Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaptainEek

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

CaptainEek

Final (175/55/10); Closed as successful by -- Amanda (aka DQ) at 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

CaptainEek (talk · contribs) – As it has been too long without a nomination, it is my distinct pleasure to nominate Captain Eek for administrator. Having first joined Wikipedia in 2014, they really committed to the project in June 2018. Over that time they have blossomed into an excellent editor who is ready to be a Wikipedian administrator. You could certainly choose to support them because of their content work at Cactus wren (which they took from stub to FA) and at Vermilion flycatcher (stub to GA).

Maybe instead you’ll choose to support them because you’ve seen their work assisting editors at the AfC Help Desk or the Teahouse. AfC is a particularly tough help desk since many of those editors come in frustrated after having their draft declined, and often they have a conflict of interest; Eek is always respectful and helpful while still holding the line on our policies and guidelines. That’s not the only place where their thoughtful comments have enhanced the project. Everytime I read a comment of Eek’s at AN or ANI, I see someone with a level head and the best interests of the project and editors at heart. You can see similarly fine work from them throughout the project, whether with speedy deletions, at AfD or AIV, and in their RfC closes. So please join me in supporting CaptainEek for administrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

CaptainEek first drew my attention about 8 months ago when I received a request on my talk page to help with a request for a third opinion. I wasn't able to provide much guidance, but I observed as CaptainEek skillfully explained sourcing policies, expounded on best editing practices, helped to investigate sources and provide feedback on wording, and patiently worked with the other parties to improve the article. Since then I have continued to watch as CaptainEek mentored and adopted countless users, responded to their questions, and calmly taught them everything they needed to know to contribute to the encyclopedia. CaptainEek has all the qualities I look for in an administrator – a patient demeanour, a solid knowledge of policy, a willingness to teach and to grow the editor base, and a clear understanding of what this grand experiment of ours is all about.

I am grateful for the opportunity to help present CaptainEek to the community as a valued contributor – a content creator, a problem solver, a teacher, a wise and friendly face. For all these reasons, I believe that CaptainEek will be a great administrator, and I hope you will all agree with Barkeep49 and me and offer your support. – bradv🍁 03:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Howdy hello folks! I humbly accept. As is standard, I make it clear that I have never edited Wikipedia for pay, and have no other accounts. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I wish to initially help out with vandalism, and work AN & ANI. The tools would also help me in the arena of NPP and AfC, such as in dealing with copyvios, username soft/hard blocks, etc. With that being said, I've always thought this question a bit odd. We don't just hand admins the tools they want, we hand them all the tools. I imagine that as an admin I would eventually end up using most of the tools available. However, I would dip my toes in pretty slowly, sticking to simple tasks such as AIV blocks and hanging around ANI, before carefully exploring the rest of the toolset. Additionally, I would close more contentious discussions. Though I think that any experienced user should be able to close a discussion, I understand that many members of the community wish that our most contentious discussions be closed only by administrators.

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

A: My proudest piece is definitely the Cactus wren, which I took from stub to featured. It was the article that got me into editing Wikipedia, and I was very hyped that it was my first FA. Overall, my work in bird and plant articles is very enjoyable, and I feel that I do my best work there, including a recent GA for Vermilion flycatcher. In Wikipedia space, I have done a lot of work reviewing at AfC, and especially at the AfC helpdesk. I am also quite proud of my work adopting users, and helping out at the Teahouse and helpdesk. I think encouraging and teaching new users is one of the most important things we can do, and it is very rewarding :)

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: *Pirate voice* "If ye be asking if I had any mutinies? That's a nay matey". In all seriousness, my generally chill demeanor, and use of light nautical jokes has kept me out of trouble. That's not to say I haven't been in conflict, but the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle has yet to fail me. Additionally, my work in giving third opinions has given me a good feel for how to resolve conflicts. I think the most important thing is to assume good faith. Sure we say it all the time, but it is really so crucial. I've come across so many editors, who on first glance appear to be vandals, but upon assuming good faith realized were newbies who just hadn't gotten the hang of things. We were all new editors once, and being helpful and understanding goes a long ways. In dealing with more experienced editors, AGF takes a different tact: the key is civility. Even when an editor disagrees with me, I have to AGF that they honestly believe what they are doing is helpful, and realize that I could be wrong. Keeping discussions calm and structured makes sure that everyone gets along and that ensures that its easy to AGF. At the end of the day, I find it important to remember that we are all working to build an encyclopedia together.

Addendum: I see that people were looking for a more specific example of how I dealt with conflict in my past. I have not been in a great deal of conflict, but I'll point out an example that sticks in memory. Some time ago, I declined an edit request on Chelsea Manning. FeydHuxtable stepped in and questioned if that was the right move. We had a conversation, it was civil, I realized I was wrong, and changed a decision after listening to valued feedback from Feyd. I hope that anytime I'm wrong, I have the ability to realize so, as I did there.

---

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 MightyKid

4. Given the purpose of WP is to build an encyclopedia, what is your take on people using more then one account to edit and how do you think it breaches community trust -- especially if the edits are not vandalizing?

A: If an editor has multiple declared accounts that they are using for legitmate purposes per WP:LEGITSOCK, such as to make edits on mobile so their password doesn't get stolen, that is okay. But regular sockpuppets, where an editor uses multiple accounts to make them look like separate people, are a serious problem. Sockpuppetry is one of the biggest possible breaches of the community's trust. Even if the accounts aren't vandalizing, Wikipedia works on the assumption that each of us is one voice. If someone has multiple undeclared accounts, they can use that to unfairly influence discussions or win edit wars.

Additional question from MightyKid

5. You encounter the following usernames at WP:UAA. How would you handle them and why?

• Tom Brady

  SexyEditor

  ILoveWikipedia

  HappySteward

  12-443-5678

A: Well I have to thank Bagumba for giving me the answer to the first one, as they have already soft blocked for impersonating a celebrity :) For SexyEditor, I would not give a username block. I would check their contribs to make sure they're not a troll however. ILoveWikipedia could be reported as misleading, but its not something like "WikipediaAdmin", as its not claiming to be something its not. I would not block. HappySteward is misleading, could be seen impersonating a steward. I would hand out a soft block, or a hard block if their contribs were negative. 12-443-5678 looks like it could be a phone number? I would check their contribs, and a google the number (which in this case is basically 12345... so I found nothing) to see if a hard block for other reasons was justified.

Additional question from Ritchie333

6. Why did you use rollback on this good faith edit, and why do you think it is not neutral to say Jo Cox was murdered instead of merely killed?

A: That edit was an error on my end. I made that reversion using Huggle, and take full responsibility. I was going too fast, and didn't look for the context around the edit. After that edit, the editor I reverted was understandably annoyed, and so I reached out to them and apologized. Ritchie, you and I also talked at that point. It was an enlightening conversation, and I contemplated the incident a great deal afterwards. It was a consequence of me valuing quantity over quality, and not assuming good faith. I realized that I needed to be making more quality contributions, and deal with newbies in a less boilerplate arena. Not too long after that incident I stopped using Huggle, because I realized it wasn't a helpful tool and encouraged WP:BITE behavior, and I dedicated myself to being more helpful. I've spent more time at the help boards, took on more adoptees, and worked more on content. For a sysop, this is a very valuable lesson. The tools, if used too fast or without thought, can be very harmful. Anytime I would ever use the tools, especially as a new admin, I would take my time, and be certain that I was making the right edit in the right way. It is better to make one good block a day, than to make ten good blocks and one bad one a day.

Additional questions from Naypta

7. You said above you find the question about what administrative work you intend to take part in to be odd. When should an administrator not take part in work which they are technically given the tools to do?

A: Well whenever an admin is WP:INVOLVED in a situation, they should not be using their tools, or the stature of their office, to affect an outcome

Follow up: Can you foresee any situation in which you were an uninvolved administrator but would not act using your administrator tools? Why or why not? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A: If I was unsure in a situation, and didn't know if I should use the tools, I wouldn't. I would ask for advice from another admin, or I would simply leave it to someone else. Better to not act, than to act wrong.

8. Do you think it is more important to be bold or be careful as an administrator?

A: Being careful is more important as an admin. As an editor, it is good to be bold. But an admin's tools are powerful, and should be used only when it is certain that they are being used right. Spiderman hits the nail on the head here: "With great power comes great responsibility"

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: Technical areas. I'll be honest: I don't know how much of the coding or backend stuff works, such as script writing or doing template code. There are folks who do incredible work in that area, but I am not one of them, and I leave any technical edits to the pros.

Additional question from King of Hearts

10. An article is initially created by copy-pasting content from another website. Other editors come along and expand the article with properly written content (while leaving the initial content in the article). Later, it is discovered that the initial revision is a copyvio, and the offending sections are removed from the article. What actions, if any, will you take regarding the revision history of the article? Be specific about which diffs you intend to revision delete, and which of the three options you will select on the revdel dialog (you can select multiple options).

A: The non copyvio edits need to be preserved as best as possible to properly attribute contributors. The offending revisions with copyrighted text would be revdeled, with as few edits as possible being hidden. I would only hide the edits (i.e. "Hide revision text"), but not hide the edit summaries or contributor, unless there was another reason to hide them, such as being purely disruptive RD3 material.

Additional questions from Lee Vilenski

11. Your account is older than this, but you have been somewhat active regularly since June 2018. How might you respond to an extremely experienced editor who posts to AN about a subject you disagree with?

A. Disagreeing with an experienced contributor centers around respect, and a willingness to consider that I could be wrong. I would ensure that the conversation stayed focused on the content, not the contributor. I would calmly and concisely lay out my argument, and discuss it with the experienced user. If we couldn't talk things out, I would seek the advice of another admin. That's the great thing about Wikipedia, the community is there to provide help and mediation should the need arise.

11a. you have less than 40% of edits to mainspace. In your opinion, does this help or hinder your ability to resolve content disputes?

A. I believe that my work offering third opinions has been good experience in resolving content disputes, which I'll note is made up of edits to talk and Wikipedia spaces, which increases my non-mainspace counts. My edit breakdown is also a consequence of making a lot of edits through the AfC process, which inherently skews your percentages away from mainspace, and from tending to keep my content edits big (doing a lot at once instead of piecemeal).

Additional question from Interstellarity

12. In your opinion, what is the minimum criteria for an editor to be an administrator?

A: An editor is ready to be an admin when they are ready. I don't think we can create a "one size fits all" model of adminship.

Additional questions from Clone commando sev

13. would you if the situation arose violate one of wikipedia's policies to ensure that an article contains nothing but the truth?

A: Verifiability is not truth. Our articles do need to be as accurate as possible, a great many readers rely on us. But the "truth" is not our goal. As an encyclopedia, our goal is summarize reliable secondary sources, supported by primary and tertiary sources where appropriate. We are not crusaders for the truth, we are merely trying to present knowledge to our readers. It is also our job to present things from a neutral point of view. By presenting information neutrally, and giving due weight, we allow our readers to make informed decisions. Our readers are smart: we don't have to tell them something is true or false, or right or wrong, we can present information from reliable sources and they can figure it out.

13A. if yes, where would the limit be?

A. To answer this, I need to talk about ignore all rules. IAR doesn't mean that we actively and constantly ignore the rules, it reflects the fact that our rules are based on consensus, and that consensus can change. IAR in many ways underlies all of Wikipedia, as it reflects the fact that we have no immutable law, and encourages innovation. I don't think IAR should be invoked often. But especially when we're dealing with bureaucracy, IAR is an important tool to prevent Wikipedia from becoming Byzantine in its complexity.

Additional question from BasicsOnly

14. How would you respond to suspicious articles such as this article on Mr. Deepak Rao which is currently being investigated by the Bullshido Martial Arts Watchdog society as well as the Rickson Gracie Association for fraudulent claims? In your opinion does this article follow the requirements for a living person to have an article with regards to notability? What about with regards to the questionable integrity of the edits on this page over time and the suspicious claims? (E.g. multiple law degrees, medical doctorate, BJJ blackbelt from an academy that does not exist, unverifiable JKD ranking from a dead practitioner?, etc.) Deepak Rao

A: Struck as inappropriate WP:COATRACK. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Can I Log In

15. 24 hours into this RfA, here is what I'm seeing standing out in the oppose section. Immaturity because of your pirate joke in Q3, support of an unblock request, lack of experience, "hanging out" at AN(I), and bad usage of rollback (which you've addressed in Q6). Could you address those opposes or tell us why someone wouldn't support you?

A: The office of admin does require maturity, and seriousness. But we have to remember that Wikipedia is something people do as a hobby, i.e. for fun. Humour makes everyday editing more enjoyable. But I understand that in the course of admin work, humour can be problematic. In the course of my admin work, I would refrain from jokes, especially when blocking users, closing discussions, and using the tools. Also, the use of my "naval persona" is more for the benefit of new users who I interact with, for example my adoptees are my "crew".

I'll note I wasn't the only one to support the unblock of CaptainOccam. My view is that we should offer folks a rope, and that it is easy to ban people again if they misbehave. But to keep people blocked forever no matter the changes they make? How is that productive to us as a community? Still, looking back on it, I see that I misjudged the scale of Occam's misdeeds. It is clear that Occam has been more problematic to the community than I realized. However, as I am not a functionary, there is no way I could have known the same things the functionaries did. Still, if this says anything about me, it is that I believe contributors should be given second chances, and that we should be cognizant that we are blocking real human people, not just faceless accounts.

The issues of rollback I have covered in Q6, and the moral is: I'm being more cautious and focusing on quality, and would be overwhelmingly cautious as an admin. As an admin, I would also be open to voluntary recall, which would further ensure that I was careful and accountable.

Lastly: I'm glad that folks are opposing me, because it is an opportunity to learn. IF I passed with 100% support, my behaviors really wouldn't change. But because folks are willing to point out my shortcomings, I am able to notice them, and work on them. This RfA has already been very enlightening, and I have a laundry list of improvements to make. I realize that I need to take a closer look at the rollback guidelines and carefully go through the admin's reading list. Its a lesson to always investigate and not make assumptions (except for good faith). And its a lesson to always keep learning.

16. You seem to be a dispute resolution person. Would you be willing to close contentious discussions (e.g. XfD, RfC, whereever)?

A: I imagine that I would deal with both XfD and RfC type discussions. Though for XfD, I would enter in very slowly, I would stick to non-controversial discussions for a good six months to make sure I have a feel for things before I would even think about more contentious discussions. Its not like I would be closing a contentious RfC a day either, it takes a lot of work to make sure that you have read the entire discussion several times, understand all the relevant policies, have looked through the article/supporting material in question, and written an air tight close.

Additional question from Teratix

17. In Q1, you expressed a desire to close contentious discussions as part of your administrative duties and work at AN and ANI, where discourse can grow heated. Could you give an example of a discussion you have closed, preferably contentious or otherwise complex, which you feel best exemplifies your judgement as a closer?

A: I've gone through the archives and found a variety of examples, which I hope will answer your question. I gave a no consensus close on the touchy subject of Propaganda. For a taste of controversial ANI work, see this close. Though I must note that I prefer closing RfC type discussion, as it is less drama filled. See a village pump close here, dealing with the finer points of templates (a close I wish I'd had template editor permissions for). I was also part of this team close on Talk:Australia/Archive_20#RfC_dated_23_June_2019_-_Should_religion_be_removed_from_the_infobox?. I haven't closed as many discussions as some folks, but I find it rewarding and critical work, and hope to carry it on. Discussion closing is no small task, and requires a lot of examination, context building, and revision to craft an excellent close. At the end of the day, one has to remember that its not a !vote, but a contest of policy and arguments. Discussion is about building a rough consensus, not perfect consensus. And afterwards, a closer must of course be willing to listen to feedback, and have the ability to re-examine their decisions. I hope that I have all of those qualities, and am excited to keep polishing my skills.

