Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk· contribs) – Pickersgill-Cunliffe is a real titan of an editor and one I am confident will be an essential admin. Pickersgill has demonstrated competency in several fields including anti-vandalism, new page patrolling, and copyright cleanup. Pickersgill has nearly 200 accurate UAA reports and several uncontested AIV reports and NPP reviews; his edit summaries are full of crossed out names and red links. Outside of this quicker maintenance work, Pickersgill has valued work at Contributor Copyright Investigations, having used his subject matter knowledge to help close a massive decade long investigation. Of course, there’s another side to Pickersgill; he has an army, better yet a literal navy’s worth of reviewed content, with 74 good articles and four featured articles, plus a few A-class articles from the Military History Wikiproject. I mean, it’s overwhelming to pick stuff out, but I think HMS Beaulieu, an article Pickersgill created, is one of my favorites. Pickersgill doesn’t rubber stamp either; see his contributions to Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022. Outside of all the big numbers, Pickersgill still stands strong; he’s been elected a coordinator for the MILHIST wikiproject, and can be seen helping out editors new and old at his talk page and projectspace. Pickersgill has already demonstrated the desired levels of trust, and I’m confident he will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination statement
I'm honoured to be able to co-nominate Pickersgill-Cunliffe for adminship. Pickersgill has been consistently editing for a bit over 3 years now, and in that time, they've put in a lot of work. They've authored over 100 articles, helped to promote 70+ articles to good article status, 4 articles to featured article status, and have worked as a military history project coordinator since October of 2022, always showing a clear commitment to high quality encyclopedic content. They don't stop there though. They regularly CSD tag pages where appropriate and make reports at UAA and AIV, all of which I've consistently acted on when I've been the processing administrator.
Pickersgill is clearly a knowledgeable individual, but what I appreciate most is their ability to recognize their own limitations and approach new areas with caution. I saw this first hand when they began participating at NPP and asked insightful questions that demonstrated a solid understanding, as opposed to simple memorization, of policy as well as the processes and goals that we have.
It's clear, at least to me, that Pickersgill is the exact type of level-headed, humble, knowledgeable, and reasonable candidate that we should want to recruit to the admin corps. I strongly believe they would be a net positive as an administrator, and I hope you will all join me in supporting them. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination statement
Pickersgill-Cunliffe has been an excellent content created in the military history topic area for several years, and they have been a project coordinator for the WP:MILHIST project as well. Some of their fine content work includes Wolfe-class ship of the line and Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). In addition to this content and content management work, they have worked with UAA, CSD, and anti-vandalism work. They also have the time and willingness to provide guidance to newer editors on their user talk page. Wikipedia will be a better place with Pickersgill as an administrator - they are the rare editor who has shown a marked ability for content work, guidance of new editors, and skill at the behind-the-scenes processes that keep Wikipedia running. Hog FarmTalk00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited with any other accounts or as an IP beforehand. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I have been editing Wikipedia for just over three years now. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here, whether that be in content creation, WikiProject coordination, or anti-vandalism. I would like to give back to the community by serving as an admin, looking to enhance my impact in areas I already assist in such as AIV, UAA, and CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am first and foremost a content editor on Wikipedia, and I think my work reflects this. Of my four FAs I am most proud of Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732). This was an enjoyable and rewarding article to write, exploring a man with a very interesting life but little presence on the modern internet. I am also proud of my work as a coordinator for WikiProject Military History, helping to nurture a community of helpful and collaborative Wikipedians producing some excellent content.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try to be calm and friendly in conflicts on Wikipedia. Disagreement does not have to mean dispute, and keeping a discussion civil in the face of diverging opinions is an important factor in making progress. When it comes to stress, it is good to remember that this is the internet. Responding or involving oneself in situations while stressed will always result in subpar work, and the best course of action is to disengage until one is in a better frame of mind to return. Inflaming the situation in the heat of the moment is never constructive. That said, I believe myself to be a rather even keeled person and do not easily become stressed.
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.
