaying non-public information from deleted Wikipedia pages raises red flags in my mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Ritchie333

9. I had a look at your contributions, and your most edited article, Fortification of Frankfurt concerns me, because there is a maintenance tag on it. Do you intend to address the issues in this tag, and if not, why not? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The maintenance tag on the current revision of the page is "{{Overly detailed}}". The article size guideline mentions "> 100 kB" as a rule of thumb for articles that Almost certainly should be divided. The article currently has a size of 113,965 bytes, which clearly exceeds the recommended size. However, the same guideline also explains that there is "no need for haste in splitting an article".

Wikipedia is a community project: The German Wikipedia community wrote the original article, I translated it, and the English Wikipedia community is now welcome to mercilessly edit the translation to improve its quality. Of all possible issues, containing too much content is perhaps the most luxurious one for an article to have. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction: As kindly pointed out by Alanscottwalker on my talk page (diff), I mixed up "readable prose size" and "markup size" here. The prose itself is in the "Probably should be divided" region of the article size rule of thumb. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

10. A brand new user, with the name WomensHistoryResearch creates an article. It reads, verbatim : "Mary Gwendoline Emmott was an important and distinguished member of the British Aristocracy<ref>The New Extinct Peerage 1884-1971, book by Heraldry Today 1972</ref>." There are currently no edits from any other user. What actions, if any, would you take? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The source appears to exist, and it appears to be available at University and State Library Düsseldorf. I could probably travel there within the next seven days, verify the citation and perhaps even create an article, but I hope this will not be a requirement for your support.

The text may not be written from a neutral point of view, but it may be a "claim of significance" with the necessary credibility to avoid deletion per WP:A7. Note that I personally am not interested in performing such deletions; I have no experience with A7.

Perhaps the sentence was taken 1:1 from the cited book. Removing "n important and distinguished" from the text and sticking to the facts* may be sufficient to solve a plagiarism issue, if present. Alternatively, to temporarily preserve the claim of significance, it should be properly marked as a quotation.

To answer your original question, I won't take any action, neither as editor nor as sysop. Perhaps I'll curiously verify this specific citation one day.

PS: Wondering where the question comes from, may I curiously ask if you own a copy of the book and plan to write an article about her?

*explanatory supplement ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: As mentioned in my answer to question 6, a "brand new user" can't directly create an article; all "A7" concerns are irrelevant if this happened in the draft namespace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

11. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: The normal way for the community to delete a page is reaching consensus in a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion criteria have been introduced to deal with clear, likely uncontroversial cases, but administrators should err on the side of caution. Appealing to the literal wording of the criteria may be reasonable when refusing to take action, as administrators are never required to use their tools. Doing the same to justify controversial action may be seen as an attempt to game the system.

A proper deletion discussion is preferable to a dramatic speedy deletion dispute with an overzealous administrator – both for the complainant(s) and the administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

12. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: To me, the word "ignore" in WP:IAR seems to be more related to "ignorance" than to "ignoring". It is neither possible nor expected of anyone to memorize and understand all policies and guidelines before starting to edit. In rare cases, knowingly and carefully taking an otherwise discouraged non-administrative action may result in an improvement. When my attempt to remove unreliable references from the Arabic Wikipedia according to their verifiability policy was blocked by an edit filter (log), I autoconfirmed myself with their "ignore all rules" policy and the technical requirements (1, 2) in mind. I did not knowingly violate any policy, but I knew that my maintenance would raise eyebrows. The edits have been reviewed and appear to have improved the articles.

The question is about the "place"; I'd like to focus on the "result". The result of administrative breaches of process can be severe drama, many disgruntled editors and no actual resulting improvement. As you have explained in 2006,

Action outside of process is particularly dangerous when it involves powers restricted to administrators, or knowledge available only to long-established editors. This tends to create at least the impression of a caste system. No one wants to be on the bottom of a caste system, and such perceptions reduce the motivation for people to contribute.
— Wikipedia:Process is important, revision 2006-01-09T16:21:55

Administrators serve the community; they do not exercise sovereign power. Knowingly ignoring the community's policies is likely a breach of confidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from DBigXrayᗙ

13. In response to Q1, you have said "I would like to be able to delete clear copyright violations". Please elaborate what/where/how you intend to do it? And why were you unable to do it thus far?