Additional question from Robert McClenon

18. This question is about conflict of interest and in particular about paid editing. In cases where an editor states that they do not have a conflict of interest, but questions are raised, how do you think that administrators should balance the assumption of good faith against appearances, or against a duck test?

A: At AfC, one runs into a great deal of paid editing, some more obvious than others. A draft titled Draft:Acme Logistics, being promotionally edited by User:AcmePR, meets the duck test. That is the kind of account that needs at least a username softblock, and a message about paid editing disclosures. But rarely are paid editors so transparent about their misdeeds. That is why we ask users to declare any COI if suspected. But if they say they don't have a COI after being asked, and they don't obviously meet the duck test, we generally need to take their word on good faith. This is of course on a case-by-case basis. Its also why we have the COI Noticeboard, to take a look at those edge cases, where a COI is possible but not declared. We also have to remember that not every suspicious new account is a paid editor in disguise. Sure, an account like "RedSoxJoe", making problematic edits to only Red Sox pages could be a COI. But more likely its just an enthusiastic fan, and we need to provide ample good faith to help them become a good editor.

Additional question from Valereee

19. CaptainEek, responding to opposes in the oppose section is a no-win for candidates; your decision not to is wise. If there's anything in the oppose section you'd like to respond to, please do. Consider this question indefinitely open but optional.

A: Thanks for the question Valereee. I've read through all the opposes again, and its clear that I have some areas to improve, and some things to learn. I believe I have addressed the main issues in the opposses, with the exception of my work at AfC. One page in particular was noted: Marine heatwave. I'd like to provide a little context, and my thoughts. I declined that draft on Oct 2, and had become an AfC reviewer only four days earlier. Looking back on it now, I can't believe that I declined such good work. But when I first was at AfC, my standards were...way too high. If I came across that draft today, I'd approve it pronto, and just put a "Technical" tag on it. With any new tool, there is a learning curve. With the admin tools, there would certainly be a learning curve too. But having already experienced several of those curves in areas like AfC and NPP, I now understand the level of caution, and the degree of research, necessary when gaining new tools.

Additional question from Sir Joseph

20. Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?

A: I have received a lot of excellent feedback here, and one the big ones is: caution. Especially as a new admin, I wouldn't be making high profile blocks. If an admin truly needed to be blocked, there would be other admins who could do the task. Still, I feel all editors should be held to the same standard. If a very experienced editor does something block worthy, like vandalism or breaking 3RR, they should receive the same block we'd give a newbie. But as a rookie, I would definitely reach out for a second opinion at AN before taking such a dramatic step. And I would make sure to communicate very clearly the reason for the block, and not just use boilerplate block messages.

Additional question from Nsk92

21. Prior to your support comment in the WP:AN thread for Captain Occam's unblock request Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Unblock request from Captain Occam, did you see any posts by Captain Occam at Wikimedia Discord regarding filing of that unblock request?

A: I'm afraid I can't answer the question accurately without violating the WP:OUTING policy. Someone who claimed to be Occam posted briefly in Discord, but their identity was not verified, and their comments were deleted.

I'll try to leave my general thoughts on Discord though: I am active on our Discord, as it is a great place to build community and help other Wikipedians. We occasionally get people on Discord who have been blocked, and usually: they don't understand why. No wonder: our policies are complex, often poorly explained, and most users don't get explained their block in plain English. Discord is a good environment to explain, because its in real time. Thus when blocked users appear, folks try to help them understand the block, and explain the next steps should they want to appeal. I don't see this as bad: even just adding an unblock template, let alone using Wiki-Legalese, can be daunting to a blocked user. As a last note: when I go to a discussion because it was posted on Discord, I add a disclaimer such as "Saw this on Discord" for transparency.

Hmmmm. As a follow-up, let me rephrase my original question as follows: Prior to your support comment in the WP:AN thread for Captain Occam's unblock request Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Unblock request from Captain Occam, did you see any posts at Wikimedia Discord regarding the block of Captain Occam or that unblock request? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There was no specific mention of the unblock request. I came across the unblock request because I regularly scroll AN and ANI. Had I come across it because of being linked on Discord, I would have said so. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, but let me repeat the first part of the question above: Prior to your support comment in the WP:AN Captain Occam unblock request, did you see any posts at Wikimedia Discord regarding the block of Captain Occam? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw a message by a user who asked about if socking was okay or if they needed an unblock, I responded along the lines of "duh, of course socking isn't okay". No AN thread was mentioned, and I'm not sure if I even knew who the account could have been at the time, it wasn't verified and their nick wasn't a registered username. It seemed like any other blocked account, and very well might have been. Later it was pointed out to me that user had previously claimed to be Occam. I'd never heard of or interacted with Occam before that point. I understand that my vote to support Occam's unblock may not have appropriately taken the ArbCom case evidence into consideration, and that I may have been too kind with the good faith. But Discord was not part of the problem. The fact that Occam may have posted at Discord, and that I was the first to respond to the AN request, was an odd quirk of timing, nothing more. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Black Falcon

22. Some editors, including me, have expressed concerns regarding your rejection of certain AfC submissions. You commented on this in Q19, and I see that you reversed your rejection of Cyclotella and have started improving the article. Would you agree, regardless of the outcome of this RfA, to revisit and reevaluate your other AfC rejections in case there are others that you would, based upon some of the feedback you have received, approve instead?

A. That is a good suggestion, and regardless of outcome I will definitely go through my old AfC's to search for past issues. To start, I've already looked through the declines you mentioned. I have resubmitted Draft:Jerry Dunn (runner) for another reviewer to take a look at, as I think a second opinion would be valuable. But for the other two drafts you mention, I do stand by them. Draft:Lynn Ruth Miller was poorly sourced, including Metro (a tabloid) and a writeup in the Stanford Alumni magazine (Alumni mags are unfortunately infamous about writing about their donors, so I doubt how independent that is). For an already borderline BLP, that kind of sourcing is insufficient. Draft:Gleeds was written by a paid editor, and is still decidedly promotional, its little more than a list of search engine optimization. It is not the job of volunteers to do the work of companies, and one of the purposes of AfC is to prevent this sort of paid content from entering mainspace without being thoroughly vetted.

Additional question from Kingsif

23. I've seen a lot of your contributions in discussion space, and some of your work (and I think you're a good editor); this is often among other editors of perhaps the same caliber. In short: why you?

A: Wikipedia is probably the most rewarding thing I do. Knowing that my actions are helping to build the sum of all human knowledge is... so cool. I like contributing, and I want to help do more; the admin tools would enable me to contribute in an even wider and more meaningful way. I'll be honest: when I started editing in earnest about 2 years ago, I had zero intention of becoming an admin. It seemed...pretty spooky and like a lot of responsibility. I would not have sought it out, but I'm glad that several folks encouraged me to run, as I believe I could further help build the encyclopedia as an admin. I know I am far from the perfect candidate, and that I have a lot of areas to improve in. Especially in the first six months I will be exceedingly cautious. But I feel that I am ready to become an administrator, and have much willingness to learn from my mistakes. If you are looking for reasons to vote for me, I hope folks will take into consideration my scientific content creation; my commitment to being overwhelmingly kind and helpful; and my work with newbies to build a friendly community and retain editors.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator. – bradv🍁 04:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support I've seen them around and they'll be good with the tools. All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 04:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Support: Nominated by two people I have great respect for, and has a solid history of responsibility and listening to the viewpoints of others. Waggie (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
5. This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   I would like to reaffirm my support in light of the opposition below. My thoughts align really well with those of 78.26—I think the mistakes that have been highlighted in the oppose section are important to consider, but I think it is also important to consider how the candidate reacts to criticism. The answer to Q3 is admittedly nonspecific about examples of past conflicts (edit: I see now the candidate added an addendum to Q3 that discusses a specific example), but I think the answer to Q6, for example, demonstrates that the candidate is introspective and willing to admit mistakes in order to correct them for the future. A review of their user talk page shows many examples of positive interaction with both newcomers and experienced editors. I would agree the candidate was naive about Captain Occam, but as many have noted, occasional mistakes are compatible with adminship, so long as the administrator recognizes those mistakes. I trust that, as an administrator, CaptainEek will take it slow and avoid rushing to unilateral action on issues like unblock requests—some of this judgment will no doubt be learned on the job, and in difficult cases we expect administrators to discuss with each other and seek second opinions before action. Because I think the candidate will be a "net positive", and because of my respect for the judgment of the nominators, who have interacted with this candidate extensively, I find myself remaining in this section. Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

6. Support, I expect great things from this one. BD2412 T 04:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Username may frighten children. History of impersonating naval officers and questionable ANI poetry. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   I'll AGF on the username, most people here are concerned about what this person brings to Wikipedia and how this person will contribute. MightyKid (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @MightyKid: Levivich's !vote is in the support section, the comment is pretty clearly sarcasm. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   Having read the opposes, I still think mine is best. Also, I very much agree with 78.26's analysis below, and Jacona's comment "unusually civil behavior". Eek has a Girth Summit-like temperament: calmer than the Buddha, unflappable, always willing to listen. I might disagree with Eek about a !vote here, and they might screw up a template there, but their demeanor is why I trust them with the bit. If they mess something up as an admin, they will listen and correct it. Proof of that is in the answers to the questions above, which I think have been excellent overall. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

8. Support - i have seen a few of your edits and talk page posts and they are all constructive and follow the policies VERY well. Clone commando sev (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Support — Barring the fact that I actually thought they already were one, CaptainEek will make a great administrator if promoted. A calm demeanor, helpful to new users, and a willingness (and track record) to participate in the AIV/counter-vandalism side of the project. I wish you all the very best, CaptainEek! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per Admiralty Law, a seaman needs to be at least an admiral to be an administrator, hence why the two words share the same first four letters :P. In all seriousness, though, TB's oppose gives me pause and I likewise am unenthused of their answer to Q3 brushing aside conflicts, but I'm ultimately sure that they can Eek out a respectful existence in the admin corps for themselves. (I'll stop with the puns now, hopefully I've made myself clear that they're fine IMO.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Could users adding joke opposes please make sure their supports are highlighted. PLEASE so there is no confusion. Closers do not always read everything. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
      • There is no actual possibility of confusion here. (But the real point of this comment is to unbreak the numbering you broke.) -JBL (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. CaptainEek is a dedicated, skilled editor who has the judgment, maturity, and competence to be an administrator. They have a clear need for the tools and they've earned my complete trust that they'll be a net positive with the mop. No one is born ready to be a Wikipedia administrator. There is a great deal of on-the-job learning involved and I can personally attest that every new administrator takes some missteps. The qualities that will make CaptainEek such a good administrator are their willingness and demonstrated capacity to learn, to adapt to challenges, to take both criticism and praise patiently and evenly. These traits come through well and clear in even a quick glance at CaptainEek's contributions – at the Teahouse, at AfC, at AfD, in community discussions, on their talk page, and when writing articles. CaptainEek's thoughtfulness and dedication to the project are exactly what we need in a new administrator now. CaptainEek has earned my strong support. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
12. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
13. Support - Has all that would be expected from an admin. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
14. Support – Clearly experienced and trustworthy. I also disagree with Tony that supporting an unblock request is indicative of poor judgement. I want administrators to refrain from acting unilaterally, not from holding an unpopular opinion. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

    In light of the opposition, I feel that simply offering a boilerplate support with a limited rationale is insufficient. The vote in favor of unblocking Captain Occam was clearly made based off of limited understanding, and I do think that CaptainEek should take care to familiarize himself with what he is commenting on before involving himself in a discussion. But really, haven't we all posted comments without giving them as much thought as we should? I know I have. Being an administrator doesn't mean that you have to be perfect, or that you have to think a certain way. It means that we can trust you to learn from your mistakes, and to do your best with the responsibilities that have been entrusted to your care. I trust CaptainEek to take the opposes as an opportunity for self-improvement, and I trust him to put careful consideration into any administrative action he might take. I don't always have to agree with him, but I do trust him, and I am more than happy to reaffirm my support for his RfA. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

15. Support, I thought the captain was an administrator already.--Eostrix (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
16. Per Kevin, Barkeep, and the bird articles. I understand the opposes by Tony and Serial#, and they gave me pause, but ultimately I think the editor will be a net positive with the tools. There will be a learning curve, but Cpt.Eek doesn't strike me as someone who will not listen to friendly advice should someone bring a mistake to their attention. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
17. Support Always willing to help, very knowledgable, postive attitude and great problem solving / conflict resolution skills.   // Timothy :: talk  10:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
18. Support My interactions have all been positive. My criticisms of their use of English during a pre-FA check were received constructively. The opposes caused me to hesitate, but having researched a little further, I find it difficult to see how the Cap'n won't be a net positive. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
19. Support - Very helpful editor to all at the Teahouse + Help desk. Interstellarity (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
20. Support. Arr, here we have a good content creator and a trustworthy page patroller, who helps out new users. I think we need to make this person an admin, mateys. epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
21. Support. Has the qualification and did well. RuiyuShen 13:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
22. Support. Excellent candidate per above. While agreeing they may have showed a little youthful impetuousness, concerns are offset by the fact that they're open to swiftly changing their mind in the face of alternative perspectives (I gave them a barnstar for this last year.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
23. Support. Has content-building experience, and good temperament. I am taking in TB's comments below but I think CaptainEek will be a net positive overall Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
24. Aye, Aye Captain. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
25. Yarrrr — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
26. Support Has clue, I don't remember any negative incidents involving them. SemiHypercube 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
27. Has clue, not a jerk. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
28. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
29. Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
30. Support Very helpful and mature, exactly the type of person needed as an admin. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
31. (edit conflict) Support - Very nice work on Cactus wren! I believe this demonstrates that you have the skills necessary for adminship. To address TonyBallioni's concern, there's no way for CaptainEek to know about that since he is (obviously) not subscribed to functionaries-en, and content from the functionaries' mailing list isn't posted on-wiki for privacy reasons.
    As always, I don't see how any "AFD stats" are remotely relevant, since that's one of the most trivially gameable ways to "look good". (Simply vote with the majority in AFDs that are obviously going one direction to look good in the tool.) I'd rather a sysop who isn't afraid to offer a dissenting opinion over a yes-man who only encourages an echo chamber.
    Also, the answer to Q3 is clearly satireical. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

    Support — Crossed path with him on one or two talk pages; knows his WP stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmab (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

    Moved to neutral Drmab (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

32. Support Will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
33. Support Net-positive, no large issues. Vermont (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
34. Support The candidate is trustworthy — avoids careless errors. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
35. Support, I've had nothing but positive and helpful interactions with Eek. They're clearly very knowledgeable, and their work on Cactus Wren is admirable. I support an admin willing to voice their opinion and go against the grain rather than simply saying yes because everyone else is. I have no doubt they'll make a great admin. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
36. Support Full steam ahead. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
37. Support Another "thought they were one already" support, which is as strong of a support as I can give. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
38. Support A great candidate with an excellent record of both content edits and constructive contributions to discussions.YUEdits (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
39. Support I feel that the Captain will make a great admin! GrammarDamner how are things? 20:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
40. Support Reasonable answers to the questions, appears to be competent and level-headed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
41. Support per above, per noms, CaptainEek will do great. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
42. Super Support. I am proud to admit CaptainEek is one of the best of us and easily one of the nicest people in our community. I probably trust their judgement more than I do my own in all honesty. CaptainEek is just a very reliable person, and I was happy to encourage them to run in this RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

