mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToBeFree Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ToBeFree

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

ToBeFree

[edit]

Final (182/3/3); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 18:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

Co-Nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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))[reply]
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: I appreciate the offer, but this does not seem to be a good idea.
To explain an issue I personally see with this request, I should probably point to the "comments" section of Vanamonde93's appointment for oversight. Someone had noticed an important issue, but instead of properly reporting it, they used it as a challenge for the candidate and then strongly opposed them for not having noticed the issue themselves. This is a minefield; I can't read your mind.
Imagine a valid vandalism report being made here instead of at AIV, asking the candidate if they would block the active vandal. This seems to be harmful to the encyclopedia, and I would like to avoid encouraging similar behavior. If you have noticed issues in a biography that you would like to tag or fix, please do so.
Concerns about my content policy knowledge may hopefully be alleviated by my other answers above and my past contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18. Ok, fair enough although there were no booby trap intended. I apologize if you felt entrapped. I have looked through many of your contributions, I am not seeing any attempts to fix articles instead of gutting them. Can you point to any articles you improved, where you made attempts to add citations rather than delete uncited material?
A: No worries.
  • I often see the "principal" parameter of school infoboxes being replaced by a new name. When this happens, I open the school's website and have a look at their "Administration" or "Contact" page, if available. While extreme caution is necessary when dealing with primary sources about living people, removing unverifiable names and adding a citation seems to be a reasonable improvement. This both happened at the same time at Special:Diff/923487460, showcasing my two usual approaches in a single diff.
  • By placing five {{citation needed}} inline tags at Alte Brücke (Frankfurt), another editor pointed out a potential verifiability problem. I resolved the issue on the English Wikipedia by looking up historical sources in the archive.org PDF library, Projekt Gutenberg-DE and Wikisource, and ported the citations back to the German Wikipedia as well.
  • Before reading the book, I decided to create a short article about Where the Crawdads Sing. I found significant coverage in three independent, reliable sources, paid 1$ for a three-month trial subscription to the Wall Street Journal, printed a backup copy of their article on physical paper and created a Wikipedia article stub at Special:PermanentLink/891078509. Note that this stub contains a typo, and that I personally found the WSJ subscription to be unduly inconvenient to cancel. By creating the article before reading the book, I made sure that all information definitely came from secondary sources.
I do usually look for reliable sources when I believe such sources could exist, and I do prefer adding a reliable citation over removing text. Often, though, there seems to be no proper source for the addition, and I prefer short verifiable articles to long unverifiable essays. Wikipedia is not a Fandom wiki, and some of our articles do require gutting and redevelopment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