A: I usually stumble upon clear copyright violations when patrolling recent changes; these violations occur in existing articles and qualify for revision deletion (RD1). Only administrators and oversighters can perform revision deletion on the English Wikipedia:

• Technically: Search for "deleterevision" on Special:ListGroupRights
• Per policy: See the lead section of WP:Revision deletion

A non-comprehensive list of my copyright infringement deletion requests can be found at xtools:autoedits-contributions/en.wikipedia.org/ToBeFree?tool=revdel. If I see correctly, all of them have resulted in administrative action. There recently has been a discussion at User_talk:ToBeFree#Tupperware (permanent link) about a less clear case that resulted in revision deletion nonetheless. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC) (expanded to answer the last part of the question 21:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC); grammar improved 23:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC))

Additional question from Dolotta

14. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?

A: As correctly noted in the Oppose section, I currently lack the required experience to close AfD discussions as an administrator. An interesting mistake was nominating Moyna High School for deletion. While WP:NSCHOOL and Special:PermanentLink/767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability seem to confirm my initial reasoning, it turned out to be incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from LPS and MLP Fan

15. Having see you fight vandalism well, do you intend to take on more anti-vandalism work (i.e., blocking vandals and protecting vandalized pages)? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A: This is very kind, thank you. Carefully adhering to the blocking policy and the protection policy, I do intend to do this when necessary. It is especially important to keep in mind that blocks should be preventative, and that needlessly applying page protection is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Robert McClenon

16. Do you have any experience in resolving content disputes between editors, and do you have any experience in dealing with conduct disputes?

A:

• I'd like to point to a negative example first: When I was invited by LegoBot to a discussion about name sorting, I left a comment that, in hindsight, was unnecessarily polarizing and may have added fuel to an unnecessary fire. The matter later went through the dispute resolution noticeboard (permanent link) and ANI (permanent link), finally resulting in a request for comment at WT:MOS, where I provided a more productive comment.
• One of my first discussions about a content dispute, in April 2018, can be found in my user talk page archive (permanent link); parts of it appear on the corresponding article talk page. The discussion between a lawyer and me about a biography of a living person seems to have made a positive impression, resulting in a "barnstar for diplomacy".
• From June to July 2018, almost lasting for a month, there has been an interesting discussion about autobiographic edits. I took the time to explain an administrator's actions to a surprised person who had edited their biography since 2009, never having been made aware of our autobiography guideline for almost 10 years. The discussion ended with a third opinion requested by me on the third opinion noticeboard, confirming my explanations.
• In July 2018, a paid editor messaged me about my edits to Liferay, an article I had stumbled upon in April while patrolling edits using STiki. The discussion can be found at Special:PermanentLink/861615839#Liferay_Article; my discussion partner later thanked me with a barnstar.
• A {{help me}} request drew my attention to a biography's talk page in March 2019. Other editors had already discussed a lack of paid editing disclosure two weeks ago, and the paid editor was looking for further advice. I removed verifiability and neutrality issues, replaced the maintenance tags by specific guidance and provided advice that seems to have been well-received.
• In August 2019, I provided detailed, calm advice via #wikipedia-en-help to defuse an imminent edit war at Duckhorn Vineyards. This has resulted in a discussion at Talk:Duckhorn Vineyards and laudation on my talk page. In the end, as the conflict of interest turned out to be too severe, I carefully ended the dispute.

Disputes about conflicts of interest, especially undisclosed paid editing, always are about a mixture of content and conduct issues. However, I am neither experienced with, nor interested in, resolving conduct disputes between experienced editors at ANI or DRN.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (expanded 21:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC))