    Normally at this stage, I would add a lot more to my previous support. However, I think I pretty much said as much as I'd like to have said. I thank everyone for participating and hope for the best result regardless. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

43. Support. Fantastic editor with great experience who can be trusted. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
44. Support; points made by several opposers are valid criticisms, and there does seem to be something of a concern that CaptainEek can jump into things without quite enough due consideration - and clearly that's something that needs to be worked on. But overall excellent attitude and range of contributions seems sufficient to me, I think a clear net positive as an admin. ~ mazca ^talk 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
45. Support I'm often bothered by some of the most important and viewed articles on Wikipedia being pushed to B status or good article status and then left there. CaptainEek has shown some great leadership in avoiding this as he organized an FA push for Abraham Lincoln, that I have recently become involved with. It is really nice to see the 39th most viewed article and probably the most important US president being given some serious attention to be pushed beyond a "good" or "satisfactory" article. This combined with his collaborative and kind demeanor assure me that it would be worthwhile for him to become an Admin. Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
46. Support Editor is a clueful, kind, and pleasurable to work with. I believe they have taken comments in the oppose section to heart and will make better choices in the future. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I also believe that. Ironically if I weren't a nom I'd have asked a question to let them demonstrate that rather than having to just speculating it is true. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

47. Support per L235. I have no doubt that CaptainEek is an experienced, positive member of the community who is worthy of the admin tools. DraconicDark (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
48. Supporrrrrrt. An RFA is not a decathlon. An admin doesn't need to be good in every aspect. In this case his marrrrrvelous work at WP:AFC and WP:NPP shows that he can work with newbies well, one of the important aspects of an admin. Of course, some users deal more with vandalism and less with good-faith newbies, in that case strong AIV competence is needed, as in the case of Materialscientist and Oshwah. CaptainEek doesn't seem to be one of this kind and from what I know, CaptainEek intends to serve clueless (?) newbies and his humor definitely helps. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
49. Support, good record at AfD and in other admin-y areas, excellent content record, history of assisting new editors, good sense of humour. Would clearly be a net positive. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
50. Support – Everything checks out, by now this user certainly deserves admin. Is also tolerant and welcoming to (and of) newcomers, which is one of the best aspects of a good admin IMO. dibbydib (T ･ C) 02:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
51. Support - net positive, and I trust the nominee will restrict themselves to subjects they feel more comfortable and as such are more experienced in. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Support - CaptainEek seems like a cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything. At Wikipedia, we don't think it be like it is, but it do. Good luck! CombustibleTaco (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Struck as a sock of Technoquacker. To the few who support me, I'm afraid I'm just dropping in for a moment. To the many who don't, not to worry, I'm just dropping in for a moment. CaptainEek, best of luck! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

52. Support has a clue, from my (albeit limited) interaction with them they seem quite competent. -- a lad insane (channel two) 03:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ETA: I really don't think their supporting one unblock request is that big a deal. Sure, it was probably a questionable choice to support, but really. It's one unblock request. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
53. Support I don't think the points supported by those opposing have any relevance. From what I can see, the central issue for many is that he supported the unban of an individual deemed disruptive. That should not have any relevance if it was put to vote, as otherwise he is being penalized for merely being part of a democratic process. Essentially that just says, "If you don't vote the way we want you to, then we will remember this and come back to bite you down the line". I don't see that as something to support. Additionally, from what I've seen here and from looking at the candidate's past activity and contributions I don't see any excess immaturity or incivility. Nothing seems professional, and I can't find any fault in their conduct. Concerning integrity it seems there is no fault to be found there. Additionally, as for motivations I see just the willingness and desire to improve the Wikipedia community. Though I was unable to ask my question to them, I see from the responses to the other questions a generally good judgement and character as well as a positive attitude that is constructive for the community. I support this nomination. BasicsOnly (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    BasicsOnly, Essentially that just says, "If you don't vote the way we want you to, then we will remember this and come back to bite you down the line" approaches a personal attack. Would you please strike that? —valereee (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Valereee: events have moved some, and BasicsOnly has now said they will stay away from this RfA. SERIAL^# 12:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

54. Strong Support Good content work and impressive community building. The pirate gimmick is funny. I also frankly can't help but notice the volume of people in the oppose section using incorrect pronouns for the candidate, signaling either that they weren't paying enough attention to actually cast an informed vote or else that they are inappropriately hostile for reasons that don't belong at RfA. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think it's a nefarious plot. There are various supports using the same pronouns. It's just easy for someone to rush in with "he'll make a great admin!" which snowballs into more people who aren't inspecting the userpage to just assume it's correct, because everyone on the internet must be male. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I also don't think it's a nefarious plot. But it is not a signal of a careful vote. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

55. Support - from their response, I can clearly tell that the user clearly knows their stuff. MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
56. Support No major red flags that I can see and nothing, so far, in the oppose section that shows any major issues. PackMecEng (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
57. Support My kind of candidate. Happy to support. I encourage the candidate to explore script writing and template code. While it's fine to leave things to the experts, as all admins should have a working knowledge of such things. But not a show stopper for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
58. Aye. I've been impressed by the Captain's friendly helpfulness towards newbies. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
59. Support for excellent work in key areas, and because a sense of humor is a rare on Wikipedia. Satisfied with answer to question 15. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
60. Support. The candidate has made mistakes, just like all of us have - if we as a community set our standard for adminship as "never made mistakes", we would have no admins. I don't see that the humour is an issue at all, if anything it livens things up a bit From their responses to the questions above, I can see someone who's willing to try and make a genuine go of it, admit when they've made a mistake and done something wrong, and do what they can to fix it. That's the key quality I think is most important in an admin. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
61. Support - I like the candidate, and whilst I appreciate a bit more work to mainspace, no one can complain that the user doesn't know content creation with a stub to FA. Whilst "won't misuse the tools" isn't a particularly strong argument in my opinion; we should be promoting good editors such as this one. WP:NOBIGDEAL is to be expected here. As a suggestion to the candidate - don't embroil too hard into the "drama boards" straight away! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
62. Support. Excellent communication skills, visible in CaptainEek's answers to the questions, and in their interactions with other editors in talk and project space. Great content contributions. I am confident that CaptainEek will accept the opposing rationales as constructive criticism. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
63. Support. I know them as a polite, cooperating and hard-working editor with impressive contributions such as Cactus wren which was a great pleasure for me to review. They will make good use of the tools and pay heed to constructive criticism. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
64. Support Positive attributes greatly outweigh negative.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
65. The documented lapses in judgement do not rise to the level of serious concern for me. Good, competent editor. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
66. Support. None of the reasons given to oppose seem strong. Some of them seem unreasonable. The candidate seems plenty good enough. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
67. Support. Excellent work in key areas, mature demeanour, interaction with new editors. Would be an excellent admin. Cjhard (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
68. Support — Despite the issues(minor) the oppose raise or have pointed out, there’s no denying that the candidate’s intentions are good, they are relentless in their hardwork & most importantly they definitely have a “clue” In the end in my honest opinion they are a net positive. Also they possess a great sense of humor, having an admin with a cool demeanor isn’t a bad idea.Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
69. Support — They seem like they can handle the tools of adminship, and their work with bringing stubs to FA is truly admirable. Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
70. Support --Minorax (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
71. Support - no question that Captain Eek has the qualities to be an excellent admin. He is a problem solver, and a neutral one. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
72. SUpport per nominator and my own observations of user, though I do understand the reservations of those in opposition, for whom Ihave great respect. I think this will work out. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Support per nominator. In addition, I feel confident CaptainEek has learned from their past mistakes raised by those opposing. --MrClog (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. --MrClog (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

73. Support While I understand Tony's concern about the CO unblock request, I don't see a pattern of bad judgement, just a disagreement on one specific issue. I am confident the Captain would be a fine addition to the admin corps. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
74. Weak support: I'm surprised to find myself here for a candidate who says they want to work at ANI, because I believe the noticeboard represents everything that's wrong on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I see no compelling arguments of consistent and sustained issues with CaptainEek's editing. I see a !vote to unblock a neo-Nazi, made without having understood the context. Not good, but we all make mistakes. It's not a reason to think that CaptainEek would misuse the tools in such a situation (as that's why you need community consensus for things like that). I see a very offensive mistake made about Jo Cox, but CaptainEek didn't know the situation, occasional false positives on Huggle are forgivable and CaptainEek handled the hostile response by both an IP and an experienced editor very calmly. I do not see a temperament problem, and I don't have a problem with any of the pirate jokes, so long as they're not made in discussions where there are users that are distressed or angry. Picking some edits at random, I see CaptainEek being true to their word about being patient and friendly to newbies. Overall, the opposes I see are explainable simply as this is a user who has made a lot of contributions to areas where it's easy to make mistakes, and those mistakes will be noticed and remembered by experienced users. Their AfC and NPP work (areas where we need hugely more attention) is what tips me over the edge to support. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
75. Support - I don't see any indication in their past editing to suggest they would misuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I wanted to add a qualifier here, since this may go to a crat-chat. While they meet my minimum standard easily, I think their attitude and approach, their kindness and willingness to AGF would make them a good addition to the admin corps. Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

76. I guess if I'm going to leave a snarky comment, it would be rude not to ultimately cast a vote. At first, I was leaning oppose, since the concerns are fairly legitimate and CaptainEek is far from what I would call a Wikipedia veteran, but ultimately, I think I've seen enough good judgment and character from the nom to trust they won't charge headfirst into contentious disputes right off the bat. As a result, I don't think it is all that necessary to make them wait a few months to come back to an RfA they would pass with certainty. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
77. Support. Definately has the technical competence/knowledge. After reviewing some edits, no issues regarding behaviour (a plesant and heloful editor). The only issue is judgement. Outside of their poor !vote and rationale on the unblocking of Captain Occam (per TonyB below), I see no other material issues of judgement. The noms also have good judgement and read of charachter. Therefore, prepared to give benefit of the doubt on that issue, and don't see the rationale for deferring this for another 6 months. Britishfinance (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
78. Support My analysis is substantially similar to Bilorv's. What we do at RfA is essentially risk management. We don't seek perfect candidates, because they don't exist. We analyze the potential for disruptive behavior versus the potential benefits to the project the candidate brings. This particular candidate has in the past over-agf'd an unblock request, and was once too quick on the trigger with some automated tools. If they becomes and administrator I wouldn't be surprised if some point in the future they over-agf's, and at some point has an instance where they too quick on the trigger with the power tools. What I don't see is an overwhelming pattern of evidence where this is a consistent problem. I do see a good attitude in recognizing their past mistakes and willing to apply their experience to proclivities towards making the same error again. Therefore I think the candidate will be a net benefit to Wikipedia if adminship is granted. I disagree there is no need for the tools, and I like the appropriately applied humor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I like this analysis a lot. I see myself in Captain's tendency to assume too much good faith, and if anything mistakes like you mention are what helped me become a little less starry-eyed. These calls are hard, and nothing made me realize that faster than actually having to make tough calls. Captain's demeanor when dealing with mistakes makes me believe that, even if they were to make a bad decision, they'd take the feedback well and do their best not to make the same mistake again. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

79. Support I understand the arguments presented in the oppose section, however, the candidate's answer to question 15 in my opinion nulls these issues for the purposes of RfA. Question 15 shows understanding, self-reflection and that they can take and use constructive criticism. They have two GAs and one FA which certainly shows dedication to the purpose of Wikipedia. In short, I think this candidate can be trusted to have the tools. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
80. Strong support based on meeting and getting to know the candidate at a wiki conference, whom I trust with the tools based on knowledge and commitment to the project. Jonathunder (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
81. Support. My limited interactions with this user have given me the impression of good judgement and a diplomatic attitude. I am not swayed by the nitpicking in the "oppose" section about an understandable though controversial comment in a confusing AN discussion, an obvious pirate joke (what's wrong with a joke now and then, as long as it won't lead to misunderstandings?), and other minor quibbles. With that level of nitpicking in RFAs we would never get enough admins. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
82. Support - We need some more light-heartedness from Wikipedia adminship. I don't see joke-cracking as incompetence. --WMSR (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
83. Support basically along the lines of 78.26 above. I believe giving CaptainEek the tools is likely to benefit the project. Pichpich (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
84. Support - I met this user at WikiConference North America at they were helpful in making me feel included in the Wikipedia community as a new user and answering my questions —Jno.skinner (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
85. Support Net positive. W42 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
86. Support Eek is a content creator and demonstrates vast amounts of good faith in dealing with the often chaotic NPP/Afc area. I'm not convinced by the opposes; Eek should not be at fault for being manipulated by a user who's storied history took place well before Eek edited. I myself was close to voting oppose on that appeal (see my comment in the discussion), and I still don't think adminship should be denied over one incident of misplaced good faith. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
87. Support - 100% agree with Moneytrees. The opposition is largely insignificant, with the exceptation being this implication that Eek supports unblocking Nazis. It seems inappropriate to me. From my reading, the worst offense Eek committed was endorsing an unblock in response to a GAB-compliant unblock request which Eek stated that he believed to be in good faith. The notion that Eek supporting a user on the basis of an acceptable unblock request somehow translates to Eek being a Nazi supporter is a bit excessive. At worst, Eek overlooked some easily-overlooked details and was manipulated by a disingenuous unblock request. This is a bit silly. Eek is clearly an overwhelmingly net-positive, clueful, friendly, reasonable, good faith editor with no serious problems. Likening him to Nazi aplogism because he supported one reasonable-but-lying unblock request is ridiculous. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Swarm: *Nobody* has accused CaptainEek of *being* a Nazi supporter, and *nobody* has likened CaptainEek to Nazi aplogism! I likened Captain Occam to Nazi apologism, but that's a different Captain. I think Eek was naive in believing the disingenuous unblock request, and failed to check the background properly, and that those together constituted sufficiently poor judgment for me to oppose. But at no point have I ever made Nazi accusations against Eek himself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Maybe CaptainEek is being confused with HauptsturmführerEich? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