5. How would you respond if two or more editors do not appear to be keeping calm and civil during a discussion, someone else has already suggested stepping away and sleeping on it, but that advice has not been heeded?
A: Incivility by itself is not something to go straight in at the high end of sanctions for, we don't want cool-down blocks; initially work should be done to identify why there is incivility and what the dispute is, looking to mediate and solve the issue at hand as a third party. The users in question should also be warned about their conduct and have their uncivil comments highlighted to make them realise their error. If the dispute has increased from disgruntlement to personal attacks or more widespread disruption then this is the stage at which blocks may have to come into play, although I stress that working with the people involved in the discussion should always be the first point of call. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: There are certain areas that I have little or no experience in. These include SPI and AE. Just because someone gains the user right doesn't mean they also become an expert! I wouldn't jump into any area that I am currently unfamiliar with because that's likely to hinder more than assist. When it comes to learning about these areas there are obviously a myriad of instruction pages on Wikipedia. Reading them carefully and understanding them is very important, but I also believe there's never harm in asking questions and requesting help. Shadowing and learning from the many admins who do have the required experience would be key. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. How do you feel about the processes for dealing with editors who are accused of infractions while working on the project?
A: Wikipedia has a wide range of places to go to report and deal with malefactors, and I believe these generally work well, whether it be ANI, SPI, COI, or something else. It is usually clear where one needs to go to deal with various issues, allowing problems to be sorted and actioned accordingly without it being a big free-for-all of issues. The biggest success of Wikipedia's processes, and generally the whole site, is the transparency. Unless we're talking about the most sensitive of topics then all reports and discussions relating to them will be out in the open and available for anyone to contribute to. Whether they be useful contributions or not, in a site that prides itself on being run by the community it is important that reports and allegations are obvious, open to all, and fair. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would you change anything about these processes?
A: I noted above that I believe the various processes to be quite well-sorted. ANI is probably the most general forum for reports, and I might therefore say that it is the most confusing to look through. Splitting it out into more categorised forums for discussion might alleviate this, but it might also exacerbate it. It is a central forum that administrators can check and action urgent reports from, and it would take more than the musings of one editor in an RfA to improve it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Do you have at least a basic regex or technical skill for writing edit filters if you intend to assist in modifying them once you have good technical knowledge later? (you can also view private filters themselves and their code, notes and logs when you have the mop toolset)
A: I have the technical ability of a dead slug. I have no experience with maintaining, or doing anything else with, edit filters and hope I have not unintentionally made the suggestion that I am looking to do so. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. You seem a very promising candidate and fully experienced in Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia and had complete power like Elon Musk has with Twitter/X, what would you change?
11. How will you deal with users creating copyright violations (e.g., by blocking or using CSD G12)?
A: Blocking should never be the first course of action in this circumstance. Many new editors arrive to the site not understanding Wikipedia's stance on copyright or what copyright is at all. The addition of copyrighted material can be a good-faith but misled attempt to improve or create articles. Editors who introduce copyright violations should at first be warned and have their actions explained to them, with content being CSD'd/revdel'd as appropriate. Blocks can be looked at when editors are warned and given a chance to stop their behaviour, but ignore this and continue to violate copyrights. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. If you found a page that looks like it may contain copyright violations but others disagree with you, then how will you discuss with them about the suspected copyright violations?
A: The issue can be proving the existence, or lack, of appropriate licences or expirations. Demonstrating a copyright violation requires proof of the source, e.g. using earwig, and this can be put to the editors, highlighting what the copyright violation is and where the content originally comes from. An evidence-led argument, on the appropriate article or user talk, is best. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. Under what conditions would you block a new editor indefinitely?
A: Vandalism or promotion only accounts and disruptive/inappropriate usernames. As always though, indefinite does not mean permanent, especially in the case of username blocks where the option to change their name is available. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15. In the context of Q13, what is your personal understanding/interpretation of WP:FAOWN?