Additional question from Coffeeandcrumbs

17. Familiarity of content policies appears to be crux of any opposition to this RfA, can you assuage my fears by describing (or fixing or tagging) any and all issues you see in the article Ingo Maurer?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support - Seems like a no brainer, will do great with the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
2. As co-nom. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Noticed good work by this user. The endorsement of the two noms suggests they're a good candidate for RfA and will be a benefit to the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Support - I've had this uncreated RfA on my watchlist for a while now, and it is a delight to see it finally created. ToBeFree is phenomenally productive, and I can't wait to see that extended into admin work as well. MarginalCost (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
6. Support, do not see any issues--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
7. Support, never had any issues with them before. I think they can be trusted with the tools.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
8. Hand 'em the mop Long have I seen TBF gnoming around, and am thus very excited to see them here. They have much use for the tools, and will use them well. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
9. Support. I kinda just already assumed you already were an admin. Let's fix that! Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
10. Support I find no problematic issues. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
11. Support definitely. I've had nothing but good experiences with them, and I they're more than sufficiently trustworthy and experienced. Vermont (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
12. Support - can't say I've had much interaction with TBF, but he seems like a good candidate, and I'm not seeing any reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
13. Support more than well-qualified. Content is a bit underwhelming, but the amount of edits in the mainspace is not frighteningly negligible and his experience with various brooms makes him very qualified for the mop. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Make it a strong support given his understanding of SIP on Q5. I was considering asking about that as a sort of trick question but felt that that would be too cruel; his prior knowledge of such a relatively niche area of policy makes me even more confident that he knows what he's doing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
14. Support. Excellent countervandalism work. — Newslinger talk 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
15. Support - He's helped with the technical issues that I didn't know about. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
16. Support precious fighting vandalism --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
17. Support, good work, no red flags. —Kusma (t·c) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
18. Extremely happy to support. Suggested this a while ago, and I’m glad this is coming to fruition. Kind, sane, and helpful user with a clear need for the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
19. Support- I've never seen anything concerning from this user and the answers to all the questions so far, including mine, are excellent. Reyk _YO! 21:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
20. Support- trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
21. Support - great editor and I've had good interactions with them in the past. No question in my mind. I don't see the small number of page creations as an issue. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
22. Support - Two very active continuous years at WP (23K+ edits in both 2018 and 2019). 53K total edits, 40.6% to mainspace. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Another 11,500 edits at Commons. Pretty easy call here, it seems to me. No concerns. Carrite (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
23. Support thank you for putting yourself forward. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
24. Support – Like others, I have seen this editor around and have good impressions about their work and temperament. Good answers to questions. I like the recall criteria as well. – Levivich 21:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
25. Support - I see a multitude of talent, ability and potential in this candidate. Becoming an admin does not prevent one from creating articles although fighting vandals can be time consuming. I watched him play the piano, and if the quality of his typing is a fraction of what he can do on a piano keyboard (which also requires a good memory and focus), I see unlimited potential and no reason to not let him apply his talents in the areas SoWhy mentioned above. Amory's presentation of him was equally as impressive. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
26. Support - No doubt. S0091 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
27. Support - Seems kind and competent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
28. Support - Has a clue. Kb03 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
29. Support - Excellent answer to Q10. I worry if people focusing on anti-vandalism have got the right empathy skills to work with newbies as well, especially if they've got the bit, and this alleviates any concerns. Basically, to answer the counter-question, if I can't work out how good somebody is going to be as an admin, I randomly search for an example of a subject that probably isn't notable, but not immediately speedyable either, which there are several possible things an admin could do, to get an idea of how they think. I poked around on The Peerage and came across this. FWIW, I would probably look for sources, ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, or if somebody else AfD'ed it (which wouldn't be unreasonable), I would !vote "redirect to Alfred Emmott, 1st Baron Emmott", her father. (PS: Have you seen me play the piano?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
30. Support - I think they will help even more as administrators than they already do. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
31. Support SoWhy's nomination statement expresses where I hope new admins to come from: quiet excellence in the background. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
32. Support. Good answers to Q6 and Q10. Has the necessary combination of technical skill (plus humility to know current knowledge boundaries), and even temperament in applying it. Britishfinance (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
33. Support I have skimmed through its edits. All looks good to me. Josephine W. (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
34. Support good chance will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
35. Support I don't see any significant reason not to, and many reasons to support! Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 00:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
36. Support. Fully qualified. -- œ^™ 00:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
37. Support - is very knowledgeable about policies and procedures, and is unfailingly kind, courteous, understanding and helpful towards new users through his tireless work on the IRC help channels, even when those new editors have extreme conflicts of interests. SoWhy puts it well in their nomination statement with the comment [ToBeFree] embodies the spirit of the role. He has a clear need for the tools, so let's give them to him. stwalkerster (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
38. Accurate AIV reports from what I noticed. -- Lofty abyss 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