88. Support net positive. I agree that mistakes such as the ones identified by Clayoquout and Tony are concerning, but I don't think that these incidents add up to a pattern of behavior indicative of likely future abuse. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
89. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 03:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
90. Support Has been helpful and professional in all interactions I've seen them involved in. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Measured responses to questions, seems very competent and professional. Very thoughtful and willing to admit when he is wrong. Net positive. Paradoxsociety 05:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
92. Support Think will be a good admin! Obhf (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
93. Support - Meets my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 11:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
94. Support - I have read Tony's oppose and I understand the concern, but I think CaptainEek could still make a good admin if he is careful not to jump into sensitive situations. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
95. Support Speaking as one captain to another, I believe you have the ability to properly navigate the Wikipedia shoals. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
96. Support Mainly to counter the silly opposes for making a pirate joke. The user strikes me as someone who learns very quickly from their mistakes and will make a fine admin. We don't have any admins who never make mistakes. Not even me. SpinningSpark 12:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
97. Support Seems to be good choice. - Chandan Guha (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
98. Support I see some isolated instances of poor judgement, but no serious problems or worrying patterns. Clear net positive. 78.26 and Bilorv sum up my thoughts well. – Teratix ₵ 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
99. Support Good guy, exactly the sort of person the admin team needs. Ed6767 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
100. Support. I understand the concerns expressed below, and many of those opposing are folks I have immense respect for. But what I see here is a couple of isolated misjudgements, and not a pattern of bad judgement. If there's a pattern here at all, it's that CaptainEek assumes too much good faith, and that is not something I'm willing to hold against another editor. CaptainEek, regardless of whether this passes, I would quite strongly recommend not working at ANI/AN, and focusing on the more bread-and-butter parts of the administrative backlog. The administrator noticeboards are toxic; working there successfully is a skill that takes a while to develop. I tend to avoid them myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
101. I can't easily bring to mind an occasion when there have been so many people whose judgement I hold in high regard sitting on opposite sides of an RfA fence. My own observations tell me that Cap is friendly, polite and helpful. The opposing side has found some serious lapses of judgement, but I know that I've made enough of those myself in the past - I can forgive that in someone willing to take feedback on board, which is what decides this for me - Eek seems able to take this on the chin and learn from it. So, while I considered saying 'not quite yet, come back in six months', I prefer to say 'go slow, learn on the job, and bear in mind about what people have said here'. So, yeah, support. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
102. Support - We need more admins with a demeanor like CaptainEek's. The Captain Occam unblock comment is perfectly reasonable. Disagreeing with someone's judgment does not necessarily make their judgment faulty, and even if it did, admins should be allowed some tolerance for making occasional mistakes or for having a viewpoint that deviates from the groupthink.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
103. Support Great content work, a very positive demeanor and generosity towards other editors. Definitely a net gain. Alan Islas (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
104. Support I've been sitting on this for a bit as there are some names in the oppose section that I hold in high regard. But after reading the objections carefully and having a look around, I'm just not seeing a pattern of questionable judgement calls or actions. Yes, they have a few gray calls in their record, and one in particular that looks to have been ill considered. But don't we all? It comes with being actively involved in the project. On balance they have demonstrated sound judgement, good temperament and plenty of clue. I trust that they will take onboard any reasonable concerns expressed here and proceed with due caution when using the tools. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
105. Support this is a capable candidate and I am not sufficiently swayed by the concerns raised below. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
106. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
107. Support: "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good". Eek may not be a perfect candidate but they're good enough in my book. Great work with the birds recently, btw. Enwebb (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
108. Support No major issues. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
109. Support: I do not find the oppose section to be convincing at this time, and thoese opposes should not be the ones compromising one's RfA (unlike a copyvio). It were severe, OK I'd oppose. By now the support/oppose percentage will have stabalized. The only thing that would be a concern is speed. I do see that our canidate says that they will be cautious the first 6 months if they become admin. So yeah, SLOW D O W N! {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
110. Support. Wikipedia needs more administrators and I do not find the one objection raised to be a RfA killer. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
111. Support. I find the responses to Q6 and Q15 sufficient to address the concerns raised. userdude 02:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
112. Support. Sound judgment. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
113. Support. Sound judgment and sound answers. The "pirate joke" bothers me not at all. Kablammo (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
114. Support, the opposers have valid concerns, however I feel the Captain will take this in and apply sound judgment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
115. Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
116. Support. Unusually civil behavior. Use of humor appreciated. Jacona (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
117. Support per nomination and Mazca. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
118. Support I've mulled this over for a day or two, but essentially I can trust CaptainEek with the tools. The answer to Q6 is exactly what I want to see (and the related follow-up on the RfA talk page clearly explains why I asked it), an admission of fault and a desire to improve. They have created enough content to know what life is like "in the trenches", and this shows in their answers here as they understand what it's like to be inexperienced and the pitfalls that can create. I've never come across Captain Occam, but all I see here is Captain Eek expressing an opinion about an unblock. It might be an naive opinion formed from a lack of evidence, but that in itself is not an issue. It doesn't mean he would use the tools unilaterally and override consensus. Having a minority or misguided view is okay as long as you can disassociate it from your job as an administrator, and learn from others. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
119. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
120. Support Per Ritchie. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
121. Support I don't think I can say much more than others have already said. I appreciate the very detailed responses to questions, and especially like their handling of the oppose voters concerns. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
122. Aye StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
123. Support I am unconvinced by the discussion down in the Oppose section, and always happy to support somebody who knows what they're doing and won't break anything. Rcsprinter¹²³ (reason) 19:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
124. Support per nom. Will be a net positive. Juno (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
125. Moving from oppose per answers to Qs 6 & 19. I believe this well-intentioned editor will take the feedback here to heart and start out cautiously. —valereee (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
126. Support: I was going to write something but Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) stated what I was going to say so well I won't repeat it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
127. Support as per epicgenius. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
128. Support There's valid concern in the opposition but overall I see a possible net-positive admin. Hope they take onboard valid concerns expressed here. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
129. 'support based primarily on the afc work. This is a field in which nobody can be perfect, because the criterion for passing AfDis that the article will probably pas sWP:AFD ,and AFD decisions are notably erratic. I've made mistakes in judgement here, and so has ever active afc reviewer I know.The candidate has in my opinion done very well here for their level of experience, well enough that they are one of the reviewers on whom I rely to a considerable extent for a second opinion, and i would think very carefully before deciding to override their decisions. Of course, AfD and Speedy require a higher level of responsibility, for they are not as easily corrected. But the work so far gives enough indication of success here. As for other areas of admin work, no admin does all of them. Yes, I wish there had been more direct article writing, but admins do not primarily write articles, and no one who primarily wishes to write articles needs to be try to become an admin. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
130. Support - I don't know the editor, but he seems reasonable. I get Boing's point, but at the same time, I would rather have an admin that leans lenient than one that uses the tools with an iron fist. Blocks are cheap, if we unblock someone for a last chance, you can bet there will be 1000 eyes on them and at the first glimmer of a problem, they can be blocked and support will be high. I have no idea how I would have !voted in that discussion, and after the fact, it is moot, as hindsight is always 20/20. But for a moment, let's pretend I would have opposed.... I would still have seen his !vote as reasoned and thought out, even if I completely disagreed with it. Just a difference of opinion. I'm happy to oppose someone for their behavior, but I can't just because I might have disagreed with the leniency they displayed in allowing someone to return for one more chance. My best guess is he will make mistakes, like the rest of us do all the time, but I don't think he will misuse the tools or delete the front page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
131. Support per 78.26, Mz7, and Ritchie333. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
132. Support The opposes are unconvincing and appear more politically motivated rather than on qualification. He won't break the encyclopedia with the tools. ConstantPlancks (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

     @ConstantPlancks: Your support is unconvincing, and your allegation against ~40 other editors clearly and wholly unsupported: please withdraw it. serial ^# 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

     No. When the opposers complaint implies he supports neo-nazis, it's a political hit job. When that argument is removed from the opposers arguments, I'll retract. He's not a neo-nazi. Implying it up is outrageous and reeks of a political hit job. Note, not every opposer has noted it but enough have pointed to those that have to support my statement. Retract the neo-Nazi shit and strike any oppose that referenced them an I will simply support this nomination. ConstantPlancks (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

     Usually I find that incredibly terrible arguments in the Oppose section of RfAs cause me to voice my support; this is the first time I've found myself tempted to oppose just because of an incredibly terrible Support argument. --JBL (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

     My support argument is that he is a decent editor who learns from his mistakes. Some of the oppose arguments are that he supports neo-nazis. Take your pick of which is more rational: Decent editor or the Godwin's Law argument. Search the use of the term nazi to see where they fall. ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

     ConstantPlancks, where are you seeing anyone saying CE supported neonazis? I find people saying CE supported the unblocking of a person friendly with a neonazi. People are questioning the judgement, not the politics, of the candidate. —valereee (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

     @Valereee: I question the judgement of any of the opposers that are trying to convince the community that CE supported the unblocking of a person friendly with a neonazi as if that were the motivation for his !vote. It's a sad and pathetic argument. The implication that his !vote had anything to do with "neo-nazi" is offensive. The opposers using that logic should have their "oppose" discounted by the closing steward. I question their ability to fairly evaluate the capability or judgement of anyone with such a weak and deceptively repugnant guilt by association. Admins have had their bit removed yet I've never heard of a purge of the editors that Supported their RfA or their future RfA !votes discounted because they supported an admin that lost their bit. I've yet to see !vote used as a cudgel this way. "Neo-nazi" is thrown around way too much in a place that is supposed to be collegial and tolerant. It's a loaded and toxic argument and the reason why Godwin's law was invented. Might as well say "You know who ELSE supported this unblock..." It's an insulting and pathetic type of argument that lacks intellectual rigor but is often found in political disagreements when a position cannot be supported with logic or facts.. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

133. Support Will use tools honestly and with insight. Opposes are not convincing. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
134. Support As one of the many people that the Captain has helped, I say "Set sail for adminship!" Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
135. CaptainEek may be a little green, but beyond judgment I trust their ability to learn. They've shown it here throughout (Q6 and 78.26's support are clear examples) but when given a choice between two candidates, I'll take the one who learns quickly from their mistakes seven days a week (and twice on Sunday). CaptainEek has shown good judgment, and where they have not, they have shown an immediate willingness and desire to learn and improve from those mistakes. I can think of no better qualification when considering entrusting someone with the toolset. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

     I also want to add that I disagree with the main point of opposition. Poor judgment in a single unblock request is just that, nothing more. We are not electing CaptainEek to ArbCom, and I see no reason to believe CE will make a habit of single-handedly unblocking folks with a problematic history. Folks should be allowed to be wrong, even egregiously so, and as long as no long-term problems occurred and they learn from it, who cares? We literally have a long-running joke about sysops deleting the main page because it happened, and then they became a bureaucrat.

     Also, pirates are awesome and purple is awesome and one sentence of levity is really not an issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

136. Support After long thought and consideration of some legitimate oppose concerns, I'm supporting as a netpositive. I believe CE will heed advice and cautions given during this RFA, and more importantly don't believe he would circumvent consensus. The OC case may represent poor judgement or an over abundance of good faith to give someone a last chance, but it was A discussion. I have zero fear of anything along the lines of CE unilaterally unblocking such an editor. Concerns of his content creation ring hollow, he has lots of content work including an FA and GAs. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
137. Support Good luck. Romartus Imperator (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
138. Support - would be a fine admin. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
139. Support The candidate gives superb answers to the questions, particularly on those situations that admins are so commonly embroiled in, where objectivity is of paramount importance. I feel this person will be a high quality admin. A lot of people who didn't get what they wanted seem to be in the oppose section. Kissing derriere is not the job of an admin; doing what's utilitarian (with the encyclopedia itself being 'more equal' than the editors) is, and this candidate gets it IMO. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
140. Support – I am of the opinion that this editor will be a strong positive asset to the admin team. While they have made mistakes like everyone else, they have clearly demonstrated the ability to self-reflect, admit where they have gone wrong, and learn from the experience. Being willing to assume good faith of others is an asset, not a liability, and I agree with Amory that offering a contrary opinion on an unblock request is not an indication of general untrustworthiness. They have satisfied me with their answers above, and I am happy to support. CThomas³ (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
141. Support. Would be very good in the role of admin. glad to see this RfA proceeding!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
142. Support. No doubts about this candidate. Will do well with the mop. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
143. Support - I, for one, like the sense of humor. Clear ability with conflict resolution and eminently civil. schetm (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
144. Support.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
145. Support. Responsible for 80% of the content of Cactus wren, nice. I see you have indeed been "hanging out" quite a bit on the noticeboards. I found nothing overtly problematic there but I see that you understand you should take a more professional approach to the boards when you're wearing an admin badge. Your too-casual approach to using tools like Huggle and Twinkle, and denial of reasonable creation efforts as an AfC gatekeeper, has earned you well-deserved trouts here and put your admin candidacy into NT (near threatened) status, but I'm still in LC (least concern) territory because I'm confident that you'll take the feedback here onboard your admin ship and adjust course accordingly. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
146. Support - I have looked over the Opposes, and I respectfully disagree with them. On the one hand, admin is a big deal. No big deal would be patent nonsense except that it is in English. On the other hand, I disagree with those who think that content creation is the key. Content stabilitization is the key. This is an editor who contributes by keeping the encyclopedia stable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
147. Support Seems to be a good editor. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
148. Support lgtm, can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
149. Support Per net positive. I think they can be trusted with the mop. The oppose votes below seem to be stretching slightly with what appears to be a good editor with a generally trustworthy record. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
150. Support. Has clue, doesn't break stuff, treats people with respect, has been around for a while. As to the principal reasons for opposes: 1) AFC. Good faith differences of opinion, seems willing to adjust approach based on community feedback. 2) Humour: no harm, no fou(w?)l. 3) Supporting an unblock request without knowing the whole story? Meh, that's why we have discussions - to highlight what people might be missing. I see no reason to suppose he'd go rogue and bypass discussions. Martinp (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
151. Support clearly here to help build and maintain an encyclopedia & generally good communication. There are legitimate concerns about judgment in the opposes & it has taken me a while to think about this RfA. What tipped me into support was that they have mostly exercised good judgment and appear to be willing to learn from their errors, a clear net positive. --Find bruce (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
152. Support. Couldn't say it any better than Amorymeltzer. Clear net positive. Great IRL interactions as well; CaptainEek is friendly and a wonderful representative of the Wikimedia movement. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
153. Support per noms, Amorymeltzer, and 78.26. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
154. Support I believe will be a cheerful positive for the project, appears to learn from their mistakes. Cavalryman (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
155. Support per the noms and others above whose judgment I trust. There's been a few ANI closes I disagreed with or thought were too early, but nothing to make a fuss about. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
156. Support – Experience seems adequate. I am not convinced the controversial opinion in the unblock case is an indication of bad faith or judgement. CaptainEek has demonstrated AGF and kindness even on my talk page.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
157. Support largely per Dennis Brown. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
158. Support Eek is one of the best users around, not only is Eek friendly and lighthearted, Eek has contributed significantly to the project. Eek was one of the users who helped me learn the ropes of Wikipedia and I was surprised they weren't an admin then. I strongly support CaptainEeks nomination to be an administrator. Flalf^Talk 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
159. Suppport. People are sheep. The opposes hit 20, and then there was a decline in the amount of people wanting to support CaptainEek. Many of the oppose !votes are "As per X", and those 'parent' commments have been resolved in the Q&A section above. >>BEANS X2t 13:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
160. Support seems generally competent enough, I can see points some opposers are raising, but overall they don't really feel like dealbreakers for me.--Staberinde (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
161. Support. Q: Will giving this editor admin rights destroy Wikipedia? A: No it will not. Opposition is unconvincing, and seems to mostly be based on "disagreed with TonyBallioni one time". Will be fine. Fish+Karate 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
162. Support, on balance, since this is in the balance. The opposes make good points, & I expect the captain to take very good notice of them. Few people actually "reapply after six months" these days, so if it's now or never, I say now. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
163. Support I've not had many interactions with CE, but they seem like a good editor and worthy of the mop. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
164. Support I've weighed all views into account and believe that Captain Eek still remains a net positive. He has demonstrated an ability to improve and learn from bumps in the road without digging their heels in and doubling down into ill-advised confrontation. Sail on young cap'n! Loopy30 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
165. Support I have been contemplating asking Cap to first try and improve on the things they can already do, as per the many valid opposes. But, I think I trust them to do that even with new, shiny tools at hand. I have seen them around and they have always seemed helpful, polite and collegial to me. They have shown a lot of character^{Is it all sport interviews or just the ones I watch?} during this very process. So, I judge it not worth it to ask them to come back to go through all this again. It's no big deal, after all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
166. Support Here for all the right reasons, I feel CaptainEek will use the tools responsibly and to the benefit of Wikipedia. They're a good part of the community and I believe them when they says they're ready for 'promotion'. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
167. Support. Arrrr. Guy (help!) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
168. (Moved from Neutral) Conditional support – the condition being, the Captain refrains from hitting the Rollback butt'n until they are damn sure they aren't hurting any soul; and especially any new mate on the deck. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
169. I am concerned about the Captain Occam thing, especially as they plan to work on ANI. But I think their ability to take feedback which I've seen ameliorates the concern enough to support. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
170. Support Went kind of back and forth on this, but overall I think the answer to Q15 demonstrates that the user is cognizant of the concerns brought up here and will tread carefully with the administrative tools if this RFA is successful. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
171. (moved from neural) I accept CE's explanation of the CO vote and surrounding circumstances. Otherwise, I don't see any reason for concern. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
172. Support Has a clue, articulate comments on AfD articles. Has made some decisions I wouldn't have and mistakes with rollback, but I don't think this is disqualifying. Blythwood (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
173. Support Hesitated here. But the concerns seem to focus mostly on the CO vote, and the Draft:Marine heatwaves decline. My opinion of the CO vote mostly aligns with Swarm's; naively defending a bad person does not make you a bad person. The Marine heatwaves issue is more serious; that decline is basically everything that's wrong with Wikpedia culture. But I'm satified that with the Q19 answer; we can't hold one-off mistakes against people forever. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
174. Support CaptainEek has learned from his past mistakes, and is able to show that he can handle additional tools responsibly. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
175. Support per above. The opposes don't particularly concern me, and I'm especially baffled by the proposition that an editor should be blocked from adminship based on a stance they took in a single unblock discussion. CJK09 (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unfortunately I do not think they have the judgement to be an administrator, and am afraid they would rush into sensitive situations they are not familiar with based on first impressions. I'm also not impressed at all with their answer to question three: that is an opportunity to be introspective and think about how past conflict on Wikipedia would form the way one becomes an administrator, in addition to showing the community that you know how to take feedback. Instead we get a pirate joke, a statement that they think themselves to have a laid back demeanor, and generally good advice but nothing that shows us how they would actually interact in a conflict, or shows us the have the ability to be self-reflective.
   As an example of something that I find particularly concerning for someone who states that they want to work at AN and ANI is their comment in support of Captain Occam's unblock request a few months ago. While I'm normally not one to hold votes against people in an RfA, I think this one is particularly concerning. Captain Occcam had been canvassing support by playing "pick a functionary" via email, lying to people saying that his block was due to oversighted information about another user, and by trying to be sympathetic on the Wikimedia Discord and talking about his situation there. CaptainEek self-discloses as being a participant on that Discord channel, and was the first person to support unblocking one of the single most disruptive users in the history of the English Wikipedia, whose entire history on this project has been one drama after another based on pseudoscientific POV issues.
   Now, most of these issues were before CaptainEek was active, but I'm still concerned with what this reveals: this is a pretty quick rush to judgement probably based on hearing about it from Captain Occam (not their fault) given how CO'd been talking about it off-wiki for a while, where they rushed to support someone anyone who has dealt with in the past can tell you isn't suited for this project (see entire thread). That rush to judgement over something like this type of unblock request is an issue for someone who wants to work on noticeboards, and combined with the lack of answer to question three, I'm winding up here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni:, since your block of Captain Occam was based on private evidence (i.e. emails to functionaries and other users), why did you consent to it being appealed to AN in the first place? It doesn't seem fair to ask for the opinion of the whole community on an unblock appeal, and then criticize those who want to extend good faith for not being privy to all the details. – bradv🍁 01:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   My block was absolutely not subject to private evidence in any way. The issue was CO was falsely claiming it was in order to circumvent community review of his block, which was a community block, not an OS or functionary action. I also don’t expect anyone to know that, and agree it would be unfair to criticize them for that, which wasn’t my intent. I apologize to the candidate if it seemed I was holding them to that impossible standard. I only mentioned that here because it sets the context: Captain Occam was trying to get unblocked by any means necessary, both through emails to individual OSers and through other off-wiki measures including bringing up the unblock in the Wikimedia Discord server. The fact that the first two supporters here were active discord members suggests that CaptainEek likely just rushed to support someone he recognized without looking at the actual history of the individual. I don’t want administrators who are willing to jump into an AN thread because they’re sympathetic to people they know from a chat channel.TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: I suppose the best thing I can say is that, to my knowledge, CaptainEek and Occam had never interacted publicly in the Discord before 7 January 2020. Occam didn't post that much, and there is no real reason to suggest most people there would be particularly familiar with him. The day in question, Occam posted something (since deleted) encouraging users there to weigh in on their appeal. Eek did that after reading all the relevant arbcom cases (based on their previous onwiki comment).
   Everything else is just as Bradv said, I suppose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comment. Like I said. I’m going based only on the publicly available stuff, which as Boing! explains below is enough to cause serious reservations. My view is very similar to Boing!’s with the added bit that I think it looks really bad to be the first to comment in these circumstances. Basically you can also add “and per Boing!”, since his thoughts and mine are fairly similar here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

