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

Final (175/10/1); Closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 17:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Cordless Larry (talk · contribs) – Cordless Larry is an absolute tour de force. He's got a fine corpus of articles he's worked on, including the featured article Gateway Protection Programme, and is a major contributor to Somalis in the United Kingdom where's he's kept a cool head despite numerous discussions and disagreements over the content. He's created some perfectly serviceable short biographies from scratch too, including Susan Baker, Susan Hanson (geographer) and Fiona Macpherson, and I fully trust him to know exactly what it takes to put things in mainspace.

Away from content, Larry is one of the most prolific participants at the Teahouse and the open ticket request system, where he seems to be able to answer just about any question from anyone, anywhere. He gets involved in seriously unpleasant sockpuppet investigations without a fuss and he regularly participates in Articles for deletion discussions, offering a sensible viewpoint even when people disagree with him. Indeed, on the occasions that I have found myself on the other side of the debate to Larry, he has been courteous, polite and respectful.

Like all great RfA candidates, Larry has been cautious about making sure he is ready to take the plunge. He's been "headhunted" for about a year, and has just run a extremely positive poll at WP:ORCP with a near-unanimous consensus that he should give RfA a go. So let's do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co nomination by TonyBallioni

It gives me great pleasure to present Cordless Larry to the community for consideration to become an administrator. Cordless Larry has been around for more than a decade, first registering in December 2005. In that time he has contributed substantially to our efforts here.

Not only has he has done some great content work, which Ritchie has already covered in detail, but he has been a voice of stability and sensibility in project space for some time. He is one of the most active users in OTRS, and in that capacity I have worked with him on several copyright issues. He was always good to investigate, find where there might be a problem, and seek out administrative help when it was necessary. Indeed, one of the things that most strikes anyone who has ever worked with Cordless Larry is how he is so good to request a second opinion when it might be needed: this is a trait that all administrators need, and something that will serve him well.

In every interaction I have had with him, Cordless Larry has always been kind, civil, and easy to work with, even if we've had vastly different opinions on the subject at hand. I think all of these traits will make him a great administrator, and I hope you will agree with me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept this nomination. As required, I declare that I have never edited for pay or any other form of compensation. I also declare that this is my sole account. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 would intend to contribute to administrative work primarily through processing speedy deletion nominations and working at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where I often observe backlogs, plus helping out at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In addition, having access to the tools would enable me to strengthen the existing work I do helping new editors at the Teahouse and OTRS, by allowing me to see the content of articles that have been speedy deleted and advise users why this has happened and how they can improve their contributions.

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

A: I am proud of my one FA, Gateway Protection Programme, and also of the work that I have put in over a long period of time to improve the articles in Category:Immigration to the United Kingdom by country of origin and to monitor them for changes. British Cypriots and Somalis in the United Kingdom are obvious examples of this work, but I am at least as pleased that the vast majority of the articles in this category now have reliably sourced population estimates. These might not all be the latest such figures available, but before I started working on them, many of the population estimates were unsourced or, in some cases, simply made up.

I also take a lot of pleasure in my work at the Teahouse and, more recently, OTRS. This work has reduced the amount of time I have been able to spend on content creation in the past couple of years, but I believe that the Teahouse in particular is an invaluable service.

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: As is often noted in RfAs, anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a significant period of time will have encountered conflicts, and I am certainly no exception. One in particular stands out, which is a dispute with the editor Middayexpress, mostly concerning Somalis in the United Kingdom. We had a long-standing disagreement over the content of this article and discussion on the talk page was largely between the two of us, despite attempts to solicit third-party opinions. This caused me some stress. Eventually, I realised that quite a few editors had similar experiences with Middayexpress across a wide range of Somalia-related articles, and the eventual result was Middayexpress's topic ban. The lesson here was to emphasise to me the value of taking a step back from what might initially appear to be personal disputes, of seeking third-party input into disputes, and of patiently collecting evidence of problematic editor conduct.

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 Andrew D.

4. I watched the recent ORCP but didn't form any particular opinion. I'm mainly curious about the user name Cordless Larry which has a nice ring to it but seems rather surreal. Does it have some meaning, please?

A: Thanks for the interesting question, Andrew. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I recall first using the name in the late 1990s or early 2000s after I tried to sign up for an account on another (long-forgotten) website and my preferred username was taken. The site suggested Cordless Larry as an alternative, and I thought it sounded amusing, so I picked it, and subsequently decided to use it here too. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from User:Amorymeltzer

5. I'm not one to criticize (and this isn't criticism!), but despite having being highly active since 2006, you pulled away from the project for nearly four years due to busyness and loss of interest. What brought you back in 2015 and has sustained your interest since, and what might make you pull away again?

A: "Busy" was somewhat of a euphemism for some offline issues I was having at the time, and those caused me to fall out of the habit of logging in and editing. What brought me back was seeing the extent of the POV material that had been introduced to the Somalis in the United Kingdom article that I had previously worked on. The reason for staying has been a happier one, however, prompted my my discovery in July 2015 of the Teahouse, which had been introduced during my break. I found that I enjoyed helping out there, and then last year became an OTRS volunteer, which has also kept me interested and engaged. Short of any further offline problems, I can't really think of anything that would cause me to withdraw again. I am mindful of avoiding burnout, which I think is one of the keys to sustaining interest for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. You say you have an interest in processing CSDs. Looking over the last six months of your log, you seem to like G11 and U5. Let's say at 12:30AM you come across an article about a person with: their birthdate (sometime in mid 1990s), a single sentence saying that they are a Ghanaian singer, no references, and an infobox with some genres, etc. What would you do and when?