39. Support Seems like someone who won't blow up the project and has a demonstrated need. Per the above and the nominations. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
40. I like the answer to question 9, shows an appreciation for WP:NODEADLINE which makes for good decisions like those in the answer to question 6. I don't believe they'll abuse the tools; quite the opposite in fact. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
41. Among other good things, Tobias's tone when responding to others is very friendly and welcoming. Something that is very much needed here. Rehman 01:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
42. I concur with pretty much all the supports here. ToBeFree is exactly the sort of admin we need here on Wikipedia. Their experience, positive demeanor, and willingness to collaborate is an asset to the community, and more folks like this to close discussions and handle contentious matters in a patient and mindful is something we sorely need. Waggie (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
43. Support per the other supports and generally good answers to questions. I disagree with the answer to #6, as I think that OR and BLP policies cover important ground that isn't directly entailed by our verifiability policy even if every contribution was properly cited, but I think that in the grand scheme of things this is a minor philosophical disagreement and not a reason to oppose the RfA. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
45. Support and believe that he will do fine.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
46. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
47. Support Think we've interacted in the countervandalism area, competent, no causes for reservation on my part. Grab a mop and get back to work! creffett (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
48. Support. Temperamentally stable, not a drama queen. Handled the trick questions deftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC).
49. Support. Clueful and courteous at fighting vandalism, etc., even when dishonesty is clearly a factor. Home Lander (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
50. Support ToBeFree has actually been on my radar for quite some time as a potential RfA candidate that I wanted to nominate. Easily meets my criteria and would be a net positive to the encyclopedia with the tools. I must admit that I am slightly concerned by the answer to Q8, as a user that firmly believes in cutting red tape and making navigating project processes easier for all users whenever possible. However, I'm still willing to support ToBeFree as an admin, with the hopes that he'll be as approachable as possible to users. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
51. Support per nomination by SoWhy and answers to Q9 and Q10. The avoidance of haste is a good Wikipedian quality. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
52. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
53. Support I haven't looked through the users edits, but their answers on this page and the comments from others give me reason to believe they'd contribute well as an admin. Sdkb (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
54. Support - Good candidate ToBe a admin SoWhy not. -- FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
55. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
56. Support, A lot of good interactions here too. IMO they will make a good use of mop. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
57. Support Good history will be a good addition. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
58. Weak support the lack of content creation is my main concern. I consider that a track record of content creation is necessary to properly understand the disputes that arise among content creators. Content creation is why we are here. Otherwise, temperament seems fine, and I trust that they will avoid getting involved in areas where they have no experience (like AfD) unless they seek guidance or gain experience first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
59. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
60. Support Much clue, good answers to questions, plays well with others. I've dealt with several of his reports via OTRS and AIV; he knows his onions. I have no doubt that ToBeFree will be an excellent admin. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
61. Support, no red flags raised, looks like a solid gnomey editor who will be okay with a mop. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
62. Support I don't think admins need to have experience in all areas. What ToBeFree does he does well and the tools will allow him to help the project even more, so thank you Tobias for accepting this responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
63. Support I've come across them in a few different venues, always struck me as measured and clueful. Happy to support. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
64. Support, no concerns. bd2412 T 13:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
65. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
66. Support - ToBeFree is clearly knowledgeable about the areas that he intends to participate in -- I think that he will be an excellent admin. aboideau^talk 14:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
67. Support - I have seen ToBeFree fight vandalism. I am sure he will be more helpful countering vandalism with the tools. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
68. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
69. Support- I have no concerns whatsoever.   Aloha27  talk  15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
70. Support - will make a good admin.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
71. Support – I see his name popping up all over the place, and be does a lot of good work. I trust him to use the tools responsibly. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
72. Support. The user will make a fine admin. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
73. Support I have had very good experiences working with this candidate and have not the slightest doubt that he is admin (and ultimately functionary) material. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
74. No glaring red flags. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. Appears to meet my requirements for admin until evidence shows otherwise. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
76. Support Seems to be highly regarded by those who work with him here. Also seems to have plenty of experience in the areas he's interested in doing admin work in. Seems like an easy net-positive for us to have another pair of mop-wielding hands cleaning up vandalism and other recent changes-related issues. Thanks for volunteering! Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
77. Support Level headed and fair candidate, definite net positive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
78. A welcome addition. El_C 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
79. Support Good noms. Seems like someone whocould make good use of the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
80. Support No concerns as far as I can see. Will be a good mop wielder. -bonadea contributions talk 20:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
81. Support a commendable candidate! ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
82. Support 1000%! Jalen Folf (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
83. Support Will be fine. Fish+Karate 21:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Good answers to the questions. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
85. Support Haven't been on here for a while, but I don't remember any negative incidents with this user. SemiHypercube 22:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