2. With all due respect to the candidate and nominators ,!voters can only play the hand they're dealt. While the work at the AfC HD is commendable, I don't see that interest over at the AfC talk page, which CE has never edited (giving the candidtae the benefit of the outstading ping, which was only yesterday). For comments at ANI, well, obviously see ^^^. As for deletions: 16 CSD noms this year, 70% alignment at AfD, and has closed six discussion. As for their AIV filings, I see 3 this year—none since January—and their last 50 go back to January 2019. I'm afraid I am not seeing the doubtless laudable work that the nominators wax lyrical over.
   I'm also slightly troubled by Q3. I hope, as TB suggests above, that it was "just" a pirate joke; we don't need any (more) admins who treat disagreement with them as a form of rebellion! (Avast, avast, etc) Perhaps a few less jokes in project space? Even so, notwithstanding the above, I recognise their commitment to civility. All the best! SERIAL^# 08:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
   To clarify further to Boing!'s notes, I fear a cogent argument could be made that either the candidate didn't read the thread/assess the evidence/make a value judgment before commenting on one of the most high-octane unblock requests seen outside FRAMland; or they did read/absorb/ and deliberate and still came to the conclusion that they supported the unblocking of an editor who was an unashamed fellow traveller of a paid-up (insert modern Naziesque party of choice) advocate. Neither of these is good optics, to say the least: either the candidate jumps into emotive issues without doing their due diligence, or doesn't think it necessary, or they think that Captain Occam is the kind of editor Wikipedia is really in need of. An unfortunate set of circumstances, to say the least. SERIAL^# 18:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   We could always send him to WP:Requests for Arrrrrbitration I guess. Ritchie333 ^(talk)(cont) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   love the humour. MightyKid (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Humor#Humor_outside_of_articles ya scarvy landloober. - Keith D. Tyler ¶

3. I have a tremendous respect for the nominator and his judgement and would love to support just based on that. I must, however, oppose based on my fear that the candidate doesn't have the same quality in the abundance needed in our community. Lots of AFG and welcoming new editors and so on, but sometimes that's not enough. Despite Barkeep49's nomination, i believe that i have seen the candidate make comments i couldn't support on the drama boards (Tony's, above, is a perfect example); i wouldn't want to guess why, but the jumping in with a comment too soon or not sufficiently thought through is not what i look for in an admin. Sorry not to support. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Like Lindsay, I would say that I respect the noms significantly. But Cap has a history of not using rollback appropriately. If I were to take some of the recent examples, such as – in this rollback, he reverted an IP (with the boiler plate summary "addition of unsourced content to a biographical article"); but the IP had had already self-reverted their erroneous additions before Cap arrived. Post that, Cap went on to warn the IP on their talk page for stuff that the IP had already corrected. And in this rollback, Cap reverted an IP's editorial opinion, without giving either an explanation in the edit summary or on the IP's talk page. And here, Cap rolled back a valid article talk page comment (however opinionated) by a new editor and then went to their talk page to give a boiler plate welcome, which went like "Thank you for your contributions..." That doesn't make sense. Such and other rollback attempts of Cap show a lack of understanding of how to handle new editors, as well as a lack of understanding of the rollback tool. To some extent, new editors will have some distress if dealt like this and would not feel welcome. I'll be pleased to support Cap once I am assured over a few months that they would stop being trigger-happy (sorry to use the term). Lourdes 15:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Tony and SN. Nihlus 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SN and Tony, The ANI unblock support I can let slide as I've supported things in the past which I've soon regretted, The AFD participation is okish however the lack of AIV reports and XFD closures aren't, I'm also not entirely pleased with the fact they want to work at AN/ANI .... (There's more to this site than one noticeboard and one swamp.}. –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose The answer to two of the basic questions concern me. In Q1, "hanging around ANI" does not sound like a productive use of an admin's time, and saying he they will "close contentious discussions" is a bit difficult to evaluate when neither the candidate nor either of his their nominators have given any specific examples of him them closing discussions in the past. Which brings me on to Q3, which is also weak. Using humour in an RfA is rarely a good idea (see the RfA advice page) so that got me off on the wrong foot. There are vague references to BRD and AGF without, again, giving any actual examples of interaction with specific editors or specific conflicts. Without any details, how am I to assess whether he they will be able to keep a cool head as an admin? There is also the Captain Occam thread that Tony mentions (I don't see how he they can be one of the first to jump in and support unblocking in such a complicated case) and Lourdes's concerns over rollback. Taken together this is enough to put me in the oppose column.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the arguments presented by TonyBallioni and by Serial Number 54129. Also per Clayoquot below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose Several concerns have been articulated by the editors above. My concerns are that the candidate has only created 11 articles (one was deleted)- one is a disambiguation page, and most are rather stubby. in addition the candidate has a very high delete !vote record at AfD (many AfD nominations as well). My belief is that it is easier to lean toward delete when one does not have experience creating articles. An administrator should have experience building an encyclopedia since the main jobs of an administrator are to protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @Lightburst:, did you happen to miss their work on Cactus wren and Vermilion flycatcher? Cactus wren looked like this when they started on it, and this is the state Vermilion flycatcher was in. There are a lot of things one could criticize CaptainEek for – too kind, too trusting, too funny, too eager – but I don't think lack of content creation is a fair judgment of their abilities, nor of their track record here. – bradv🍁 23:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

   @Lightburst: I'm noting some data here not to change your vote, but just to pass on some information. Back in December, I noted on an RfA that the average deletion results at AfD for a week was 63.9% [1]. I just re-did these numbers for April 21-27 and came up with 65%. CaptainEek's deletion vote % is 65.3% [2]. CaptainEek's percent of delete votes might be higher than you like, but it's very reflective of the average state of AfD. Just something to consider. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

10. Very reluctant oppose, as there's a lot to like about Captain Eek. What puts me here is this AfC decline. In this project we can't afford to lose incredibly good content like that, and we can't afford to discourage new editors who put in that kind of effort and have that kind of expertise. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    I read CaptainEEek's response to Q19, and for now I'm reaffirming my oppose. A look at their contributions to Draft space indicates that they are still applying excessively high standards to science drafts. E.g. they declined Draft:Cyclotella a week ago for having no inline references, no inline links, and a list of species that is too long (it did have inline references, by the way). Cyclotella is currently a red link in nine articles. They acknowledge that their AfC standards were too high in October and say that they have learned a lot about how to use AfC since then, but I'm not yet seeing that. I ask them to consider going through their own AfC declines (including the ones deleted under G13), re-evaluate them, and perhaps apologize to some of the article creators. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    I see you've moved Draft:Cyclotella to mainspace and done a lot to improve it. Thank you :) Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

11. Oppose: the vote in support of Captain Occam's unblock request [3] was a deal-breaker for me. The related case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229#Captain_Occam, was linked in the first comment on the thread and should have guided the response. Other issues brought up above are also a concern. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @K.e.coffman: When you say the AE case was linked in the first comment, did you notice that the first comment was made by CaptainEek themself? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Boing! said Zebedee: Sorry, I missed that. I must have assumed that the support vote was coming from someone who had inadvertently taken the appeal at face value. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

12. Based on the concerns raised by TonyBallioni, Clayoquot, and others, I am unfortunately not seeing evidence of the good judgement that I expect from administrators. It's concerning that the candidate says he wants to close contentious discussions when there is little indication that he has done so in the past and demonstrated competence at it. (There are places where non-admins can close discussions such as RSN and AfD, but it doesn't seem that the candidate has been active there.) buidhe 05:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Tony Ballioni. I am not of the belief that we should be lenient when it comes to Rfa's because of a shortage of admins. While acknowledging the candidate's skill in reaching FA status and his level-headed Afd comments, I am concerned about the unblock request and the off-putting humor in an inappropriate venue. I could be wrong, because I have not delved into it, but I'm concerned that the Captain-Captain connection is what might have clouded the candidate's judgment over there. I am concerned about how being a member of a clique in WP can cause errors of judgment to otherwise clear-headed individuals. I say this as someone who has respect for the nom and yet refuses to allow that respect to trigger an automatic support vote. StonyBrook (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
14. Oppose (regretfully) per Lourdes and others. Too many recent, minor issues to be comfortable. Please work on the areas raised and come back in 6 months. GiantSnowman 09:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Oppose Per KE Coffman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC) I have a feeling th Captain is realizing that the Occam support was a bad call. The reason being that getting these kinds of blocks instated is the result of really laborrious community efforts, that effectively drain energy and time away from the wikipedia mission. One should not lightly throw around WP:ROPE as a justification for taking even more time and energy away from the community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Maunus: Did you intend to strike the oppose or just update your statement? It currently still tallies as an oppose until you indent it. Respectfully, -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Maunus indented when they struck, but another editor later un-indented it. I re-indented it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