A: Right, well, the first thing to say is that I have usually long since gone to bed by that point, and if I was still up then I would likely be tired. Presuming that this is a relatively new article rather than an older one that has had content and references removed, there are a number of possibilities here. One would be to tag the article for speedy deletion under WP:A7, as just stating that someone is a singer alone is not a claim of importance. Another would be to propose it for deletion, per WP:BLPPROD. Before doing either, though, I would probably do a quick search for sources and if I found some, fix the article myself by adding them. If I was unable to find anything significant, I would ordinarily opt for A7, but at gone midnight, I think it would be best to avoid doing that and would instead make a note of the issue and return to it in the morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW, I had intended on also saying the article was created at 12AM, but left that bit out. No need to amend your answer, though, unless it would change anything. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from HandsomeBoy

7. Let me start by saying that I like it when a username that I have been seeing very active for years pops up in RFA, we clearly know areas you will be great at, and where you need to improve upon, unlike if it is a fairly new user, so that alone will make me overlook some old issues once they are clarified. But my question is on something different, in your own understanding on how it ought to be, when does a blocked editor become eligible for WP:STANDARDOFFER?

A: Hey, Handsome. As far as I understand it, the standard offer is not an automatic right that indefinitely blocked editors can invoke, but it does have broad support as a concept (although I note that a proposal to make it a guideline failed to reach consensus a couple of years back). WP:STANDARDOFFER gives a period of six months, but makes clear that this can vary under special circumstances. My own view is that six months is reasonably generous, and if the misconduct was serious, then we should exercise caution before unblocking that soon, but I can equally imagine cases where the user has demonstrated willingness to contribute more productively and deserves a second chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John from Idegon

8. As you currently understand it, what is the notability standard for a secondary school?

A: Schools are a controversial topic. WP:NSCHOOL suggests that they should satisfy the notability guidelines for organisations or the GNG. For a long time, though, there was consensus to keep articles about secondary schools as long as they had an independent source and to merge or redirect primary school articles (summarised by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Some of us were concerned that this summary of past outcomes was being used to promote circular reasoning, and that some (though by no means all) supporters of SCHOOLOUTCOMES were using it to challenge the right of editors to disagree with past practice, so I started WP:SCHOOLRFC to try to get some clarity. Unfortunately, there seems to be continuing disagreement about the implications of the RfC. I haven't participated in as many school AfDs in the past couple of months, but I have seen a few secondary school articles deleted for failing to meet GNG. I would say that the issue is still in flux, and as a community we would benefit from a firmer consensus on school notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John from Idegon

9. The pillars describe one purpose of Wikipedia as a gazetteer. Please explain how that applies to notability.

A: A gazetteer is essentially a geographical dictionary, so the implication of the principle that Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer is that it will include articles on named places and geographic features. That does, though, leave the question of which places and features qualify, and this is where notability comes in. I think it would be incorrect to assert that because a place exists, then it is automatically notable. However, due to the nature of the bureaucratic state, there are going to be sources (censuses, histories, government reports, etc.) about populated places. The same could be said for major geographical features (e.g. mountains), which are usually the subject of published surveys, etc. When it comes to places without legal recognition and more minor features (e.g. hills), then I think we need to be more cautious before any presumption of notability is made and also to consider whether it is better to cover them in more general articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ivanvector

10. A user is indefinitely blocked as the result of an ANI discussion over that user's topic ban violations. They post an unblock request explaining that they understand why they were blocked and promising to avoid the area of conflict, which an administrator declines with the comment "Try WP:STANDARDOFFER." Six months plus one day later, the user creates a new account and begins editing constructively in entirely unrelated subjects. Several months later, after they have created three good articles and one featured list from scratch, the connection to their old account is discovered. When questioned, the user responds that they thought the "standard offer" meant that they could try editing again after six months, and since they weren't technically prevented from creating a new account they assumed it was allowed. Considering STANDARDOFFER and WP:CLEANSTART, as well as WP:CBAN and WP:BMB, please comment on this user's fate.

A: The editor has previously been topic banned and then blocked for violations of that ban, so there is some clearly problematic behaviour here. Given that they were provided with a link to WP:STANDARDOFFER and they waited six months and a day to create a new account, they have pretty clearly read Wikipedia:Standard offer#The standard offer. Their explanation that they thought this meant they could simply try editing again is rather weak, because the very next section of that page explains that they should contact a willing administrator or experienced editor. In mitigation, they have created some good content since creating the new account, though you do not specify whether this is in the area of the topic ban or not (I would have to think more about the implications if it were in the area, since this would be simultaneously a violation of the ban and evidence that they can contribute constructively, and would also further invalidate WP:FRESHSTART claims). I think my suggestion here would be that we essentially reset the standard offer - i.e. block the account and tell the user that they can request an unblock in six months. If the mitigating factors go strongly in their favour, then perhaps we might consider a request sooner than that, but as a bare minimum they do need to go through the process of requesting an unblock. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from DGG

11. I appreciate that you have recognized above the lack of agreement on the meaning of the schools RfC. But I am also aware of how you have been nominating and !voting on school AfDs in one particular direction, supporting one of the disputed interpretations. You are surely aware that I hold the opposite opinion from you, both about the underlying issue and the interpretation of the RfC. How can we be sure that you will not follow your interpretation in dealing with school deletion questions? Similarly,in the questions you express an appropriate caution in deletion in general, but in the instances listed in the oppose section you display much less caution. How can we be sure you will be careful?

