Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Colin M

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

Colin M

Final: (178/0/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Colin M (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to present to you Colin M for consideration. While Colin first registered for Wikipedia in 2007 he started editing more seriously in 2019. Since then he has worked to improve a variety of articles, including five he has brought in the last year to Good Article status. You will also find him knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with a particular focus on Article Titles. He has brought that expertise to his work in closing Requested Move discussions. The content he has produced often requires sensitivity and you will find him a thoughtful collaborator and one who is willing to lend help to others where he can. This combination of qualities should make Colin a capable administrator and I hope you join me in supporting him. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

Colin M is the sort of potential administrator I like to see, somebody who has done a lot of work on improving the encyclopedia in neglected areas (including several good articles), politely and helpfully assisted others do the same, and would now like to help out with some of the administrative backlog. I've been particularly impressed with his contributions during content debates, such as at AfD, where his opinions regularly match the final consensus, and show he can politely respect views of those who disagree with him. He shows the right attitude and communication skills that I believe are essential for administrators to have, and I’m happy to endorse this request for adminship. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you Barkeep and Ritchie for the kind words. I have never edited for pay, or on another account. Colin M (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2022 (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: Mostly because it would help me close requested move discussions. I've been active at RM for a while, both as a participant and a closer, and having the admin bit would make it easier to close a wider range of discussions (for example, by making it easier to move over a redirect with history, or in cases where a page is fully move-protected). RM has had a sizeable backlog in recent months, and I'd like to be able to more effectively help clearing it out. I'd be open to helping out in other admin areas as well, but moves are my bread and butter.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of my content creation work. My first big project on Wikipedia was working on Magellan expedition, a level-4 vital article. Since I began working on it in 2019, it's gone from 10 kilobytes and 4 footnotes to 80 kilobytes and 160 footnotes (though I can't claim all the credit, and there's still lots of room for improvement). I've also created several dozen articles from scratch, with topics ranging from linguistics, to 19th century periodicals, to LGBT history, to... Cow Tools (somehow my most viewed article by far). I've had the pleasure of bringing a handful of them, such as The Hobby Directory and Wormwood: A Drama of Paris, up to GA with the help of some great reviewers. Aside from my content creation, I think my participation in requested moves over the years has been a positive force in the project.
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: Rarely. My content work is mostly in obscure corners, and, fortunately, the atmosphere at RM is pretty consistently respectful and collegial. When a content dispute does come up, I try to resolve it through talk page discussion, assuming good faith. An important lesson that took me a while to learn is that sometimes it's best to just walk away from a low-stakes dispute, even if you're confident that you're right. Spending a long time in pursuit of a change that makes the encyclopedia a little bit better can ultimately feel a little silly when you realize you could have instead spent the same amount of time to make 20 other uncontroversial edits which each improve the project just as much. On the other hand, if it's a truly important matter and 1-on-1 discussion is clearly not heading toward consensus, that's when I would consider bringing more voices into the conversation, for example by posting a neutral notice to a Wikiproject, or opening an RfC.

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.