15. Oppose. Someone who thinks a neo-Nazi apologist who collaborates with Emil Kirkegaard (User:Deleet) should ever be unblocked does not show the judgment I want to see in an admin. I did think hard about this, considering the possibility that CaptainEek wasn't aware of the full background to the Captain Occam case (and perhaps unaware of Captain Occam's skills as a liar). But it was CaptainEek's own comment, the first in the unblock request discussion, that highlighted the AE case leading to Captain Occam's block. And in that case, Captain Occam's links with neo-Nazi racism were made abundantly clear. So CaptainEek clearly did understand who and what Captain Occam is. I wanted to find a way to support this RfA, but I really can't, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    The editor interaction search with Deleet and Captain Occam shows almost no common articles. Can you specify the nature of this collaboration and the neo-Nazi apologism? The only comment in that AE thread that mentions Nazism is the one by Bishonen: --scroll down to the selfie of Kirkegaard in front of a nazi salute -- Emil Kirkegaard is to be sure not the subject here, and I'm not saying Captain Occam is responsible for him, but Captain Occam's concern lest Deleet is driven off by BMK's "behavior" leaves me cold. So the apologism and collaboration is based on one comment by Occam that he was concerned about Deleet leaving Wikipedia. Or if this collaboration is based on your private doxxing evidence of some sort, why do you expect CaptainEek to be aware of it? TonyBallioni's oppose vote is a lot more reasonable because it addresses the actual off-wiki canvassing by Captain Occam. --Pudeo (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    "if this collaboration is based on your private doxxing evidence of some sort" - it isn't. Deleet is open about his identity on his user page and Kirkegaard's neo-Nazi racism is well documented, and the trail of Captain Occam's history here and evidence of his vocal support for Deleet/Kirkegaard is not hard to find. I'm sure you can find it if you actually bother to look (and no, I don't mean using an inapplicable tool like the editor interaction tool, I mean using the investigative and deductive powers of your brain). I would have expected a potential admin candidate to investigate Bishonen's comments before making their unblock request recommendation. Now, you might be happy for racists and neo-Nazis to be welcomed back here without properly checking (I really don't know), but I'm not, and a potential admin candidate shouldn't be either. And that's really all I have to say to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Oh, one last thing... Bishonen wasn't the only one in the AE request to identify neo-Nazi/racist connections - MastCell did too, identifying a connection with eugenics, and Captain Occam himself details his apparent concern for Deleet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, I forgot that both CO and Deleet joined the new Psychometrics task force so it is probably right to say they "collaborated". This in fact shows up in the interaction search as the only meaningful result (and indeed commented by MastCell), but this wasn't the main focus of adminstrator comments – that's two out of nine admins. Deleet was blocked only 10 months after that AE thread and the block reason is private. --Pudeo (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Pudeo: Just looking back over my response to you here, and it comes over as a bit abrasive. Apologies for that - I think it was probably because I was steeped in the Occam/Deleet thing at the time, and that doesn't put me in the best frame of mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    I just want to add that CaptainEek has responded saying "It is clear that Occam has been more problematic to the community than I realized. However, as I am not a functionary, there is no way I could have known the same things the functionaries did." @CaptainEek:, my oppose here is based solely on what is publicly visible (or, at least, was visible at the time of the unblock request), as was my opposition to the Occam's unblock request itself. The block was not based on any functionary-only evidence, despite what Occam might have been claiming. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    I still don't understand why this matters so much. Clearly not good to support the unblock, but, so what? I wouldn't support electing CaptainEek to ArbCom or something given this, but if they had been a sysop, nothing different would have happened. It would still have been a poor choice, but nobody is suggesting that CE would have unilaterally unblocked Ocamm, so what's the concern? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    Just a little analogy that may or may not shed any light on this sitch - when I was an active member of the NCHA and competing in cutting horse competition, I often sat in the grandstands as an observer. I didn't always agree with the 3 or 5 judges in the arena who were actually judging the performances, simply because I was not studying the runs as closely as they were - I was simply an observer and wasn't carrying that responsibility. It wasn't until after I went to judging school, and became a card-carrying NCHA judge that I realized the stark difference in the way I was seeing things as an observer vs actually judging. I believe Captain Eek will see things in proper perspective as a card-carrying admin vs a casual observer sitting in the grandstands, and I can say that with confidence because I've seen quite a few RfA candidates that I had reservations about who became excellent admins when given the tools. After their first six months or year of carrying on admin duties, I made it a point to commend them for their excellence. j/s ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    Atsme this is well written so thanks for that. I can tell you that there were times that I said "If I were an Admin I would..." and then I became an admin and suddenly doing that thing felt a lot different. However, I think along with that burden of responsibility can come a rush of power. It's for this latter reason that I wrote about what I coined the mushroom effect. Given our lifetime term for sysop I cannot blame those who weigh the downside risk differently than you and I. My analysis largely aligns with Amory's about Eek in this instance - if Eek had been a sysop it might still have ended the same way so why prevent them from being sysop - but I do respect those who come to a different conclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

16. Oppose per Boing! and Tony. I very rarely get involved in RfAs, but I think supporting that paritcular unblock request was an egregious error in judgement. I'm concerned because I'm not seeing anything that suggests CaptainEek understands that this is the case, and that is not a quality that I believe we need in an admin. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Tony & Boing Idan (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
18. Oppose Too soon and no apparent need for the tools. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
19. Oppose The Captain Occam situation is well-explained above and leads me to believe that Captain Eek is not ready yet for adminship. CE's demonstrated competence and sensitivity in dealing with what might be called "garden variety" bad-faith actors in places such as AfC and other venues in which they are active does not yet appear to have given them adequate judgment to deal with the occasional "horrible-faith" actors. The latter are definitely a very small minority but the damage they cause is extensive and all admins should be able to distinguish the two. I have no doubt that they will be able to accrue the necessary experience to do so but it is currently too soon to be confident in their judgment of edge cases. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
21. Regretful Oppose per Tony and many others on the support of unblock of occam. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
22. Oppose per TonyBallioni, not because of the way he voted on Captain Occam's appeal, but due to the Discord cabal vote brigading itself. I highly doubt that CaptainEek even knew all the background details about Captain Occam's situation, but he was most likely just persuaded by his messages in Discord. I can't support a candidate that has been active for just 2 years and already demonstrably participates in vote brigaging. Of course, many other editors in this section themselves brigade via IRC, but that's besides the point. --Pudeo (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Pudeo: Occam made a total of 141 comments in WP:Discord mainly over the course of two separate days. In comparison, I have made a total of 7,690 posts during a period spanning several months. Eek had never interacted with Occam before the latter's appeal. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    I was happy to see CaptainEek’s response to Q6, it was exactly what I was hoping to see and shows a lot of willingness to change. Tony’s oppose is concerning, but I might have been able to get past that, too. But Clayoquot’s diff in Oppose#10 shocked me; it was only a few months ago. This is what prevents valuable new editors from sticking around. CaptainEek, I think you’ll make a good admin eventually because I think you’ll take this feedback to heart and become better, but I’d like to see six months of that work. —valereee (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Moving to support per answer to my Q19, which is pretty much everything I needed to see in an answer. —valereee (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

23. Regretful oppose I was going to support as a net positive, but Boing! and Clayoquot put me here. Sorry. Miniapolis 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
24. Oppose: Per Lightburst, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable handing the mop over to someone with so few articles; I find experience building the encyclopedia to be an important factor, and the good CaptainEek just barely passes my minimum. I'm also rather unsure about Eek's need for the tools; thus, I must oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    Javert2113 - A featured article is not good enough for you? That barely passes [your] minimum? How many stars and green plusses are needed? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

25. Oppose per TB and Boing!, unfortunately. I voted to support at first, but changed my mind. --MrClog (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
26. Oppose - Tony and Boing have covered my thoughts on this already, I won't repeat what they said above. stwalkerster (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
27. Oppose There are too many recent issues which have been raised here. While individually these issues wouldn't rise to the point where I felt I needed to oppose the fact that there are so many and that they are recent give me great pause. These issues being those raised by TonyBallioni, Lourdes and Clayoquot among others. I encourage the CaptainEek to spend 6 months honing their skills, particularly in ensuring that they fully understand a situation before involving themselves, and then consider coming back to RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
28. Oppose Has demonstrated poor judgement and careless use of existing tools too often and too recently to be comfortable. In addition, some of the answers to questions are lacking clarity. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Wjemather - Whilst the rest is of judgement against the candidate; is there a particular question/set of questions that there is a lack of clarity? You do have the option, of course to ask additional questions; and even ask for clarity on questions previously asked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Lee Vilenski – Sure. Many responses are formulaic or extremely vague, including but not limited to Q7, Q8, Q9, Q12. They give the impression of not having given the questions full consideration. In addition, the admission that even basic tools facilitated sloppy decision making/poor behaviour (in response to Q6) does not instill confidence. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

29. Oppose. Sorry to do this to your nominee Barkeep49, but it can happen to any of us that the RfA process reveals things that we as nominators did not, or could not have been aware of until they were exposed by those who know. So when TonyBallioni, who mainly supports RfA candidates, and with a 'not a jerk' vote, opposes a candidate, it's not without a solid reason . A reason so solid that with K.e.coffman for whose work I have a very special respect, and Boing! said Zebedee and Lourdes, also opposing, is sufficient to convince me that CapitainEek has some way to go before developing the kind of judgement needed for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    There are many editors opposing who I deeply respect. However, to examine Eek using Tony's "not a jerk has a clue" typical RfA rationale, it's clear there's concern that the problem is that Eek is too much of whatever the opposite of a jerk is such. It seems to be the opinion of oppose voters that Eek lacks a clue. I would suggest, on the contrary, that given the high level content work, that given the openness to accepting criticism and admitting mistakes, and that given Eek's answers that they most definitely have a clue. But editors can come to different conclusions and as always I respect our discussion and consensus driven process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Barkeep49, I was not for one moment suggesting that Tony's vote should be taken to mean that he considers the candidate to be a jerk or to be lacking in clue. The fact is that Tony rarely opposes an RfA and when he does, he has exceptionally good reasons and explains his rationale in a far more professional manner than many users who oppose RfAs. The candidate is almost certainly a really nice guy, but I share the opinions of others that he needs to work on the judgement side of admin tasks - the things that require thorough research, maturity, and responsibility rather than purely a use of the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    Oppose per Clayoquot. I've spend enough time at AfC to know that you don't decline articles because they might get a {{technical}} or {{lead too short}} maintenance tag, you decline articles that are unsuited to the encyclopedia because they don't satisfy core policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:SPAM, etc. It's hard to chalk this one up as a simple mistake, since they wrote a long, thought out decline explanation. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 13:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Moved to neutral. --Ahecht (TALKreply]
    PAGE) 22:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

30. Regretful oppose I was going to support, but what Boing! said. I do enjoy how you add a little humour. If you could adress this problem i would love to change my vote. Csar00 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    Oh yeah, they have in Q15. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    They just excused themselves as not being privy to the information when it was public as pointed out by a update from boing! Csar00 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    Indeed: Saying as I am not a functionary, there is no way I could have known the same things the functionaries did, when the functionary in question has explicitly stated that the block was absolutely not subject to private evidence in any way is rather unfortunate to say the least. serial ^# 15:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    I believe that's in reference to the "pick-a-functionary" scheme Occam was playing behind-the-scenes. There were also the communications sent to Arbcom and the Oversight team which could not be seen from anyone other than those two groups. Occam didn't link his Discord account to his Wikipedia account, so I'm not allowed within policy to divulge the exact contents of what he spoke about there (he didn't post that often anyways, but only some hints were dropped as to his misdeeds- if you knew what to look out for). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

31. Oppose, per judgment issues, e.g., the poor and recentish article for creation decision.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
32. Oppose, as I look through all of the reasonings listed here for all sides, and the diffs and other actions brought up by different parties, I would recommend slowing down, getting mentored, learning the tools so as to not make mistakes and revisit in six months. The admin tools are basically the backbone of the network and one slip up can wreck havoc across Wikipedia. I have work on a few thinks with Captain, however, I believe they need more time prior to being given the keys to the kingdom. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 10:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
33. Oppose, though with concerns about my judgement. The problem with the old humour (and look who is talking), is perhaps illustrated by the RfA support having attracted some confusingly dodgy support !votes at the top; that is not to say I do not have concerns about a handful of the oppose !votes. There is worthy support from noms. and other in the support camp; the are those in the oppose camp too whose views I respect and take account of. As a positive some of the question answers are encouraging. Mostly everybody makes bad judgements: severity, frequency and willingness to review those judgements all are important. Perhaps needs demo a less humourous side for a few months before a retry; but perhaps I'm being too strict here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Tony, Kudpung, and others - Clearly there's a issue in terms of judgement (or lack of, if we really want to go that far). I'm going to say that this is a WP:NOTQUITEYET situation - they need to improve on their decision making skills a bit more in order to handle the responsibility that is adminship. Add the fact many of the issues mentioned in this oppose section are recent, and it's clear that I can't support this nominee (nothing personal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbanzo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think (as nominator) Barkeep was supporting an oppose! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    A Trojan horse, perhaps :D serial ^# 17:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    Apparently I didn't bother to read the usernames after the nomination comments.  Self-trout for that one. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    Just noting that I continue to support CaptainEek and my interaction with Kudpung, after he'd pinged me, was my saying why I (respectfully) disagree with the opposes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

35. Weak Oppose based on many of the above votes and also this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Threatened_with_block_by_edit-warring_admin_using_"fuckoff"_template. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Sir Joseph: what about it? --JBL (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

36. Oppose - lack of good judgement, per User:Boing! said Zebedee. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
37. Oppose per Tony B., et al. Like several others in this section, I might consider supporting a later re-RfA, after long-term demonstration of more care and better judgement. In a sense, this might be bad timing, since we're probably all aware that WP is seeing an influx of neo-nazis and other wingnuts. But that really means it comes down to judgement again: an admin candidate should have absorbed that wiki-environmental fact already, and done due diligence on a request by someone broadly considered to be in that unconstructive category of "contributors". (That said, I don't take issue with the pirate-joke stuff, since I'm prone to making pirate jokes myself.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
38. Oppose Although I see many positives, there is too much doubt about proper judgements. The Banner talk 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
39. Oppose at this time per my criteria, due to concerns about AfC reviews. While the response to Q19 is reasonable, I see similar issues even in ~15 more recent AfC rejections. Draft:Lynn Ruth Miller was rejected for notability, even though the draft cited 3 independent news articles dedicated to covering the person—and the articles are over a period of 4 years, so not WP:1E. Draft:Jerry Dunn (runner) was rejected for tone; while that is fair, the subject is notable runner and the article could quickly be scrubbed and then tagged with {{Tone}} for further cleanup. Draft:Gleeds was rejected for notability and because it "reads like an advertisement"; notability appears borderline, but the draft contains minimal promotional language—the prose is not great, but it is not an advert. While I appreciate high standards, I would like to see more willingness to fix (and occasionally tag) issues that are easily fixable as opposed to processing submissions purely based on their current state. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    Comments on two of the drafts:

    • In Draft:Lynn Ruth Miller, the three independent news articles are from the i, The Independent, and Metro. Metro does not count toward the general reliability guideline, as it is considered generally unreliable. When The Independent article was published (2014), the publication shared some content with the i (its sister paper, also under Independent Digital News & Media Ltd), so it is debatable whether they are independent of each other. WP:GNG states, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
    • Draft:Gleeds contains a textbook example of keyword stuffing, a search engine optimization strategy. When keyword stuffing is done as blatantly as it was in this draft, it violates WP:NOTPROMO, and it was within CaptainEek's discretion to reject the draft, especially since the draft was written by an editor paid by Gleeds. I don't think it's right to place on reviewers the burden of improving promotional drafts, because that would incentivize companies to contribute low-quality promotional articles, as they would have their content marketing rewritten for "free".