A: Given that I have a reputation for being deletionist when it comes to schools, I would never consider closing a school AfD. That goes for non-admin closures and the same would be true should I be made an administrator. In fact, closing AfDs is not something that I anticipate doing as an admin. If I did move into that area of activity, I would do so cautiously and avoiding topics that I have strong personal opinions about, such as schools. Many of the instances listed in the oppose section are AfDs too. I value the debate that takes place in deletion discussions, and I think that it is healthy when there is sometimes disagreement between administrators and other experienced editors. What is not healthy is a supervote (whether real or perceived), and it is to avoid any such perception that I wish to avoid closing AfDs. When it comes to speedy deletion, which I do want to be involved in, schools are of course exempt from WP:A7, so I would decline any nominations using that criteria. If other CSD criteria were invoked and the article was about a school, I would defer to another administrator. As for concerns about my CSD activity in general, I would invite you to inspect my CSD log. There's a little bit of blue there, but some of those links are false positives. I would concede the occasional difference in interpretation with the admin processing the request, but overall I think my CSD record compares well. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Dolotta

12. What do you think your biggest challenge you would be faced with after gaining the extra tool set?

A: Aside from the obvious challenge of learning to use new tools, I think the main challenge would be achieving a balance between performing new tasks as an admin and continuing to contribute in the ways in which I have up to now. As I acknowledged in response to question #2, my work at the Teahouse and OTRS has reduced my content-creation activity, but I would not be running here if I thought that becoming an admin would result in me no longer helping out at the Teahouse and OTRS. Thankfully, the huge OTRS backlog that we had until recently has now been reduced significantly, so the amount of time I am spending there has dropped in recent weeks and that would give me time to dedicate to settling into the role. As I have already mentioned, I also see the admin tools as having the potential to enhance my abilities to help new users, rather than taking me away from that work. There will obviously be new admin tasks to work on though, so the challenge will be to find a healthy balance between what I currently do and what I would be expected to do as an admin. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Espresso Addict

13. You are patrolling speedy requests. How would you handle this?

A: I would decline the nomination. It appears to be an autobiography, and there are certainly promotional aspects to it, but quite a lot of the text is merely descriptive. It is not unambiguously promotional and some encyclopedic material would remain after removing the promotionalism. It's also a draft. It can be fixed. I note that the nominator subsequently accepted as much him/herself. I would also leave a message for the nominator, who I have noticed has been rather trigger happy with speedy deletion templates recently. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh

14. Will you handle some WP:SPI cases, why or why not? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A: I have some experience of SPI cases, as someone who has reported a number of suspected sockpuppets over the years, and it is definitely an area of activity that interests me. It's also an area that regularly gets backlogged. I'm not an SPI clerk though, and that obviously limits what I can contribute, but if made an admin then I would certainly consider doing some patrolling of cases and providing input where I can. I should probably have mentioned this in response to question #1, now you mention it. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh

15. Please explain the reason why your RfA ending time is April Fool, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A: As far as I'm aware, that's just an unfortunate coincidence, unless my nominators are playing a very nasty trick on me. I should keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page, shouldn't I? I could also point out that not only is 1 April April Fool's Day, but also Resurrection Sunday this year - make of that what you will. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Lankiveil

16. If the community were to bless you with the power to unilaterally change or revoke any one policy on Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: Well, I wouldn't want that power, but if I had to change one policy then I think I would opt to tighten up Wikipedia:Verifiability further, so that we are even more insistent on content being sourced - not just when it is deemed likely to be challenged but as a default expectation. This would help to address concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia, especially amongst academics and other educators. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from UnitedStatesian

17. What do you think is the biggest issue with English wikipedia content today, and how would you work as an admin to address it?

A: I think that, in large part thanks to Wikipedia:New pages patrol and Wikipedia:Articles for creation, newly created articles are being held to a pretty high standard, but that we have a long tail of old, rarely edited articles that are poorly sourced, poorly written and often out of date in their content. This is linked to my answer to question #16. Much of what needs to be done is just the long slog of working through these articles to improve them, and I don't need to be an administrator to do that. At OTRS and the Teahouse, however, we often get queries along the lines of "Why has my draft about my business/band/website been declined, when I modelled it on my competitor's article [which has existed since 2006]?". Improving the content of Wikipedia is about both ends of this problem - making sure that older articles are improved, but also holding new content to a high standard. Part of the key to the latter is dealing with editors who have a conflict of interest, including paid editors, and I can see myself using admin powers to help with that task. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer, thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Jetstreamer