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

Support
[edit]
  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)[reply]
  2. As co-nom. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Support as nom. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Support, do not see any issues--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Support. I kinda just already assumed you already were an admin. Let's fix that! Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I find no problematic issues. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Support. Excellent countervandalism work. — Newslinger talk 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - He's helped with the technical issues that I didn't know about. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support precious fighting vandalism --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good work, no red flags. —Kusma (t·c) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  20. Support- trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  23. Support thank you for putting yourself forward. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  26. Support - No doubt. S0091 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Seems kind and competent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Has a clue. Kb03 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  30. Support - I think they will help even more as administrators than they already do. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  33. Support I have skimmed through its edits. All looks good to me. Josephine W. (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support good chance will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  36. Support. Fully qualified. -- Ϫ 00:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  38. Accurate AIV reports from what I noticed. -- Lofty abyss 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support and believe that he will do fine.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Why not? -FASTILY 02:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  48. Support. Temperamentally stable, not a drama queen. Handled the trick questions deftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Also, per Fitindia. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  54. Support - Good candidate ToBe a admin SoWhy not. -- FitIndia Talk Commons 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  57. Support Good history will be a good addition. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  59. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  64. Support, no concerns. bd2412 T 13:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - ToBeFree is clearly knowledgeable about the areas that he intends to participate in -- I think that he will be an excellent admin. aboideautalk 14:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  68. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support- I have no concerns whatsoever.   Aloha27  talk  15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - will make a good admin.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  72. Support. The user will make a fine admin. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  74. No glaring red flags. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Appears to meet my requirements for admin until evidence shows otherwise. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  77. Support Level headed and fair candidate, definite net positive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. A welcome addition. El_C 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Good noms. Seems like someone whocould make good use of the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  81. Support a commendable candidate! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support 1000%! Jalen Folf (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Will be fine. Fish+Karate 21:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Good answers to the questions. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  86. Support - no concerns here. –Davey2010Talk 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  91. Support: Strong candidate for the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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) moved to oppose.[reply]
  92. 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)[reply]
  93. Support: Per the above. :) The holotype specimen of the snack eel was found inside a white seabass. (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Seems clueful, really good answer to Q10. Decent candidate. — sparklism hey! 07:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Excellent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. thanks for answering my Q13.DBigXrayᗙ 08:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. 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)[reply]
  98. Support Per SoWhy and Amory. Lourdes 10:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. 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)[reply]
  100. 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)[reply]
  101. Support per SoWhy has been around since 2012 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. 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)[reply]
  103. 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)[reply]
  104. Support per nomination, contribution history, and Q16 answer. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support: no concerns at all, from experience and from these excellent objective answers. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Thank you for offering to give up some of your freedom to become an admin.- MrX 🖋 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. 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)[reply]
  108. Support - Will likely be a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support: Tobias is a dear friend and a excellent editor; aye, he would be a wonderful addition to the administrative corps. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - Reasonable answers, lot of experience.– Ammarpad (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support per nom. Jonathunder (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support No major issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support . I have recently raised the issue of questions yet again at WT:RfA and I am most impressed at the candidate standing up to Q17 by Coffeeandcrumbs. There are a couple of things with this candidature which give me pause, but nothing which would prevent me supporting (user can ask me on my talk page). However, these things are even further minimalised by the excellent, really excellent answers to the barrage of other questions. Like Germanophone nominator SoWhy, not a native speaker, but otherwise first class command of English, and who like the nominator, will make a first class admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support No issues. Looks like a solid editor and will likely be a good addition to the team. I do not find the opposes persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support, per nom. The quote "I'm always learning; everyone is." from here resonates & makes for a good attitude for an admin, I think. = paul2520 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: an excellent candidate; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Thanks for coming. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support: seen the candidate plenty of times vandal fighting, will make a great administrator. Agent00x (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. The candidate has a mature understanding of policy and collaboration, as seen in his answers to Q12 and Q17. Deryck C. 13:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support: clearly active in areas requiring the tools, shows competency, impressive nominations and answers especially to Q12. Also meets the golden rule: not a dick, has a clue. SITH (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Great candidate and is a positive asset on the Wikimedia foundation. CSD/Vandal history is great as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support: Appears to have the temperament and experience needed to be a net positive to the project as a administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support: although, would recommend putting some more time into content creation work. Kierzek (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support: I was tempted to just do the "per Noms" thing given my trust those two particular individuals. Still - I looked over his: user page, (enjoyable piano playing by the way) talk page, talk page archive 5 (couple nice pic uploads), skimmed edits from Jan. 2019 - May 2019 (very helpful to noobs), and looked at the XTools summary. Suffice to say I'm impressed. — Ched (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - have the experience and knowledge to be an admin. JohnThorne (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Tolly4bolly 10:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Most wikipedia articles are so bad that vandals who blank sections of them are often doing us a favour. I would have given this account a barnstar rather than a warning: [1]. But yeah, no issues here. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Yes Seems fine. I like the recall page, User:ToBeFree/recall; though "or I will be desysopped by any bureaucrat" creates an interesting situation as I'm not convinced this follows procedure closely enough for a 'Crat to have confidence to act on it. SilkTork (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support In the interaction with me I've found (there may be others) I was left a tad slightly grumpy as an jumpy anon IP request was raised at AfD and I had no-one to collar with a was WP:BEFORE done properly but it fairness someone had to do it. I'm not bovvered if ToBeFree doesn't do AfD much as not every admin can to everything and ToBeFree can do mostly what ToBeFree does best and seems to have right sort of temperament not to abuse things and seems to have support of right sort of people. Best Wishes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Worthy of the admin tools. Quahog (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Great editor, will certainly be beneficial as admin. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 14:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support He'll be working mainly in important areas for which he needs the tools. No admin is expected to work on everything.There's enough awareness of areas he does not work on that he's unlikely to blunder if he encounters them, and that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Something that sealed the deal for me is that the candidate took the trouble to keep a record of edits that he came to regret (and let's face it, we all have them!). That kind of self-reflection is an excellent trait for an admin, and negates any concerns about gnomish rather than content-directed editing experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Appears to be a well-qualified candidate.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Seems competent and committed, and the opposition isn't impressing me with any smoking guns, just a deletionism-versus-inclusionism difference of wiki-philosophy (nor is the alleged deletionism even demonstrated, nor would be be a disqualification even if it were, short of transgressing deletion policies and other norms). Candidate comes across as reasonable and reasoning, with sufficient experience and judgement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Meets my criteria --valereee (talk)
  138. Support for a well-qualified candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 23:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support largely per the answers to the questions, and my recent encounter with this editor over a revision deletion issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support, no concerns, should be an asset to the team. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support ToBeFree, seems to be a thoughtful individual and will make a good administrator. scope_creepTalk 00:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support, good candidate. SarahSV (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Babymissfortune 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support This editor was of great help in handling the Duckhorn drama and helping to tame the Kai Staats request-monster. Would love to see more of them in a sysops role.  Spintendo  03:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support I'll unironically say that I was surprised to learn ToBeFree was not already an admin. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support I have seen ToBeFree's work from time to time and I am in complete agreement with the nomination statements. Good demeanor. Good answers to questions here. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Nominee is a good editor and I have no reason to oppose. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Masum Reza📞 11:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support: Although I have a bit of concern about the "deletions", this candidate is clearly a net positive! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support: Nothing not to like.--agr (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Trustworthy, reliable user who will benefit the project greatly with the tools. SpencerT•C 16:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support, an excellent user, well deserving of adminship. Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 16:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Seems like this user would do a good job. RockingGeo (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support, I admire his responses. We need more such admins. — kashmīrī TALK 18:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - No concerns here. -- Dane talk 18:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - In light of the foregoing, I believe this editor deserves to be trusted with the mop. Alpha4615 (talk to me) 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support — an easy decision. – bradv🍁 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support for various reasons, including the eccentric one that the candidate isn't interested in working at DRN or WP:ANI, and that the candidate appears to be seen by a few as a deletionist. But mostly as a qualified candidate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Per the ringing endorsements by two nominators whose judgement I fully trust. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support, clearly. Low-drama editor willing to help out with AIV/RFPP backlogs. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Steve Smith (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support per nom. Froswo (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support seems like a reasonable case, checking their record a bit did not sjpw any concerns. I see the concern about AFD participation but speedy deletion and AFD are fairly distinct processes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support, no brainer as others have said. You’ll do very well. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Content creation is not an issue for me. A lot more counts, like temperament, trust, and sensibility. I think ToBeFree has demonstrated enough of those for the mop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Jianhui67 T★C 16:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for a well-qualified candidate. Opposes are not a concern, and I'm happy to pile on. Miniapolis 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Duplicate vote/senior moment. Miniapolis 22:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support - per 170 plus supporters above. Seen this editor around, happy to support. Congrats, and may your adminship be fruitful. Jusdafax (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support - TBF makes it pretty clear in his answers that he knows and believes that being an admin is no big deal. The opposes aren't convincing. — Frood (talk!) 20:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support per Carrite's perceptive comment in the Neutral section. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support. No hesitation. bd2412 T 02:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support – No concerns. From a review of their talk comments, ToBeFree is good at negotiating with new users and follows policy carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support - TBF seems to be a competent and level-headed editor, and I found nothing that concerned me personally. Lack of experience or interest in AfD is not an issue for me, since we have plenty of non-deletion-related administrative tasks that need attention. Happy mopping! -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - No sign of contentious editing and willing to do the dirtywork. RockingGeo (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Happy days, LindsayHello 08:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support - Will be a great admin Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support for easily meeting my minimum criteria and the way they maintain civil discussion with others. From the oppose side, on this and other AfDs, I fear the bar for content creation is creeping too high. I understand editors want an administrator who understands how hard it is to create quality, referenced content. But, the project requires admins in many areas. Not all of them related to content. Technical skills, patience with anti-vandalism, for example. I see nothing in the slightest that would indicate this editor will abuse the mop. Ifnord (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support No concerns; reading the incredibly nitpicky opposes only serves to confirm this —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support, to squeeze in just before it closes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    How long ago was that? I mean - we all make mistakes. It's kind of odd to hold something like that against someone for so long? SQLQuery me! 23:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such enthusiasm. I do not wish to close deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Meh. I was never one to close AfD's. I too lack enthusiasm for that venue.-- Deepfriedokra 14:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have considered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Yellow Alliance. This one incident at AfD is over a year old and hardly worth mentioning and creating drama - and an 'oppose' at RfA. But some 'voters' will look for anything, just anything, to discredit a candidate, particularly on an RfA that is almost certainly destined to pass. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: Mind your language first. The statement “But some 'voters' will look for anything, just anything, to discredit a candidate, particularly on an RfA that is almost certainly destined to pass.” is unwanted. Comment on content, not on contributors. Showing concern and finding what the candidate lacks is not drama . Don’t get offended by oppose votes, no one is here to satisfy you. Rather than doing Ad Hominem, improve our arguments in RfA.— Harshil want to talk? 08:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tend to agree with Harshil. However, "lack of experience in dealing with AfD" is not a deal breaker for me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose – Candidate's edit history shows a propensity to merciless delete material rather than make a good faith effort to look for references for verification, a propensity to throw the baby out with the bath water. ToBeFree appears to be not be aware of the difference between original research and content lacking citation. I gave the candidate an opportunity to demonstrate that I may be mistaken but they declined, but there response only confirmed my fears. I was not offering a gotcha trick question. I just wanted to see if they had any clue how to improve an article rather than delete or tag it. I am willing to reconsider. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So please reconsider, Coffeeandcrumbs. You do realise. I hope, that the candidate's superb answer to your question was 90% of the reason why I suported. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, the underlying issue still exists. We have enough admins quick to delete material. This project does not benefit from adding more police going around deleting material just because it lacks a citation at the end of the sentence. If there are not BLPSOURCES issues with contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, I would expect an experienced editor to make a good faith effort to find a source for the material instead of deleting it. This user has deleted hundreds of thousands of bytes from this Wikipedia and does not appear to make any effort to see if any RS are available to support it. That is major flaw. Perhaps the sample of about 50+ edits I have reviewed were not representative of the user's contributions but I doubt that. I willing to be proven wrong. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coffeeandcrumbs, before you make sweeping statements like: We have enough admins quick to delete material, perhaps you should consider providing some stats to back up your statement - or running at RfA yourself and seeing how far you get. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, thank you. I have strike that statement. I am well aware that I am not prepared for an RfA. I continue to expand my skill set, fail, learn, and try to improve. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: What point are you making here? You’re again attacking the commentators by saying that they should participate in RfA just because they showed dissent. What the commentator mean is their own concern over some issue with candidate but that doesn’t mean they should apply for adminship for commenting here. Opposing this candidate isn’t mean that supporting ourselves. — Harshil want to talk? 08:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's "propensity to merciless delete material rather than make a good faith effort to look for references for verification" causes me more concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose My belief is that an administrator's purpose is to protect content and content creators. There is also thankless behind the scenes work. However I think all administrators need to start by being content creators first: and this one has only started four articles. It is easy to vote delete when you have little experience creating content, and this candidate has voted delete at a ratio of 3-1. Also not participating in more in AfDs and having no desire to do so, shows an unwillingness to protect content and content creators. We are an encyclopedia and content is what we are. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst, You already !voted to support a few days ago. I presume you mean to reverse that, and strike and indent your support? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Amorymeltzer thank you much for the message. I forgot to strike, and just did. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  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)[reply]
    Article creation is good but it isn't everything. Quality not quantity.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @SoWhy: My point is still same. The sample is too low and user didn't participate much into the AfD till now which should be problem to give them task about deletion. Also, user created only 4 articles so far. Farrago of all these clearly shows that user needs some more experience in content creation and deletion. That was point and it is still same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harshil169: You are free to oppose because you expect more participation in AFDs. I merely pointed out that the percentage is not a reliable indicator of clueness wrt to AFD, no matter if you participated in 5 or 5000 AFDs. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral — I share the concerns about this nominee's lack of experience and lack of content creation. While I am heartened to note the rationale of some of the supporters, I think that more experience in the hotly contentious areas of WP is advisble. Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@AnUnnamedUser: What do you mean, an apparent shying away from Wikipedia's social side? ——SN54129 05:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 99% support? I wouldn't give myself that high of an approval! I'm impressed by anyone who can get this level of support, but I'm not voting at this time because I've never encountered ToBeFree...but I'm very impressed by the love being shown. Jacona (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jacona: Never having encountered a certain user on a project with 37,556,184 registered accounts (as of this comment) is not that uncommon Regards SoWhy 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.