    ​— Newslinger talk 21:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    Newslinger, thanks for offering additional context, but I still disagree. For Miller, a quick Google search brings up multiple other sources that demonstrate notability, such as Pacifica Tribune, The Guardian, ABS-CBN, and many others. I admit to being a bit naive when it comes to SEO techniques, but the version reviewed by Cap was not quite as bad as the current version. Cap's rejections may have been technically accurate but, as I noted, I would like to see a more holistic view, especially on questions of notability, that looks slightly beyond the draft's state at a particular point in time. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    I agree that Miller is notable, but the AfC reviewer instructions state that "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." It would be ideal if every reviewer spent more time on improving the drafts they review, but it's not mandatory and some editors would rather spend more time on reducing the 8-week backlog than to keep other draft submitters waiting. (Your points are entirely respectable, and I am only commenting to provide a different perspective.) ​— Newslinger talk 11:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you, CaptainEek, for responding to Q22. I appreciate your willingness to reconsider past actions, and respect your decision to stand by those you think were right. I will give some more thought to your comments on Draft:Lynn Ruth Miller and Draft:Gleeds. For full disclosure, I checked another ~10 of your recent AfC rejections, and this time agreed with all of them. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

40. To the claims of bad judgement, I am seeing little of that in the examples provided. Sure, the candidate tends to expressing views that push the envelope, often with a view to seeking consensus among users not inclined to seek one. That is no bad thing. Our RfA process tends nowadays to crank out homogenous administrators who look and talk much the same. That is socially undesirable. We want candidates who are willing to float ideas at odds with what everyone else is saying. The candidate's wrong moves at AfC are what place me here (per Black Falcon and Clayoquot), opposing this nomination. Administrators need to demonstrate a record of applying policy and procedure with minimal error. The candidate has made material failings in their AfC work. They would need to show that the underlying inexperience or inattention has gone before I could consider it right to grant the admin permissions. Oppose at this time. AGK ■ 23:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
41. Oppose at this time per the judgment issues explained above (including the AfC issues). Crossroads ^-talk- 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
42. Oppose per Boing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
43. Oppose With all due respect to the nominators, I am opposing this nomination. I do agree with Tb and Boing. There are too many minor issues related to judgement. Apart from that, you don't get to show your real judgemental qualities unless you have taken part in too many areas where judgment is required. "Lack of experience, and lack of clear need" was the reason for Captain's disappproval of Ergo Sum's nomination for adminship, currently, I find Captain at the same juncture. Hitro talk 07:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
44. Agree with many of the oppose comments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
45. Oppose. Too many concerns about the candidate's judgement and experience. The entire episode with Captain Occam's unblock request and the candidate jumping in feet first to support a notoriously disruptive neo-Nazi apologist is deeply concerning. Te answer to Q15 above reinforces these concerns: "It is clear that Occam has been more problematic to the community than I realized. However, as I am not a functionary, there is no way I could have known the same things the functionaries did." Here the candidate echos the lies pushed by Captain Occam that the block was somehow based in part on private evidence/correspondence. In fact the block had nothing to do with any private correspondence, as TonyBallioni notes above. I will comment more fully on this issue if and when the candidate fully answers Q21. Oppose number 4 by Lourdes gives multiple examples of gross misuse of rollback by the candidate. If the candidate repeatedly misuses such a basic function as rollback, he is not ready for admin tools. The AfC issues raised by Clayoquot and Black Falcon are also deeply concerning, particularly the examples provided by Clayoquot of rejected science themed drafts. As an active scientist myself, this kind of thing is exactly why I always recommend that scientists new to Wikipedia avoid AfC as a plague. Moreover, a closer look at the candidate's use of draftification, listed in User:CaptainEek/Draftify log, also shows significant problems with misuse of this function. For example, on Dec 27, 2019 CaptainEek draftified the article Appa Ani Bappa (here is a link to the mainspace version he draftified [4]) with a really weird move summary: "Several months outdated, and low on sources." The 'several months outdated' bit is certainly not a valid reason for deleting an article from mainspace; and at the time of draftification the article had 6 in-line sources that appear quite adequate. Worse yet, after moving the article to draft space, CaptainEek unilaterally listed the draft for AfC [5]. AfC is an entirely voluntary process and may not be imposed on article editors/creators without their consent. CaptainEek similiarly unilaterally and inappropriately listed for AfC several other mainspace articles he draftified, e.g. Draft:Ace Hudkins, Draft:Ido Bassok, and others. All in all, way too many concerns here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Nsk92, Eek did not impose AFC on anybody; they added a template which inexperienced users commonly have trouble finding. That is one of the tasks automatically done by the commonly used script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft; it comes from an admin, and is listed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. Maybe something is wrong in all that. But it's not Eek's fault unless they are the one who set the standards, added that script to that resource page and made it a common NPP tool while knowing that it's somehow wrong (I can see both the benefits (having been at the Teahouse for a year) and the downside (all the reasons people hate Draftspace and/or AFC) to it; but I know of no actual discussion on the issue). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

46. Oppose. Too soon; lacks sufficient judgment; no pressing need for the tools. I agree with the concerns noted by TonyBallioni, Serial Number, Wjemather, and a variety of others here. Another huge concern is the user's deceptive userpage: They claim to have been a Wikipedian for more than 6 years but in reality they have edited for less than 2 years. Such deception is not at all fitting for an admin candidate, much less an admin. Softlavender (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Softlavender, FWIW, I don't consider that deceptive. Many people have a similar edit history. I edited for nearly a decade logged out unless a particular edit required me to log in, in which case I'd generally be editing logged in until the login expired. I consider myself to have been a wikipedian since 2006 when I made my first logged-in edits. —valereee (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Softlavender has raised a fair point; what does it mean being on Wikipedia for six years when no edits (except account creation?) recorded for the first 4 years? If it means editing while logged out, that is fair, but why is no explanation of this given anywhere? Lee Vilenski alluded to this in his question, and that would have been an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. StonyBrook (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    @StonyBrook and Softlavender:, the simplest explanation seems to me to be that CaptainEek saw the userbox, followed the documentation (Add this template to your user page, with the year, month, and day your account was created. If you don't know the day your account was created, see your preferences here.), and never thought about it again. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Y'all it's still extremely deceptive for anyone to triple their Wikipedia experience on their userpage. It's even worse for an RFA candidate to do that. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

47. Oppose - I debated as to whether or not to vote at all, but the problems raised by Nsk92 and others in regard to their use of draftspace concerns me. I understand moving articles to draftspace (I've done it myself) but not when the whole purpose looks like it's a way to circumvent CSD and get them G13'd in a few months time. Just AfD the article and delete it the proper way, especially when you can make a pretty good assumption that the article creator isn't going to return. Draft:Dana Densmore was created by User:TLHistory and a student editor that never edited again after it was moved. It would've been more beneficial if CaptainEek had fixed it themselves or redirected it to Cell 16; either way, it should not have become a redlink. Draft:Ido Bassok has published multiple journals and has five awards listed, yet it lingers in AfC after CaptainEek moved it and forgot about it. Draft:Who Designed What? was made in 2018. If it continues to sit in draft space, they've successfully circumvented the entire deletion process. Draft:Appa Ani Bappa was moved two months after creation. With how sporadic the creator edits, there's no chance the article ever gets revisited so instead of moving it to draft, AfD it and get it over with (the process might bring up more sources). Finally, Draft:Jerry Dunn (runner) was declined despite listing 14 accolades. We're not using AfC to churn out FAs, just things that should hopefully make it past AfD. I do not trust CaptainEek with the power to delete articles based off this. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Anarchyte, Draft:Dana Densmore was declined by another reviewer and then moved to mainspace by the author. CaptainEek rightly reverted it and put it back in draftspace so it could be improved. Draft:Ido Bassok was some sort of team effort wherein one editor copied without attribution from another, who has since come back and worked on the article. It has also been declined since it was moved to draftspace, so it's clear that at least one admin (DGG) agrees it still needs work. Draft:Who Designed What? was moved directly from a user sandbox to mainspace, and CaptainEek put it in draftspace the same day - which is where it should have gone given the state it was in. Taking it straight to AfD would have been quite unfair. Draft:Appa Ani Bappa is a poorly sourced article about an upcoming film. Since this probably won't be notable until it is released, the convention is to store these in draftspace rather than delete them outright. And Draft:Jerry Dunn (runner) is a poorly sourced biography that should not be accepted in its current form. All of these are well in line with the current practice at AfC. – bradv🍁 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Bradv: For Draft:Dana Densmore, this was the rejected version and this was the one moved to mainspace. I firmly believe a redirect with history is more useful than a redlink. For Draft:Ido Bassok, if it's a copyright violation it should've been deleted and if it's an attribution problem, histmerges exist. DGG removed a few lines of text and slapped (effectively) a boilerplate AfC rejection tag on it. That was five months ago. Three more months and we get what we might have gotten had we sent it to AfD (or we could've gotten some keep votes alongside helpful new sources). You're right about Draft:Who Designed What?; oversight on my behalf. You're right that Draft:Appa Ani Bappa is an upcoming film, and I'm aware that it's common to leave such articles in draftspace until their release, but we don't have to put it in AfC if it's just going to get rejected for that reason. Why did CaptainEek put someone else's three month old article into AfC and then abandon it? The least they could've done was detag it and remove the categories. Much of what CaptainEek does surrounding AfC looks hasty to me and I stand by my opposition. I know they've put in good work creating FAs and GAs (and I'm not opposing on content creation grounds), but perhaps if he had created more than 10 articles he'd have a better understanding of how it feels to start a page and have it immediately pushed to the side, especially when you're new to the site and you probably don't know how to interpret the big red box that has replaced their article. Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

48. Oppose per TonyBallioni and Lourdes. Daask (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
49. Oppose per TonyBallioni and Serial. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
50. Questionable judgement. Stephen 00:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
51. Oppose Good candidate but the issue raised by TonyBallioni is serious. The answer to Q15 includes the folksy "it is easy to ban people again if they misbehave" which is totally incorrect in the case of multiply banned POV pushers who learn from trial and error how to minimize the risk of another indef while continuing to WP:CPUSH. Q21 remains unresolved and a concern—being nice is good but it's important to understand that some people are able to take advantage of niceness, and they know how to appear sweet and innocent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
52. Oppose per Serial Number, Lourdes, Clayoquot and others. In your replies to Q6, Q15 and others, you tell us you intend to learn from your errors and from what people perceive as your shortcomings. Come back here when you can show us you have. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    It's highly unlikely the good captain will need to come back to RfA. They're sitting pretty right at the top of the discretionary zone. Over the last 12 years, not a single RfA has failed when it ended in the top 4 percentiles of the discretionary zone (excluding a few cases when opposers managed to pressure candidates into making unnecessary withdraws) . Despite taking quite impressive cannon fire from the opposers, the cap's ship is sailing inexorably towards promotion. At a serene and majestic standard speed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    To clarify my reasoning, with help from your support rationale (#22), in which you say "While agreeing they may have showed a little youthful impetuousness, concerns are offset by the fact that they're open to swiftly changing their mind in the face of alternative perspectives". Candidate comes across as a decent person, willing to accept advice and work on things they're getting wrong. With a few more months thoughtful experience working across the wiki, they'd doubtless learn to spot and consider alternative perspectives before jumping in with both feet, thus minimising the need to swiftly change their mind, and would come out of the process a better potential admin. And thanks for the stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

53. Oppose per Tony, SN, Lourdes and others above. Taken in isolation none of these things are deal breakers, but taken together they show an over-hasty approach, which is not something we want in an admin working at the drama boards. I would echo Lourdes' advice that the candidate come back for a second RFA around six months with evidence that they've taken these concerns on board, and if so then I would be happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    At this late juncture, I think it's pretty clear that CaptainEek's RfA is successful. He sits at 75% in support, well above the discretionary range. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    Isn't 75% the cliff-edge? Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, read the top of the page. 75% is in the discretionary range. 76%, where he currently is, is just above it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    Yes. I'd hardly call it "well above" as Kurtis says, and even the discretionary range is discretionary as when to apply, but it is pretty clear that Eek will pass with only a few hours left. -- a lad insane (channel two) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

54. Oppose Understanding that the worst problem children here were trained...or even created, in some cases, by revolving-door banning/unbanning and blocking/unblocking is essential to any good admin. No, sometimes you can’t fix it later. Qwirkle (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
55. Oppose, as per a handful of other users' concerns. Lerf Lerfsson (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. It is clear from CaptainEek's answers on the Teahouse that they display a good understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. They have no problem getting involved in multiple facets of the project, demonstrating their capability as a dynamic contributor. They are on the road to adminship, but they should gain a little more experience to fully master the areas in which they will take on a new level of responsibility as an admin. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Neutral at present. I believe they demonstrate an excellent track record and solid work ethic but will withhold supporting for a moment to allow myself a fuller examination of the oppose opinions. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Neutral I'm torn. Normally I wouldn't care about the unblock comment, but the candidate has expressed interest in AN/ANI. Even if it was just a temporary lapse in judgement, that's not a good look. I note that the candidate does have a clear need for the tools, and is experienced in NPP/AfC; I believe they'd be a net benefit there. CaptainEek, if this RfA passes, I recommend approaching adminship very slowly and being as receptive to feedback/criticism as possible. -FASTILY 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

   Neutral for the moment. I hate to oppose those willing to take on utility and drama work but the opposers have raised valid concerns that I’ll have to spend more time on. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

   Please excuse my faulty formatting, moving to support. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

4. Neutral Passes all of my criteria and the answer to Q3 doesn't bother me. It's the Captain Occam case I'm concerned with. I've been on an extended hiatus of late and so this is the first I've heard of said disruptive user, but other users here have raised concerns. I'm writing this here so that I have some voice in the matter regardless. I'm probably going to go research the CO case and return here to make a final !vote in a few hours. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

   After reading up on the CO case over the last 45 minutes or so, I have decided to remain neutral. CaptainEek is a capable editor but the fact that not only did they support the unblock of a user who very much should've stayed blocked, but they were the one who linked to the original AE case (and so presumably read it), is a serious lapse in judgement. Do some article editing, build up your standing with the community, and come back in 4-6 months. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning support.Switched to oppose. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

5. Neutral - I usually try to avoid an neutral vote at all costs in an RfA as it really does little to advance the final determination at the end of the process, but I'm afraid I have no choice insofar as I have really gone back and forth on this nomination and I do have some observations. On the one hand, we need to be swelling the ranks of the administrative corps right now, and Eek seems to be a good faith user, with no especially large temperament issues. And though I've only done a surface level review of their content contributions, all indications are that their editorial work in this regard is fairly high quality, which certainly buoys the nomination. I also think that someone who has devoted a lot of time to third opinion processes probably does develop a good toolkit for building bridges, an important skill for any admin.