18. Which one of these would you be willing to support: Easter Bunny, Moses or SineBot?

A: I refer you to my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SineBot#Neutral and answer to question #15! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support excellent candidate per nominators. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - No issues here, should make a good admin! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as co-nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Long term user Has been around since 2005 ,clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. support per nominators. meets my standards. seen him around. definitely a good choice.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Excellent co-nominators, stats look good, see no reason to oppose. Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support candidate seems willing to put time towards anything the encyclopedia needs: creates content, mans the teahouse and OTRS, does cleanup on a broad array of articles, participates with well thought out rationales at AfD, and contributes at various talk pages when useful. Plus the candidate keeps a cool head in discussions and seems so non-bitey that we start to wonder if the candidate has teeth. Easy support. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support minecraftr ^chat / _builds 17:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Absolutely, per the noms! Lourdes 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Highly active OTRS user, so has a clear need for the tools in many different occasions talk to !dave 17:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support In the times I have run across Cordless Larry, I found them to be a measured voice of reason. I have no concerns. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support – like 331dot, another competent and experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools; no obvious reasons to oppose. Linguist^unEins^uno 17:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support very experienced, no concerns. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support: an excellent candidate; would be a value to the project. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
16. SupportFull Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 18:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I just happened to be perusing my watchlist and noticed Ritchie has brought forward yet another candidate. It's good to see WP:RFA not being such a ghost town all of a sudden. I know that this is cliché and getting old fairly quickly, but I really did think he (Larry) was one already. No concerns here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Been seen around, no problems with this one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Should make a good admin. Number 57 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Anyone who is still editing after 12 years gets my support everytime. SethWhales ^talk 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per my experience with the user in some AFDs. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Good to add several Admins Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Fully qualified candidate, unless he turns out to be this Larry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. No concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Helpful, competent. Mduvekot (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I know Cordless Larry mostly from the Teahouse, where he is always helpful and shows a good understanding of policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per Cullen328. Very helpful, knowledgeable, and friendly. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - This one's a no-brainer. Cordless Larry is, if anything, overqualified for adminship. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Excellent candidate. --NSH001 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Cordless Larry has been a seemingly tireless editor here, I'm surprised they don't already have the bit. Tour de force sums it up nicely, but I don't think it does CL full credit. What I'm most impressed by is the singular devotion to certain projects; 1,000 edits to Somalis in the United Kingdom and a stunning 3,000 edits to the WP:Teahouse show an editor who has really settled in and found their niche. Lord knows I've been "busy" before, and I appreciate Larry's candor and humility; burnout is a real issue, and it's good to know your limits. A willingness to calmly work with their fellow editors is of the utmost priority for a sysop, and OTRS is a big, giant sign saying "This user has GOT IT!" Happy to support. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I'm shocked, yes shocked sir, that you've been ducking and dodging the mop for so long. Genuinely surprised to learn that CL has not been an admin for years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Glad to see Cordless up here and getting the recognition he deserves. Having worked with CL before, I know he can be trusted with the tools. Level-headed and an asset to the community. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support I did have minor reservations, noting the blue links on the CSD log, which is an area of interest to Cordless. However, all bar one of the blue links I investigated was a recreation (mostly recent ones). I also note maybe a 1/month misjudgement on AFD (87%), but beyond unfamiliarity with SCHOOLOUTCOMES (which I expect Cordless now knows of), I didn't see an issue that concerned me. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Excellent record to date. No concerns. Loopy30 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support based on what I saw at ORCP. As an aside, if an RfA voter wants to ask about the origin of someone's username, the right place is at user talk, not at RfA. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support for sure, thought he already was an admin. Sro23 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support highly experienced. Blythwood (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support per nom, highly qualified, no concerns. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
    _contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Has been a sensible editor as long as I have been aware of them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    
42. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support per my comment at his ORCP. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support No issues. It’s telling that the single oppose vote so far can’t or won’t supply diffs to support their position. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I think you are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Why not. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. A fine, hardworking editor. Convinced he'll be a fine admin too. Yintan  23:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Candidate received super-strong support when going through the optional RfA candidate poll and based on that alone, support is warranted. Schwede66 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 00:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
52. Hey now. Support. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Could be a quality admin. Equineducklings (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support no reason not to. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support – this is clearly a qualified candidate. Great OTRS agent as well. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - clearly meets my criteria. Some good content work, a demonstrated clue at AfD (although perhaps a bit deletionist :) ), and a willing volunteer at Tea House and OTRS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support generally positive experiences. feminist (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Mkdw ^talk 03:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Good and hard work, reasonable, positive interactions, good demeanor. Some good content work, as well. Definitely has established trustworthiness. Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Plenty of reasons to support; haven't found any to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Hell yes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - No major issues found. Pretty good contribution on edits. Very few numbers of deleted edits. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 06:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Good work at OTRS and elsewhere. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 07:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Obvious net-positive. Good content creation and great work overall. Give him the tools already. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support per excellent nominators, evidently qualified and has the clue to know both when to act, and when to not act. Also, it's nice RfA weather and the month still has a H in it - TNT^❤ 10:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - as Kurtis said: overqualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Useful work done at TeaHouse, very helpful, polite, and knowledgable editor. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support: Net positive for the mop. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Civil, helpful, clueful. Very good mix of content work and admin work. Sane participation in AfD's. David in DC (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - per Teahouse work, OCRP, per nominators, and my previous look into a potential candidacy. Regarding the opposes, sure there are things I may not see the same, but I don't perceive CL would abuse the tools, or refuses to take the perspective of others into consideration. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support I've seen this editor around and always been impressed. Their resume is solid and my examination of their record failed to yield anything that raised serious concerns for me. Regards the handful of opposes, for the most part the specific incidents and diffs presented seem to be either so minor that they don't cause me any concern or they are simply evidence that we are all human and do sometimes get something wrong or in hindsight maybe took a less than optimal course. In other words, in the context of a good sized record of contribution they are not indicative of any troubling pattern of editing. As for the claim that they lean deletionist, I looked hard but alas could not find enough to substantiate that charge, else this would be a Strong support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support per noms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshualouie711 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - great idea. Another brilliant admin candidate. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support: Always a calm, knowledgeable, courteous but firm presence at the Teahouse. Not really convinced by the deletionist talks (perhaps I am far too reckless to judge fairly). Alex Shih (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
78. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support I find the oppose votes unconvincing (though, even if they did show he was "too deletionist", I would still support per the endorsements of the Teahouse regulars). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and both List of oldest cats and Education for sustainable development were (and continue to be) severely troubled articles, to the point that WP:TNT (or WP:IAR, for the nitpickers who remind us that TNT is neither a policy nor a guideline) is a reasonable position for an editor to have, though clearly not one that the community consensus supports. I see no evidence that he would abuse the speedy-deletion criteria or ignore consensus in closing deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support, on balance. Deb (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support, - would be useful addition for WP. Störm (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support I'm a bit concerned about the candidate's apparent conflation of AfD and cleanup, but we all make mistakes. Eminently qualified otherwise. Miniapolis 15:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Long term editor who needs the tools based on the OTRS work alone, before even considering the other areas. I don't think he'll go making AFD decisions against consensus whatever his preference, so the opposes are not persuasive. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support – I believe the editor will be a net positive with the tools. I appreciate his willingness to assist at the Teahouse. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. I had a genuine "he isn't one already!?" moment on seeing this RfA. I also know Larry from his good work at the Teahouse, and have no business questioning the judgement of his nominators, so admittedly I was predisposed to offering a ringing endorsement.
    His AfD stats did gave me pause. He has 86% delete votes and 25% of those were against the consensus. About a third of those are nominations (with similar stats). However, looking more closely at the mismatches, they fall into a few specific areas: schools, arguments to WP:TNT, and failures to consider WP:ATD. The majority are due to his active participation in school AfDs, and there I am in complete agreement with him. There is always a maddening contingent of editors who will fight tooth-and-nail for the "keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" corner despite the fact that it is now clearly against the wider community consensus. Larry's continued efforts to bring some consistency to that area should be commended, not criticised. Similarly, while WP:TNT may be an "just an essay", it is a widely-cited essay that puts forward a policy-based argument. Unfortunately, it is a bit of a crap-shoot whether people will actually read and evaluate its/your argument, or just reflexively cite WP:NOTCLEANUP. I can't blame Larry for getting unlucky with it sometimes. The failure to consider alternatives to deletion is slightly more concerning. But for that I would just say that if he is going to start closing AfDs, he should make an effort to apply WP:PRESERVE (even if it's not suggested in the discussion itself). Those three, plus the odd case of overlooking paragraph 3.13 of WP:N19THCENTURYFRENCHTEAPOTS, which happens to all of us, seem to account for the vast majority of his questionable AfDs. List of oldest cats we can just give a lovely bit of tuna and forget about.
    Overall I do think Larry tends more towards the deletionist side of things, and that's not a position I agree with, but it doesn't preclude him from admin work. His mismatches at AfD are explainable, and in any case, finding yourself against consensus somewhat more-than-usual doesn't mean that you can't interpret and apply consensus. Other than that, we have a very well-rounded candidate, who is active in content creation, a variety of maintenance areas, and has an exceptionally civil and constructive demeanour. I am sure he will continue to do good work with the admin tools. – Joe (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it has been brought up, I have the opposite views of Larry on the schools issue, and it gave me no pause in nominating him. In fact, working with him on the RfC schools RfC was one of the main things I was thinking of when writing my nomination: he and I disagreed (and still do) on the schools question, but we were able to work together to get an RfC up. As he alluded to in his answer to question 8, that RfC did not produce the clarity we both wished for (and he and I still take different sides on the question), but he is far from an extremist on the schools issue, and having a diversity of opinions in the admin corps is a good thing. I know you are supporting, but this comment seemed like the best place to address the schools question since it has come up and is related to the opposes to some degree. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