A: Featured Articles are not owned or controlled by any one or group of editors, as with any article. That said, FAs have gone through a rigorous review process to get them to their current quality and as such changes, especially those of a large/dramatic nature, should be discussed thoroughly on the talk page before implementation. This ensures that the quality and FA-ness of the article is upheld, but does not mean that any editor should gatekeep changes to the article, just that obvious consensus should be formed before changes are made. It might be best to suggest that with FAs advice is be bold...but not too bold. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16.WP:RFA2024 is ongoing but proposal 2, a reminder of civility requirements at requests for adminship, is a closed matter. It passed in a landslide and its text box is about to get added to all relevant pages. Even though that proposal isn't an ironclad policy, what, if any, changes do you think its passage should compel bureaucrats and administrators to make when it comes to how they handle RFA?
A: I don't think RfA needs to be handled differently because of this. An expectation that editors remain civil and provide evidence/diffs for accusations builds on the current format rather than changing it. While it is hopefully reasonable to expect editors would abide by those simple rules, uninvolved admins will need to keep an eye on RfAs to ensure this. Again, I don't think this is much of a sea change for the process, more of an addition. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17. What role, if any, do you see for WikiProject Military history in combatting systemic bias on Wikipedia?
A: MILHIST, just like every WikiProject, does not control the content produced or the editors involved in the related subject. The MILHIST slant is definitely towards modern, Eurocentric conflicts, and written by people from those areas. WikiProjects, and especially coordinators, can work to make their projects as inclusive as possible. Welcoming new members and making them feel at home, and providing constructive feedback on the work they produce is important in ensuring that they want to stay and feel supported. WikiProjects cannot demand that editors produce, say, less WWII work and more Chinese Civil War work, but they can encourage and support those editors when they come along. WiR is the most prominent example of a WikiProject focused on this, and I think other projects could embrace more editathons on less represented parts of their subjects. Not only does this promote the production of more necessary content, but it could help advertise that this really is a "broad church" of editors and subject matter. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18. What is the purpose of moving an article to draftspace as part of new page patrol? When should it be done and when should it not be done?
A: Draftification allows an article to be moved back to draftspace so that it can be improved and become definitively ready for mainspace. This process is for articles that have a chance to stay in mainspace, rather than articles that are very clearly about non-notable subjects. I find myself most commonly draftifying newly created articles when they have no sources. The editor needs to take a look at their writing and identify the need to add citations to provide verifiability, which moving the article back to the draft stage provides time for. As mentioned previously, draftification is not an alternative for deletion. If the article would not survive an AfD even after the editor is given more time in draftspace, then it shouldn't go back there. There are also some limits in NPP on what can or can't be draftified, that being the article must be less than 90 days old and it can't have been edited constructively within the last hour. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20. Could you explain your user name and "S., J. T. P. G. M. V." on your user page?
A: The former is the surname of John Reynolds Pickersgill-Cunliffe, a British Army officer who died rather tragically in the First World War. It is not my surname! The latter is an acronym that identifies who I am. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
21. I'm trying - but failing - to remember the last time I asked a question at an RfA. Your explanation about the acronym is a cryptic (probably intentional) tease. I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate? It's not important and you can decline to answer, or you can add a clue to this little puzzle. I'm happy with the latter (you seem to like that word).
22. Follow-up to Q7, where I feel the answer missed the point a little. Q7 was not really about malefactors but whether you consider Wikipedia processes to deal with people accused of wrongdoing as, let's call it, fair and fit for purpose. That is to say, to what extent are you ready to implement these processes fully as they are? Or, would you perhaps take a more critical stance towards (some of) them, their elements, philosophy, or practice?