   On the other hand, and without getting into the weeds, there are both observations made in this discussion regarding past activity and some responses by Eek themselves to queries above which leave me with some concerns as to whether they would utilize certain tools appropriately; bluntly, there are some areas where I feel they could use some additional study with regard to community standards on certain tools. If push came to shove and I had no choice but the jump one way or the other, I think I would go weak oppose on this one, on the grounds that Eek could maybe use another six months of experience, and I may amend my !vote accordingly in the limited time left. But at the moment, the positives and the concerns are in such a tight balance that I can't bring myself to discount or support the nominee. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

6. Neutral Moved from Support; they know their stuff, but I'm need to dig more into the oppose points. Drmab (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   Undecided. What gives me a pause is the rollback behaviour brought up by Lourdes. I however politely disagree with Tony about the significance of that neo-Nazi unblock request. I especially disagree with a suggestion that Eek should first investigate the editor's political views before offering them a last chance, as such an investigation feels like veering into a dangerous territory. Definitely that instance is not a nom killer for me. Might update my vote later. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

   Moved to Support

   @Kashmiri: Even as someone who voted to conditionally unblock Occam, I still think it totally matters whether or not the dude is a neo-Nazi (which isn't just another a type of political opinion). I just think the dude was slightly incompetent and pretty friendly with one.
   It turned out he was more loyal to whatever-his-name-is and his own opinions than to the community. At the time, I had hoped that something like this was not the case, and he would be stable enough to just leave the past behind him. Instead, he decided to play games (like pick-a-functionary which I had no way of knowing about) and waste literally everyone's time. If he ever appealed again, I'd probably be the first to say we should never unblock. That's just my opinion, though (which comes from having a lot more hindsight and knowledge than I did before).
   [PS. Occam, I still think that guy, whether you think he is a neo-Nazi or not, is nothing but trouble for you. Just move on with your life, dude. Quite Wikipedia-drama and don't ever look back.] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

7. Neutral Moved from oppose. The more I think about it, the more I'm reluctant to vote against a candidate for something that happened over six months ago, and I'm sure they will take the comments here about their AfC declines to heart. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 22:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
8. Neutral. I'm not so worried about this candidate that I'll oppose, as they (i) have good faith, (ii) learn from experience and (iii) promise to use the new tools cautiously. However, several of the Opposes point out recent gaps in the Capn's attention to detail. If this RfA is not approved, please come back again later, but if you expect to become an admin then you need to be applying a more consistent level of checking to whatever you do here. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
9. Neutral the positives are fairly clearly laid out, and the content opposers are way off given an FA. The opposes do make me somewhat concerned about judgement - the CO case is enough far back to by no means be a deal-breaker on its own, but there are several other areas where CaptainEek needs to just be better about checking. Even with quick reverts, admin tools do a lot of damage, if only as the most bitey of actions. Between the two, I think neutral is a logical area Nosebagbear (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
10. Neutal - A bit concerned regarding misuse of rollback tools from 3 months ago. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    I think the candidate will probably be a fine administrator, but I am frustrated by the response to question 21 (as discussed below). --JBL (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I am satisfied by the third version of the answer to question 21, and am moving to support. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• @MightyKid: Satisfty my curiosity, go on. Why was your fith or sixth edit to a talk page of an account that had been created the day after your own, but had (and has) never edited? SERIAL^# 13:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I was welcome by Pharaoh of the Wizards and clicking a link took me to another page. I initially thought this belonged to PotW only to realized this was someone else, overlooking the top of the page. MightyKid (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The4lines, please read the answer to Question 1, as that likely has already answered your question. —valereee (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Valereee Ok thanks. The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

---

• So we have a 2 question limit per editor per RfA rule. Isn't Q5 in violation of that? It's a 5-question 1 question. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's only one question on how a string of username would be handled. MightyKid (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, it's a very new and I suspect young editor. They probably just discovered RfA and OMG I can ask up to two questions? :) —valereee (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, multiple-example questions have been around a long time. I got two of those at my RfA, from an experienced, CLUEful editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, these sort of username questions used to be the fad at RfA back around 2017 or 2018—they've been discussed a few times, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 245#Mostly general question about the 2-question limit and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing#Procedural question on the "two questions rule". The consensus seems to be that they are allowable under the two-question rule, but we should use common sense and avoid assigning an excessive amount of busywork. Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

78.26, that was nearly five years ago. I don't think they're as common any more. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, I just got called old. I'm not... old.... am I? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You're mature. There's a difference. :D —valereee (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question 12 could be a little harsh. I mean, it's basically asking Eek to create their set of RfA criteria. Quite a few people's are succinct, but many of us who have created and listed them are quite lengthy. Both are viewed as legitimate. So it could be a massive question - mine was probably about 6 hours work to write and re-write. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

---

• Q14 seems inappropriate to me - it isn't even throwing a hypothetical situation out there, it's dragging an external (and possibly off-wiki) dispute into the RfA and asking one of the most leading questions I've ever read in an RfA. I know we often let problematic questions slide with the rationale "let's see how the candidate handles it," but in this case I think it's sufficiently disruptive to merit striking. creffett (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, I've struck the question. Anyone other than the questioner, feel free to revert me if you disagree. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, both! I commented RE: question 14 on both of your talk pages. I'd be happy to hear your feedback! very respectfully, BasicsOnly (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that a request for adminship is not a proper place for you to pursue this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

il admit the naval theme is a bit strange. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The user's talk page explains everything if you're confused. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@Buchanan3: Please a) stop posting that question, which is either accidentally or deliberately disruptive, and b) log into your original account. Cheers. SERIAL^# 15:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Buchanan3 is now checkuser-blocked for misusing multiple accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks Newyorkbrad. serial^# 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

I've observed that people keep assuming every one on the internet is male. I see 20 "he"s, 5 "him"s, and 18 "his"s. C'mon, always use they/them/their or other gender-neutral pronouns unless you absolutely know their perfered pronouns. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you but it's not just on the Internet. Until very, very recently, "he" was the standard and universally accepted generic pronoun, and while I use singular they and support its adoption over the generic he, it's going to take more than like a message on a website to change the world. It'll take a generation before singular they becomes standard over generic he. So, have patience; remind people when they make a mistake; but don't fault the world for taking years to change what it's been doing for many centuries. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: Additionally, some are possibly too lazy to check their userpage, and also the oft-repeated statistic that 90% of Wikipedia editors are male would show that one would more likely be right than wrong if one guesses that an editor is male, but of course one can be wrong. SemiHypercube 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "too lazy" is unfair, particularly as often (indeed, in the case f this candidate) it's often not as simple as "checking a userpage"; in fact, you've got to look forr (and know what to look for) a particular userbox or category etc. And even then, I don't think it's a fault, necessarilly, to not look at a userpage when assessing an RfA candidature. I don't know how other people approach it, but when I'm weighing it up, I don't want to know wether we have the same political opinions/taste in music/pets/interests, etc. Indeed, quite the opposite, if it's a candidate I've never come across (as is the case here); I want to have as little subjectively influencing me as possible. I imagine most candidates want precisely that. serial ^# 18:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SN. I try to avoid snooping around the userpage until I've made up my mind about the quality of the editor's work. I look at the talk page, but I want to !vote before I discover the candidate hates cats. :) —valereee (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally the only fool-proof reason to oppose candidates. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

😂 .... and with a bit of foresight I will add that just about the time we have become accustomed to using "they", there will be an upsurge in female or male editors demanding gender distinction. For the time being, the only safe determiner appears to be their. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I just like using the gender magic word. Example: {{gender:MJL|Male|Female|Other}} returns Other. No guessing required! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

a template I enjoy using to be politically correct is the {{they}} template. It looks at what preferred pronoun the editor has enabled in their preferences and substitutes it accordingly. For example, {{they|CaptainEek}} returns they, and {{they|Puddleglum2.0}} returns she. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 23:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the popups gadget will display a user's preference or lack thereof, which makes it pretty easy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I honestly think that the level of use of they as a default pronoun on Wikipedia outstrips that of pretty much any other place that I've been in other than explicitly LGBT+-centered groups, and that's despite having primarily lived in rather gender-noncomforming-friendly places for most of my life. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

• Hello everyone, first, I come in peace, second, I will not be voting in this RfA, and third, I would like to point out the following: According to the candidate's User rights log C.E. has been trusted with important tools on three occasions by three different admins. We have already heard from two of them, one voted support, and another voted oppose. I would like to ask the third admin, Amorymeltzer to please help us all in making better informed decisions at this RfA by issuing an opinion on the candidate. Thank you all. History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering roles such as rollbacker are just requested and awarded to users based on experience, I doubt that that would particularly be important measure on suitability for adminship. If they had been turned down prior, that might be a bit different. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, seconding - I have rollback perms, and something tells me I'd fail an RfA pretty hard. -- a lad insane (channel two) 19:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In general Amorymeltzer has been more active on the weekends recently so if they choose to participate in this RfA I would expect it to be in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you really expect from me as regards that log, beyond what Lee has said. In January 2019, believed CaptainEek to be a good candidate for rollback, and granted the request.

Okay, I'm being a little facetious, but that's basically it. It was 15 months ago, they were doing antivandalism work, and I Saw That It Was Good. Truth be told, it put CE on my radar, and I've noticed them around since then (not least because I *also* like purple). Nothing since has suggested anything troublesome about their edits, but until now I had not attempted a thorough vetting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The candidate I feel adequately explained the objections raised by User:Lourdes, and showed that they learned from it. It also sounds like the candidate worked to atone for their mistakes. Even admins make mistakes. (Quite a lot, depending on who you ask.) The candidate dealt with those mistakes well, it seems, rather than doubling down, as so many people (including admins) do. It seems a bit strict to me to use those learning experiences as a reason for opposition to someone who otherwise seems to have an excellent grasp of the very real interpersonal nature of being an admin. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I don't see any explanation given by Cap to my objections. They have responded to Ritchie's question about another wrong rollback incident on 10 January this year. Cap has said in his response to Ritchie that "shortly after" the incident, they stopped using Huggle and became more careful. My examples of Cap using rollback wrongly however date till April of this year, that is, just a handful of weeks back. In a subsequent question, Cap has said, "I realize that I need to take a closer look at the rollback guidelines and carefully go through the admin's reading list. Its a lesson to always investigate and not make assumptions (except for good faith). And its a lesson to always keep learning." In other words, they really have not understood rollback till now quite well and need to do more reading. That is not an adequate explanation. That is an adequate acceptance of the mistake. Thanks, Lourdes 03:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

---

• Nsk92, you seem to be looking for some particular answer. Maybe if you clarified what your concern is so that CE will understand what you're getting at? —valereee (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  The question seems pretty clear to me. Here are some things CE could say that would answer the question: "No, I did not see any posts on Discord about CO or their unblock request prior to my comment at AN." "Yes, I did see a post on Discord by someone claiming to be CO related to their unblock request prior to my comment." "Prior to my comment, I saw some posts on Discord written by someone claiming to be CO, but they were not related to the unblock request: [more details]." Etc. The most recent answer ("There was no specific mention ...") is vague and evasive (maybe unintentionally). --JBL (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Joel B. Lewis, hm...to me "there was no" is more definite than "I didn't see" such a post. YMMV. I felt like maybe Nsk92 is trying to get at "Were you brigaded to the unblock request when someone saying they were OC asked for help on Discord?", which given Tony's oppose may very well be a reasonable question but could feel pretty insulting, so maybe Nsk is trying to not to give offense. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I agree with you about what the ultimate point of Nsk92's question is. Here is why the answer strikes me as evasive: the sentence "There was no specific mention of the unblock request" appears to be consistent with (1) CE did not read anything on Discord relevant to CO or the unblock request, and (2) CE did read something posted by or about CO, but it wasn't about the block etc., and even (3) CE did read something posted by or about CO, and it was about the block etc., but it didn't "specifically mention" the unblock request.
  FWIW, I don't think CE is being deliberately evasive; I just think that, if they want to answer the question, they should be much more explicitly clear. --JBL (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Joel B. Lewis: CE is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Eek had no contact with Occam on Discord before the latter's unblock request. When the two briefly exchanged words on Discord, Eek wasn't even aware they were talking to Occam specifically. As to the remainder of the time Occam was active, Eek just wasn't. CaptainEek came back to WP:Discord after a 6-month break the day after Christmas 2019 (last active in June 2019). Occam joined the server in October, talked the day he joined, then again one day in November, a second time in November, a few more in early, and finally not until the day of his appeal and the day after (this last day was the only time Eek and him ever interacted with him). Unless Eek read six months of old discord messages, they never saw Occam's previous messages. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MJL: I do not see a rock nor a hard place, I see a very vague answer that eventually (after I made my previous comment) got clarified. (And I changed my vote from N to S a few minutes before your post on account of being satisfied with that clarification.) --JBL (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

---

I find the comments about AfC sort of ironic. I normally get upset about the culture at AfC which is to reject far more than what I perceive their mandate to be of "Would this fail at AfD?" and "Is this SPAM/COI in need of fixing?". I had told Eek that if I had seen Draft:Cyclotella outside of the RfA context I'd have accepted it as it was cited and seemed to be penalized for having offline sources and using an imperfect but still verifiable citation style. However, some of the other criticisms of their AfC reviews are, in my view, really criticism of AfC culture (and in some I think Eek is justified in the decline). I am happy to support those criticism and would love to nudge that culture. But I don't tend to hold that culture of declining more than our policies and guidelines support against any individual AfC reviewer when it's so pervasive and I'm sorry to see it being held against Eek here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point that some of the issues we're seeing are a manifestation of AfC culture. On the other hand, Eek's comments seem to signal that they want to be fully accountable for their actions, which is a sign of maturity on their part and I respect them for that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, maybe there's a silver lining in this painful RfA. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Though the standard for passing an article at AfC is only whether it is likely to be accepted at AfD, almost all reviewers, including myself, use in addition to WP:N and WP:NOT, a judgment whether the article is in such bad shape that it is likely to be singled out for an AfD discussion. There is no clear way to deal with these: if the contributor is still present, is it likely they can be induced to fix it, or if they are not, is it likely to get fixed in mainspace, or are the corrections so trivial that it's easier for the reviewer just to do them, or, for some reviewers, does it need an experienced hand and if so, does the reviewer want to devote the time to it ? How much work any of is prepared to do varies from day to day, and the general feeling is now to not do volunteer work fixing articles for which others will be paid. Fortunately, AfC is not a deletion process,--articles if accepted can still be deleted, and articles not accepted can be reviewed by somebody else. Standards change--they were in earlier years very much higher --unreasonably so-- than they are now. But if they get much lower, we'd go back to the earlier situation of a large amount on very low quality barely passable WP articles which will stay here for years. It's a difficult tradeoff. Eek's work is in my judgment well within the current consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

DGG thanks for your input here. When you say that Eek's work is well within the current consensus, are you referring to Eek's work at AfC in general, or are you referring to all the examples of questionable AfC declines given on this page? I'm curious - do you think Draft:Marine heatwaves would have been declined by most AfC reviewers, some AfC reviewers, or very few AfC reviewers? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am of course referring to his work in general. I make at least one really stupid error myself every year, and ≤2 is my standard. We correct each other. A rejected draft will be looked at by another reviewer the second time, and I (and I think one or two others) make a point of trying to review every unaccepted old draft before they eventually get deleted. I catch about 1/200. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@BEANS X2: Please desist from casting aspersions, as you did in this comment. Thank you. serial ^# 13:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@BEANS X2: Thank you, you are a gent. Or a can of beans too, if you're multi-skilling  :) serial ^# 14:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Even with 76% as of now, is crat chat needed? I see valid points from oppose and neutral sides. George Ho (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. I'm in the Oppose section, but looking at the balance now (just before I head off for bed), I'd rate it as a fairly clear consensus to promote. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek is a good candidate, in fact surprised that there were 24% opposes. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the next first active bureaucrat will weigh and then determine the post-weigh percentage. If it's 65%–75%, yes then crat chat. There is an RfC regarding Bureaucrat activity, so if there are any bureaucrats lacking qualifying activity, here comes a crat chat. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 04:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A crat chat is strictly speaking an optional mechanism at RfA. Any individual crat is, by policy, allowed to close an RfA in the discretionary zone without a cratchat. I also think we could do without the bad faith insinuation as to why there might be a cratchat - on the whole cratchats have become common at certain kinds of RfAs. No conspiracy theory needed, just a reflection of the evolution of the project and crats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The support/oppose numbers are almost identical to Ergo Sum's RfA, which was closed as successful without requiring a crat chat. – Teratix ₵ 04:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Its impressively close to that RFA. I do agree that it will be closed without crat chat. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 04:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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