87. Support per "You mean he's not?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Been around forever, cluefull, helpful, unconvinced by the opposes. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support And delighted to provide it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support A name I know and would expect to have these tools already. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) 18:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support – Well-qualified. Also, see my comments at WP:ORCP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support I have no concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Trusted user and has also done good work helping out at OTRS. FITINDIA 19:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Sensible answers. Sensible editor. I think will make a sensible administrator. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - clear net positive; very experienced in numerous areas and has undoubtedly made Wikipedia a better place. I have no concerns; the opposes are far from enough to push the scales in that direction, as minor quibbles and personal biases. 65HCA7 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support because of the general need for new admins as reported in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/News and notes. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. Clueful, calm, helpful to newbs, and extraordinarily patient. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - excellent candidate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
99. Stephen 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - No concerns with this nomination. Seems like a net positive! -- Dane ^talk 22:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Thanks for standing. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Support The oppose !votes do not have me convinced that this editor is not trustworthy to be given the tools. Mkdw ^talk 02:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     @Mkdw: you have already voted above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     What, you mean I can't support twice!? Total fail on my part. Mkdw ^talk 15:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

103. Weak Support While this candidate does seem a bit eager to delete, I suppose we do need some admins who are a bit heavy handed to keep the encyclopedia in check. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 02:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Helpful and experienced candidate. MT Train^Talk 06:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Very active with new editors, gives them useful correct answers, invariably polite but not to the extent of misleading them. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
108. Weak Support Concerned by how deletionist the applicant is, but their efforts in Tea Room are so significant to a new (or a long-absence returner like myself) that I'm willing to support. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support The answers to Questions 8 and 1011 allay any fears about deletionist supervoting or imposing his own personal preferences on article quality to AfD or CSD. Other activity has been exemplary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Did you mean 8 and 11, Eggishorn? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Thank you for the correction and I apologize for the mixup. You are, of course, correct. Although I did think the answer to Question 10 was very good as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