I'm really impressed by the quality and quantity of the candidate's contributions, as well as his temperament, policy knowledge, and communication skills. I'm happy to see he's interested in helping out with the admin tookit, and based on what I've seen I'm confident he'll do a fine job with it. 28bytes (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jusjih: For context, that shows an edit summary not used on 1,293 edits. Pickersgill doesn't always use one in their own user space, when working on some drafts I believe, which accounts for 1,131 of the edits. That leaves 162 edits outside their user space without an edit summary, which I think is a much better picture that than painted by the general xtools summary :) Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support. Pickersgill-Cunliffe is a valuable member of the community and I see no problem with giving him a mop. ~Δ(delta • t • c)01:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pickersgill-Cunliffe and I have never interacted but they have appeared in my watchlist multiple times over the past few months. They've struck me as someone who is capable and knowledgeable, and someone who would be a good fit for adminship. I am pleased to see this candidacy. Acalamari02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Familiar with them, not really familiar with their work, but ... as with so many other RfAs like this, good solid support from serious people. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not believe our process work well, (question 7) but I cannot fault the candidate for the answer. I Checked out the candidate's significant contributions to this project and I think they will be an asset as an administrator. No drama and great nominators. Lightburst (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! As I mentioned in the comments section, I would have happily nominated. Candidate is a pleasure to work with and does great work on his own. —Kusma (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recognise the name, but not familiar with it prior to this event. Happy with the answers to Q10 and, in particular, Q8 ~ being willing to say this isn't the time or place, i.e. taking the time to contemplate and give an honest answer instead of trying to please !voters in what must be a stressful time. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello06:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a fellow technically-challenged editor, I must support my peers in the dead slug cabal. For real though, Pickersgill has always come across as well-spoken, hard-working, and intelligent. I can't see a reason to oppose. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’m on the fence because of the answer to Q7 – we report people for COI at COIN. Have our RfA standards fallen so low that we’re letting such a critical typo slide? /s Toadspike[Talk]08:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both their abundance of FAs/GAs and their work on administrative tasks like CCIs paint a clear picture: this is a candidate who's willing to get their hands dirty and put in intensive, sophisticated work to improve the encyclopedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work on content, plus looking through the talk page reveals a lot of good work with new editors. Happy to have you as an admin. Malinaccier (talk)14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've always been reasonable and shown a good understanding of policy when I've come across you in an admin capacity, and you've always been reasonable and helpful at FAC. That prepares you for adminship more than you realise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have seldom seen this editor climbing the Reichstag, and never while dressed as Spiderman. Also, more seriously, strong contributor who works with CCIs. Couldn't support more. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All available indicators point to cluefulness. As alluded to by my question, MILHIST as a topic area (as a whole, with exceptions for non-Western history) benefits strongly from systemic bias. There's obviously nothing wrong with choosing to focus on that area, as we're all volunteers. But I do hope that, when it comes to zero-sum questions (like which TFA to schedule for the Main Page, for instance), the candidate will use the additional standing granted by adminship to advocate for underserved topic areas rather than reinforcing existing biases. Sdkbtalk17:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my interactions with the candidate, they seem to know what they're doing. They are clearly a net positive to the project. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This candidate has long demonstrated reliability and good judgement as a MILHIST coordinator, frequently demonstrates clear understanding of policy and MOS as a regular GA reviewer, and has demonstrated by their page creations that quality pagespace is why we're all here. Rarely do we see such an uncontroversial set of nominations for responsibility. This is no coin flip. BusterD (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've interacted with Pickersgill-Cunliffe several times both on and offwiki, and found them to be an excellent editor and level-headed. I'm happy to offer my full support for this RfA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Truly an impressive editor and contributor to the site. The mop would allow them to better serve the community. Best of luck! Bgv. (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those editors who I was surprised to learn isn't already an admin. We've crossed paths doing anti-vandal before and I like their work, so that's a support from me.--Panian51314:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seeing their talk page, they seem to be very respectful. See no reason to oppose! Know they’ll make a great admin. 48JCLTALK22:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seen this editor around, no qualms. Answers to questions give me further confidence supporting this candidate. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would be an easy support for me, regardless of the RfA format. I haven't interacted much with the candidate (something I hope to correct), and I wanted to check whether they have really had enough experience dealing with difficult situations. I spent time going through their talk page archives, and I've gotta say that there's an amazing amount of thanks from other editors, right from the start. The closest I could find to a drama was this: [2]. And I see that the candidate remained level-headed and calm, so I feel like everything checks out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate's track record suggests the candidate is comparatively active, well-rounded, and predominantly beneficial to the community. ShoneBrooks (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the slug may be dead w.r.t. the technical stuff, but it's clearly very much alive in content creation, CCI, and vandal-whacking. We need more protostome representation in our janitorial class, especially after the Worm That Turned hung up its mop. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 05:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great experience, trust the noms, only positive impressions. I disagree with their answers to Q7 and Q8, but understaffing is the cause of much of the problem. Happy to have another qualified admin in the corps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he passes (and this looks like an uneventful nomination), Wikipedia will be down only 2 administrators for the month. So get passing that baton with tempo! Carrite (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination from Hog Farm (talk· contribs) carries a lot of weight for me. Combined with the candidate's vast experience, someone would have to dig up something very serious for me to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! It's Pickersgill-Cunliffe! Alright folks, this time can we please hold back with the unnecessary questions? This is an excellent candidate and I cannot imagine that we need another 30 questions to determine that. Toadspike[Talk]07:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add up the characters in the nominators' usernames and we get 33, multiply it by 2 and we get 66, which is basically 666. It's clear this RfA is the work of the devil... ULPS(talk • contribs)18:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not enough nominators, you're not timid enough to last as an admin in today's Wikipedia without at least six. —Cryptic19:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answers thus far have been great. The questions have been...par for the course. I hope it's not rude to say that Q13 needs at most a one-word answer. Toadspike[Talk]22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent user, would have happily nominated him myself. We had some really good productive interactions (a throwaway comment of mine somehow became the GA HMS Swallow (1745) thanks to P-C; excellent responses to my GA review Talk:Philip Wodehouse (Royal Navy officer)/GA1; generally P-C is my expert of choice for questions about the British navy in the 18th century). Lots of good more admin-ish work recently as well. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As part of joking around on Discord over two years ago, I mentioned needing an article about the Swallow, and managed to get P-C interested. Why he wrote the article to GA level quality is something you'll have to ask him. —Kusma (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was discussion at WT:FAClast year about trying to trick persuade a content-creating admin into running for arbcom. After noting the small number of potential options, a couple editors wrote that Wikipedia needed to appoint more admins like this (like P-C). Rjjiii (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the articles are of exceptionally high quality, or that 18th-century warships would literally demolish most other article subjects? Toadspike[Talk]08:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Areas they already assist in such as AIV, UAA, and CSD. Reports to which: 209 to UAA since Dec 2023, 94 to AIV since January this year, and a CSD log also commencing in January with half the reports as U5. Well, at least we know when in the last three years you decided to take your shot at the title :) Counter-COPYVIO work could have been emphasised more, that needs permanent help. Ultimately, no need for tools = no dick swinging = will make a great admin. I suspect this is going to be a pretty clear run. Thanks for participating in the new process! ——Serial Number 5412914:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardworking, painstaking, courteous, knowledgeable about policy and an excellent content creator. Nothing else needs saying. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on P-C as a potential admin candidate for a long time and I'm glad to see this happen ngl. I think he will be a wonderful addition to the mop corps. ~Δ(delta • t • c)21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long-time good-faith IP editor (on various IPs), aware that I don't have a !vote here, but… P-C is one of those editors it is a pleasure to interact with as an IP: doesn't assume that IP == bad edits, IP == bad faith, IP == idiot, which is a terrible habit y'all got into here (not without reason, but still). Has treated me like a fellow human being when we've both been vandal fighting on the same page rather than yet another vandal or someone trying to steal their Internet Points™ by reverting first. They will make a great sysop. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is great feedback, thanks for sharing it. It really bothers me when people just assume that users without an account are just wrong about everything and probably vandals. Admins should certainly know better, but some of them don't seem to. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having been a long-term IP myself (previously), I found most editors and admins very fair to IPs. You tend to get ignored in any discussions, like at AfD, unless you have specific facts, but that was understandable. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, users to remember usernames (and how they are as an editor) rather than a 32 Hex or a 10-digit IP that can change from person to person. Conyo14 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2024 (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.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)