86. Support - no concerns here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
87. Support (leaning towards weak), just because I'd like marginally more content creation, though I draw a very low line on that. In the other important aspects they seem to have the skillset down. I don't know why they're being criticised for wanting to be involved in AfDs when they've shown no inclination to do so. CSDs have relatively little to do with AfD knowledge (given that only about 1/20 AfD deletes is on CSD grounds) - they can do the former, especially copyright, without being an AfD expert. Good temperament. Happy to see him join the mop corps. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
88. Support appears to be thoughtful, with a clue, no evidence of being a jerk. I am comfortable that they are not about to break the place.--Find bruce (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
89. Support Though I would ideally like to see a bit more content creation, ToBeFree is definitely a net positive and would make a fine admin. ComplexRational (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
90. Support Reasonable answers and a lot of good well-rounded editing over the last two years. I expect they will be fine as an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
91. 'Support: Strong candidate for the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
92. Support No concerns! Thank you for offering to be an administrator. The project needs more like you. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
93. Support I like the gnomish activities, the long term commitment and also the precision of some of the answers here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
94. Support: Per the above. :) The holotype specimen of the snack eel was found inside a white seabass. (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
95. Support Seems clueful, really good answer to Q10. Decent candidate. — sparklism ^hey! 07:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
96. Support. Excellent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
97. Support. thanks for answering my Q13.DBigXrayᗙ 08:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
98. Support: the user has a clear need for the tools and has the technical ability to use them accurately, based on their experience and strong answers to questions. I haven't seen any temperament concerns to worry about so it's a support from me. — Bilorv (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
99. Support Per SoWhy and Amory. Lourdes 10:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
100. The oppose section and the concern about a possible mistake from April 2018 raises the possibility that the candidate wasn't ready to run over 18 months ago. I'm not sure I'm convinced. But whether they were first ready to become an admin 18 months ago or 12 months ago, they are clearly ready now. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
101. Support not only do they appear dedicated and doing important work, but the AIV, RFPP, and other work ToBeFree engages in specifically benefits from the additional tools provided to admins. Fully support. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
102. Support per SoWhy has been around since 2012 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
103. Support. Qualified enough and has temeperment to match. Clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. Loopy30 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
104. Support per nominator, per above supports, per User:Deepfriedokra/On RfA. Been looking forward to this for some time. -- Deepfriedokra 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
105. Support per nomination, contribution history, and Q16 answer. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
106. Support: no concerns at all, from experience and from these excellent objective answers. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
107. Support - Thank you for offering to give up some of your freedom to become an admin.- MrX 🖋 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
108. Support My fears about ToBeFree's handling of tools he is unfamiliar with has been assuaged. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am opposing these candidate due to their lack of experience in deal with AfD and enthusiasm to take action in this field after getting administratorship. Here are their stats and according to it, this user has participated in only 25 AfDs and has failure rate of approximately 17% (ideally it should be in single digit for more experienced editors). BLP Edits are only 8%. Editor created only 4 articles so far which should not be problem but all of these with together shows that editor requires some more experience before applying. Editor can continue their good work of removing vandalism and of improving tools without even being an administrator. Regards, -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Looking at the 4 supposedly-failed !votes at AFD, I note that one of them is not really ToBeFree !voting; he completed the nomination than an IP began, and because he shows up as a nominator, the system viewed it as him !voting delete. Striking that from being counted gets most of the way toward the single-digit failure figure you express a desire for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Yellow Alliance. The candidate nominates the article for deletion and then closes the discussion himself. That's quite a basic breach of protocol and they haven't done enough at AfD since to be acting as an admin there. But I'm not seeing where they express enthusiasm to be taking action at AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Yellow Alliance, the nominee probably meant "withdraw" instead of "keep" on the close. Besides the blunder of which word to use in the closing statement, per the votes in the discussion, the close seems to meet the criteria in WP:WITHDRAWN. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Sorry, that's a valid complaint; I hope to have fixed this now. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Yellow Alliance again. It was one of my first steps at AfD back in April 2018, and I stumbled. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   There is no such enthusiasm. I do not wish to close deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   But you want to take part in Speedy deletion process which is similar to this and sharp judgement is required for it. I hope you spend some more time on wiki before becoming administrator. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   @NatGertler: Not really. 3 out of 24 is still 12.5% which is not single digit. Also, they participated in only 24 AfD which is too small sample to decide whether they’re expert or not. Maybe user have good judgemental power but it can be only determined if sample is large. Law of small numbers applies here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, really, for what I said, which was "gets most of the way toward the single-digit failure figure". Cutting that one away cuts off more than half of the amount above 10%, and thus "most of the way". --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   Meh. I was never one to close AfD's. I too lack enthusiasm for that venue.-- Deepfriedokra 14:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now Few articles created - and it seems that most of the effort was translating articles and not actual article creation. BLP edits seem mainly to be reverts, so no evidence of understanding major BLP issues. Very few AfD actions, so I cannot judge any AfD stances. Awaiting any further comments on these issues. Collect (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