110. Support with the same reservations about deletionist tendencies. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Actually thought you were already an admin, which is my one quick-support criterion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - I have gone through all the oppose votes, and my summary is that they are all centered on CL being more of a deletionist than a improver, but I am confident that CL will take the concerns in good faith and be more careful in the future. Seem like a sensible editor to have in many other admin issues. I also like the responses to my question. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
113. —Kusma (t·c) 20:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. I've seen the candidate around and already had a positive opinion. Overall, I think this is an extremely well qualified candidate, with a good balance of experience. Good answers to questions. I spent some time looking at the deletion discussions that have come in for criticism, and what I come away with most of all is that this is a user who can disagree with other editors without being antagonistic, and that gives me confidence that he will not use the tools to supervote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support - As you could probably guess, I had some concerns about Larry from the whole thing over school article deletions early last year. It seems he has a greater understanding of the community's position now and I am willing to speak in his favor for his RfA. I've always been impressed with CL at Teahouse, where his answers show a considerable cluefulness. Has anyone else besides me noticed that Teahouse seems to be the new proving ground for RfA canidates? John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support Looks like a net positive for the project. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. Although I have never personally interacted with the candidate, I think they are very qualified. Being able to editing controversial topics without losing their mind is a plus for me. As for deletionist tendencies, I believe the answer to question 11 is good, and overall, it seems like they have an understanding of admin topics. epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support — in no particular order, hardworking, helpful and experienced. Green Giant (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support CL has been an asset at the Teahouse and other areas. Having the tools will increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - MrX 🖋 22:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support, trusting all of those above regarding Larry's overall contributions and demeanour, but with a special callout for (the first part of) his answer to Q11 in particular. It is not at all a bad thing if admins have opinions, even passionately held ones. And in particular it's OK if those opinions aren't necessarily the same as others'. What's important is that admins are sensible enough to not use the admin toolkit to get their way. Martinp (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support - good AfD match rate, decent tenure, no blocks, respectable content work Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - Good candidate. Swarm ♠ 02:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support, cannot see anything wrong here. Nightfury 08:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Good level-headed editor. The Banner talk 08:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support Netpos. -- ferret (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE, and all that jazz. No issues whatsoever, would be a good admin as long as he doesn't go and delete the Main Page I guess! Patient Zero^talk 13:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
128. I judge the potential benefits to outweigh the concerns outlined in the one oppose vote thus far with any merit. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
129. Mahveotm (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support I looked back over AFDs in which we both participated, and while sometimes we agreed and other times we disagreed, the interaction was positive and collegial. A good candidate. Edison (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Can be trusted not to abuse the mop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support High quality candidate no major issues found. — MRD2014 ^Talk 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support - cordlessly of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support based on what I have seen of Cordless Larry in OTRS, I think he can be trusted with adminship, and I think he'll find that being both an OTRS agent and a Wikipedia administrator will make him better at both jobs. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support. A knowledgeable and productive contributor; their having the tools will be a positive for Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support. Seems level-headed from what I've seen presented so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. Cordless Larry has been an exemplary contributor. I have found him to be not only knowledgable but also very helpful and friendly. A great candidate and an asset to the community. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support per Anachronist. Very helpful user, could use the tools in a variety of ways. --Eurodyne (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support See this user as a net positive, absolutely more beneficial than the issues brought up by the opposers.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support, no major problems. J947 ^(c), at 05:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support - I have no doubt Cordless Larry will do an excellent job with the tools. All my impressions of him (and he seems to turn up all over the place) are positive and when I look a bit closer at his contribution I see no bad signs at all. --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support As I noted at his recent ORFA, CL is another of that band of editors who one regularly encounters and assumes is already an admin. Huge contribution (over 2,900 to the Teahouse) plus many other key fora over the years. Reasonable manner, and has clearly indicated areas of admin work he would steer clear of. Should hold the mop well. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support Good luck! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support - He has done useful work at the Teahouse and I am sure he will be an asset as an admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Excellent work at teahouse. Good luck. Simranpreet singh (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support I've never seen any problems with CL, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support. Impressed, good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 16:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
148. 'Support - No concerns. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support Has my trust. Spencer^T♦C 21:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support, every time I've seen this editor around, their contributions have been thoughtful and helpful. I have no doubt we'll see the same as an admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support No concerns; in particular, I like the answer to Q16.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Support Ultimately decided to support. Some concerns have been raised, and I hope that Larry takes the mainsplaining criticism to heart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     @Hawkeye7: You seem to have forgotten that you already participated. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     I struck the duplicate !vote. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

152. Support absolutely! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support Waited a bit to vote on this one due to a couple concerns I saw, but all my concerns have been thoroughly discussed and dealt with so I'm happy to vote yes! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support No outstanding issues in my eyes. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support, good answer to my question. No indication that this person would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
156. Support trusted candidate. Lepricavark (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support. Level-headed folks count high in my regard. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support Tireless contributor an asset to the project. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support. Yes, I don't see any problems here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
160. support A tidy heavyhanded in deleting but he makes great tea in the teahouse. Keep it up,eh! SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
161. support - Will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support -- All in all, I think Cordless Larry will be reasonably good. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support I'm familiar with Cordless Larry; experienced, level-headed (and nice) enough to be trusted with the tools. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support I've seen Cordless Larry step up to deal with challenging issues over at OTRS and his work there reflects his work here - it's all good! He'll be a valuable asset in the ranks of mop-wielders. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
165. Convincing nominations and not entirely convinced that he won't be a net positive by the opposition. ceranthor 16:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support excellent on Somali issues. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
168. About time. Happy to support, no concerns. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
169. Support If User:Lourdes believes that you will make a good administrator, well then that's good enough for me to support you too. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support: A good level-headed editor; we need more like him at Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support: Was very helpful to me when I was a new user. Libertybison (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support: Prolific and smart editor. Despite some concerns over deletion practices, I think he will bring a net gain to Wikipedia. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support: Good candidate I think.--Tazkeung (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support. Although I share some of the concerns about deletion expressed by others here, overall I believe it is likely that this user will be a net positive, and is someone worth taking a chance on. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support - good candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose A trifle over-eager to delete articles, alas. Collect (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   discussion moved to talk page. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Larry is a wonderful Wikipedian, but analyzing the data mentioned by Collect on the talkpage, I have to agree with Collect. Even in the 50 most recent BLP edits, there are various instances of unnecessary tag-bombing (e.g. on an Olympic medallist [1]) and "BLP sources" tagging (e.g. one where the BLP already had 10 citations [2], was not in need of immediate attention, and was already at AFD), etc. A better procedure in my mind would be to add one of the search templates (e.g. Template:Friendly search suggestions) to the article's talkpage, and if possible also taking the time to utilize that and improve the article if it is in actual need of improvement. Someone whose main intention with the tools is to process CSDs needs to be far more circumspect, in my mind. For example, I recommend possibly mentoring with Northamerica1000 for a more measured and helpful approach. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Too much emphasis on deletion and admin busyness and not enough on creation. Eric Corbett 09:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   discussion moved to talk page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose with some regret because I usually agree with the assessment of both nominators and many of those supporting. However, people nominating articles for deletion based on WP:TNT, as the candidate did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education for sustainable development, is a warning sign because it shows that the nominator does not consider ATD or WP:PRESERVE (both policies) more important than WP:TNT (an essay), i.e. has their priorities wrong. After Collect's example send me digging, it became more apparent that the candidate has either never heard of WP:ATD or has not understood it. One can also see this in a number of school related AFDs they started or !voted delete in when keeping or merging instead of deleting was the right way to go. Additionally I noted a staggering number of WP:ATA nomination statements and !votes in AFDs, like WP:NOTCLEANUP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine School Sultanate of Oman) or WP:JNN (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School, Kanki). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest cats had no policy-based rationale for deletion at all! A G11 for an article where the text was salvageable or U5 for obvious draft as userpage also do not instill confidence that this candidate can be trusted with the delete button. So without diminishing the candidate's good contributions, there have been too many instances where I have to assume the candidate would have deleted a page incorrectly had they the right to do so. I hope the candidate reflects on these concerns, regardless of whether this request is successful or not. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   "A G11 for an article where the text was salvageable" I'd just like to add a little bit more context to this. I saw the G11 tag on Annie Yellowe Palma at CAT:CSD and agreed with it. However, I did a quick google search and while there wasn't much, I read her back story with great interest, and it reminded me of Ika Hügel-Marshall, which I had rescued from deletion some years back. I quickly decided that this really was an article worth having on Wikipedia, and although Annie had written the first draft herself and fallen into all the stereotypical pitfalls a brand new editor could, I got the impression she just wanted to be stood up and noticed in order to stamp out casual racism due to indifference. That's something I can get behind. So I quickly rewrote the article and grabbed as many sources as possible; although this did not stop other editors from moving it to draft and complaining about notability. I did as much as I possibly could to get an acceptable stub. I had a chat with Larry about it; he thought the G11 was hasty and the wrong decision, while I thought it was within the bounds of administrator discretion. The article needed a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic, and that's what it got. When I said, "when I'm on the other side of the debate to Larry, he is polite and respectful", that was one of the examples I was thinking of. I am concerned nobody else has been particularly receptive to improving the article and I feel it's still at risk of somebody sending it to AfD; I wish Annie would get a feature in The Guardian or the BBC News as she has a strong case to be so and it would cement notability, but beggars can't be choosers.

   As regards Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest cats, the most prominent comment I take away from the debate is "Fair enough .... I know when I hold a minority viewpoint, though, and that appears to be the case here!". I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, but a comment like that gives me confidence he would have closed that AfD as "keep", even if he didn't personally agree with the result. There's a world of difference between simply having an opinion (whether it is a majority or a minority view) and being able to assess the consensus of others, particularly when it doesn't align with what you believe yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   As always, reasonable people can disagree and this is the case here. The first example you mention might have been written as an autobiography but most of the text is not promotional in nature but rather facts written in an almost neutral tone. So I can't agree that this page needed a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. As for the other example, the problem is not the "insight" gained from unanimous opposition, it's the fact that the candidate did not even advance a reason for deletion with their nomination. Plus, saying "I know when to stop beating a dead horse" is not the same as "I understand that I should not have started beating the dead horse". Your takeaway is that the candidate understood that they hold a minority viewpoint; mine is that they did not understand that they have failed to advance an argument for deletion. If this request is successful (and it looks certainly like it), I do hope your assessment of the candidate is correct and mine isn't. Regards SoWhy 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate that we can have a good discussion while respecting each others viewpoints. The only other data points I would add is that Larry thanked me for fixing up the article, and there was a copy of the original version on Annie's userpage, which was unilaterally deleted without discussion by an admin - without so much as a tag. This is why I tend to talk about "administrator discretion"; it's nothing I would do personally, and I think people would be within their rights to cite it as poor admin practice. (Indeed, I think it violates WP:BITE and suspect you would too). But I certainly don't think it's controversial enough amongst the community. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. Per tp Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per SoWhy above and Andrew Davidson's comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cordless Larry#Oppose #1 by Collect. Daask (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per comments from SoWhy and Andrew Davidson. — Javert2113 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - this RFA will probably pass regardless and I have nothing against the nominee but the AFDs SoWhy mentions for me are cause for concern. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Wrong direction. Form (administration) follows function (content). --IHTS (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Adminship is not just for show, it has its own function that is quite seperate from writing articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Nothing here is separate from the article writing process. We are engaged in writing an encyclopaedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   That isn't true for all participants. Which is one reason why we need janitors around here, to clean up the mess. A janitor in an elementary school isn't engaged in educating students, but the janitor's work facilitates that activity for those who are. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, let's do that! Let the kids know that they should avoid education at all costs. That way they can become janitors, who are the valued members of the school community. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   The cute "janitor" analogy has always been bogus. (E.g., janitors aren't empowered to expel students.) --IHTS (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right. Larry isn't just your average Joe Shmoe. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. Close to neutral but there is enough for me to oppose. This RfA will be successful in any case so I wish you good luck. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Will move to either S/O after I've studied the candidate further. Moved to Support.Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 08:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral for now, and leaning oppose. I was quite concerned about this editor's behavior at this Afd, where a number of us worked very hard to do a WP:HEY and (successfully) save an article about a notable academic, while this editor chose to double-down and nitpick the SNGs to find a deletion rationale, making some personalized remarks toward other editors along the way, posting across multiple talk pages. There was a lot of condescension and "mansplaining" in his comments at the time. Perhaps he has mellowed a bit with experience, but his approach at the AFD noted above suggests to me that he still may have some difficulty with interpreting the notability criteria. A deletion rationale such as " the topic is notable and the article could be rewritten, but..." reflects one of the biggest problems at AfD: that of confusing quality with notability. WP:TNT is not only a guideline, not policy, but also is meant to encourage a rewrite where possible and deletion only if there is nothing salvageable -- and in that case, there clearly was much that could be salvaged. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the comments, Montanabw, and I can only apologise if you felt mansplained to in that discussion. Looking at that AfD again, I contributed a lot of comments - more than any other AfD I can remember off the top of my head. I would certainly not usually engage in that much debate in a single AfD, but I did think that there were some misunderstandings about the nature, for example, of a named chair or distinguished professorship, which I wanted to try to clarify. My aim was to try to explain those concepts using language that non-academics would understand, but I can see how that might have come across as condescending to some participants. I am still not convinced about the notability of Kanwal Ameen, but the incident forced me to look at my own content-creation record, and I was shocked to see how few articles about women I had started in comparison to those about men. I have since tried to address this by creating a number of articles about female academics. Sorry for the long reply, but I also just wanted to ask if you could point me to one or two examples of where I made personalised remarks, as that sounds out of character for me and I would like to reflect on it further. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Wasn't me you were "mansplaining" to: [3] (and yes, your comments there were condescending and patronizing, actually. So is saying something as invalidating as "...if you felt mansplained to". Um no, the proper response is "I am sorry that I was patronizing and condescending."). Your behavior at the AfD itself was mostly just the usual tendentious doubling down that accompanies a lot of these no consensus cases, it was your jogging about that was oddly over the top. So yes, comments that appeared to assume that a couple of women could not understand the world of academe did not exactly endear you to me. I'll try again here to see if you can explain how you have subsequently grown and modified your approach since then: What articles about women have you now created? And, can you point to a AfD on a bio related to women in the third world (or one of the two taken separately) where you argued for Notability and keeping? (Your 86% deletion preference is also kind of worrisome to me, though given how much pure crud IS out there, I can see how just !voting against garage bands could get a person to that percentage...) Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   "What articles about women have you now created?" I have listed three in the nomination statement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @Ritchie333:, I saw the list in passing, but had not reviewed the history to see creation dates. -- I am glad to see that Larry did re-examine that question. And I am glad to see a few more articles created about women in academe. I would not boast of their quality, though. But producing GA/FA-class articles is not part of the RfA criteria. At least he IS a content creator! Yay! Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   If I gave the appearance of assuming that a couple of women could not understand the world of academia, then I expressed myself poorly. Arcane details such as the difference between a regular professorship, an endowed professorship, a chair, etc. are often not well understood outside academia (why would they be?). Even within academia, a term like "chair" has different meanings in different countries - compare its use in the US and the UK, for instance. My sense that some of these distinctions were being lost in the discussion had nothing to do with the gender of the participants. As for article creation, Ritchie333 has mentioned Susan Baker, Susan Hanson (geographer) and Fiona Macpherson. I was pleased to get both Baker and Hanson on to the front page, too. I'll take a look through my AfD history and get back to you on the other question. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Larry, yes, you did express yourself poorly! Even within academia, few would know all about worldwide practices. "Not well understood outside academia" comes across as if you were making an assumption that the people you are addressing never went to college. My main plea is that an admin has to acknowledge that other people might actually be just as intelligent and well-educated (though perhaps with vastly different experiences and specialties) as the admin himself (or herself). Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, my comment wasn't about education level - plenty of people with (often multiple) degrees still address me as "Professor" in e-mails, even though I am just a plain old Dr. I do acknowledge that other participants are just as intelligent (probably more so!), but when I see a misunderstanding about academic titles, I don't see the problem of trying to explain what that misunderstanding is. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Having looked at my AfD history, Montanabw, I don't seem to have contributed to all that many biographical AfDs, so the sample is quite small. I did find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie van Scherpenberg, though, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago, which is about an NGO founded by a Trinidadian woman. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   That is helpful, Larry. And you did well on those. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I have looked through each of Larry's comments at the AfD referred to, and I don't see a single problem with any of them. His tone is measured, calm, and neutral; he states his opinions as opinions and they are well reasoned, and his comments are brief and to the point. Everyone is entitled to express their opinions at an AfD, and to rebut others' points if they disagree, and as long as that is done civilly, there is no problem. Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @Softlavender:, it was the patronizing comments on 2 or 3 other talkpages that were the core of my concerns. The AfD concern was the line between rebuttal and tendentiousness, but we saved the article at the end of the day. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I have to repeat that I saw nothing whatsoever tendentious about Larry's comments or rebuttals; in fact, they were more courteous and civil than I've seem most anyone be in any AfD discussion that becomes lengthy. Apparently you object to the fact that he disagreed with your position, and had cogent arguments for his reasoning. I don't think you are being objective here. People are allowed to !vote delete at AfD, and allowed to have opinions that differ from yours, and allowed to rebut various opinions to the contrary. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I saw much the same when I looked through them. I have to say the mansplaining claim is getting into WP:ASPERSIONS territory even on a good day after reading Larry's actual comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No aspersions intended, KOA. The talkpage discussion that gave rise to my concerns most definitely had a tone of "mansplaining", used here as one-word shorthand for a more lengthy description. Condescension and patronizing language of this type is also a mild form of Wikipedia:Passive_aggression, and it is useful to point it out—and, when needed, to call it out, particularly for someone who seeks adminship and will have to defuse difficult situations in the future. If I had intended "aspersions," I would have !voted oppose at the outset rather than seek an explanation. I am not surprised, KOA, that you personally disagree with my position, but you and I can discuss that elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   @Cordless Larry:, I'm remaining neutral. I am somewhat mollified by your responses. Not quite ready to jump on the popular bus of support because your tone here still leaves me a bit concerned that you don't quite "get it", but I think you are trying. Based upon your explanations here, I am willing to give you a chance. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. I don't agree with your take on this incident, but I appreciate your comments nonetheless. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to thankspam everyone, but for those who are still reading, let me say thank you to all 185186 editors who have participated in my RfA. Regardless of the outcome, I have found the experience an interesting one, not quite as scary as I had feared, and I learned some things about myself, Wikipedia and the community along the way. Thanks especially to my nominators, Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni - I don't think I had fully appreciated just how much the nominators have invested in an RfA until now. Thanks to everyone who felt able to support my candidacy, and especially those who did so despite expressing reservations; I hope to be able to repay the trust you have showed in me. Thanks also to those who didn't feel able to offer their support, but still made constructive comments; I will take your feedback on board. Lastly, special thanks go to Softlavender, who, despite voting oppose, went on to vociferously defend me in the neutral section, and to Joe Roe, for posting the comment that me smile the most. Now, I'm off to delete some stuff... (joke!). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, your RfA doesn't finish for another 45 minutes, Mr Impatient! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I blame UTC/BST confusion! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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