   Article creation is good but it isn't everything. Quality not quantity.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

   While I share your affinity for article creation, I don't think this is a vital metric for administrators. Diligence, broad understanding of traditions and rules, fairness, and demeanor are what we should be looking for. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

   Hence my concern over BLP issues here. "Creation by translation" to me is not much of a plus, either. Collect (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

   And people who don't apply the same criteria someone else prefers don't need to be badgered about it by drive-by critics. This is Requests for Adminship, not Requests for Attitude-correction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I was close to supporting, but I have to kinda agree with Harshil169. Granted, my failure rate at RfAs is 17% too. I might come back and change my mind, though. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   Personally, I find using the % misleading when it comes to AFD participation. It does not differentiate between ancient and newer participation, does not account for technical AFD creations (e.g. when creating an AFD for someone else), can't account for nuances and it cannot take into account cases where the decision was narrow and both sides had valid arguments. For example, the tool counts this AFD as a mistake because it was withdrawn to do just the thing that people suggested. Also, it's too easy to cheat the percentage. You could just go though a daily log after six days have passed and !vote the same as everyone else on a number of clear-cut AFDs and suddenly you have a huge % of "correct" !votes. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   @SoWhy - Yeah, you have a point. Another thing you have to take in mind is ambiguous or high-end votes. I once voted Very Weak Delete on an article that ended up getting kept. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• I don't expect to have the time to thoroughly investigate this candidate, but I do want to call out the last two sentences of A6. Asking another admin, or doing nothing, is hardly ever wrong, but you'd never guess that from the overconfident answers typically seen at RFA. —Cryptic 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that asking for help is generally a good thing, as is admitting mistakes, which this candidate has plenty of as well. (Also, "call out" generally has negative connotations, at least in the US, but I doubt that was your intention.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not yet decided, but I did want to agree with the candidate's reasoning that having a page tag indicating too much detail is almost as low down the concerning-list as it's possible to get. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Although ToBeFree is certainly an amazing gnome, I am currently holding my vote back over concerns with inexperience in A7, which may indicate lack of understanding in page curation in general, and an apparent shying away from Wikipedia's social side. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@AnUnnamedUser: What do you mean, an apparent shying away from Wikipedia's social side? ——SN54129 05:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See answers to Q6, Q10, and Q11. I have no issues with their understanding of CSD. Britishfinance (talk)

Thanks, Britishfinance, I agree with you regarding the CSD aspect of those questions (I haven't looked into their record so I'll take your word for that, of course). But I still don't quite see what CSDs have to do with a social side of Wikipedia, or, even, what a social side of Wikipedia is—let alone where it's to be found! ——SN54129 17:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes Serial Number 54129, I didn't really understand the social side point – Wikipedia is a broad church (like our readers), and we need admins of a diverse range of types, as long as they have the necessary skill level + even-temperment to be an admin? Britishfinance (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: absolutely true. AUU's remark made me think of WP:NOTSOCIAL, you see, and it didn't seem to fit. ——SN54129 18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree's answer to my question was divided into two paragraphs. The first stated that he did not plan to be active in dispute resolution. The second stated what he would do if he was caught up in a conflict, but it was unclear in his actual philosophy and plans beyond simple, non-specific behaviors. I just want to wait to ensure that ToBeFree will responsibly handle the parts of the admin toolbox that he's inexperienced in using. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see now AnUnnamedUser. Admins can't be expert in all areas (although some who come close). Handling material or high-profile disputes is an admin-skillset that needs to be practised and developed to get right (and getting it wrong can be like gasoline to the fire, with implications for the admin). There are many excellent admins who don't get involved in this area for reasons personal to them, and ToBeFree is only acknowledging that they are, at least currently, of this bent. Britishfinance (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)