Optional question from LindsayH
4. Hey there ~ thanks for allowing your name to be put forward. What do you think is the most important (if such a thing exists) or valuable of all our guidelines or policies?
A: This feels a bit like choosing which of my vital organs are most important! I think the project would be irreparably harmed if any of its core content policies went away, with verifiability and NPOV being among the keystones. But I guess one policy I would call out as an unsung hero is Consensus. It is absolutely amazing to me that Wikipedia functions as well as it does – if you traveled to a parallel universe without Wikipedia and tried to explain to someone there how an encyclopedia that anyone on the internet can edit had actually blossomed into a vast, high-quality information source relied on by a sizable fraction of the world's population, they would never believe you. I think Consensus is the key reason Wikipedia doesn't end up looking like the wall of a public bathroom. Using consensus for decision-making elevates good arguments over noise, it encourages civility, and attracts thoughtful editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. If decision-making was done by a straight vote or through some top-down process, I don't think the project could have ever achieved the remarkable success that it has.
Optional question from Andrew D.
5. I just looked at Cow Tools as you seem especially interested in this topic. I notice that it still has an {{italic title}} despite all the recent effort invested in this issue. Is this an oversight or what, please?
A: Yes, this was absolutely an oversight which I've just fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Optional question from Ganesha811
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: I'm generally more interested in working in areas related to content rather than conduct, so I have little familiarity with venues like WP:AIV or sockpuppet investigations and would be unlikely to do admin work there. I participated in requested move discussions for months before I started closing any, and when I finally did, I started with cases where consensus was very clear, and gradually worked my way up to more challenging closures. I would take a similar approach if I were to start doing closures in other venues such as WP:FFD, or WP:AFD.
Optional question from A. C. Santacruz
7. Would you be open to recall? If so, under what criteria?
A: Sure, at a high level, I can say I definitely wouldn't want to continue being an admin if my peers decide I'm no longer fit. I'll admit to being a bit green about the context and details surrounding recall but, having browsed some of the criteria used by current admins, User:Firsfron/Accountability strikes me as a reasonable and straightforward process I would be willing to follow.
Optional question from Iffy
8. Have any of your RM closures been challenged? If so, how did you deal with those challenges?
A: I have not had any closes formally challenged at move review. I can think of only one case where I've had a closure informally challenged. This was an unusual case where I found consensus for a position supported by a minority of participants, so I can understand the editor's confusion. I tried to explain the reasoning behind my close in more detail, with reference to certain principles related to consensus like WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DISCARD, which seemed to be enough to satisfy their concerns.
Optional question from Celestina007
9. I want to know your thinking of this theoretical scenario, you observe very reliable sources giving different information on a statement made in an article, what do you do about that? There is no specific “right answer” per se, but I want to understand your thought process, in order to ascertain if you are capable of making good judgement, so could you be so kind as to please explain your course of action if you observe the aforementioned hypothetically scenario?
A: Great question. I've actually encountered this scenario pretty frequently. My usual approach is to hedge between the options in the body and add an explanatory footnote explaining the discrepancy in the sources. For examples of this, see Magellan expedition § Notes, or Ah Men § Notes. In rare cases, common sense will dictate that one answer is clearly correct and the other is a simple error. For example, sources A, B, C, and D say something happened in 1521 and source E says it happened in 1251. In these cases, I probably wouldn't bother to note the discrepancy.
Optional question from Celestina007
10. You already have my support, I’m indeed impressed by your response, second question, and this doesn’t really change anything, my name has become quite synonymous with fighting Undisclosed paid editing, what are your thoughts about UPE or, what do you think is an ideal approach to get rid of such unethical practice?
A: Undisclosed paid editing is antithetical to the first and second of the five pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a soapbox or advertising platform), and it is written from a neutral point of view. Those who work to keep UPE under control have my deep respect, but since it's not an area I have much experience with, I'm not in a great position to suggest solutions. I will say, I think the essay "Buy one, get one free" makes some compelling points about how well-meaning attempts to clean up (rather than delete) promotional content can have the unintended effect of actually rewarding or incentivizing COI editing, but there are pros and cons of each approach, and the overall problem of detecting and dealing with promotional content is incredibly complex.
Optional question from Mdewman6
11. In your answer to Q1, the examples where having admin tools rather than just page mover rights are necessary seem to apply in a small percentage of RM situations. Overall then, how do you view your role at RM changing going from being a page mover to being an admin? Or more generally, how do you view the role of admins at RM being different from the role of page movers?
A: RM/MRV regulars are generally quite accepting of closure by experienced non-admins (even non-pagemovers), and I share this view. In theory, there's nothing preventing me from closing any RM, and then just getting help from an admin when necessary to effect the technical requirements (e.g. by filing requests at WP:RMT, or WP:RFHM). But I would prefer to be able to close without making work for someone else, and these scenarios can cause tricky coordination problems (e.g. I may need to hold off on post-move cleanup until a technical request is fulfilled). So in short, I don't see the nature of my role in RM changing. It would just make it easier for me to close certain requests. (As for what proportion of moves would involve admin tools, see my answer to your next question.)
Optional question from Mdewman6
12. Another follow-up to your answer to Q1, would you continue to preserve page history as much as possible (to the extent appropriate) using round-robin moves and other techniques using suppressredirect, or do you view the ability to G7G6 redirects in the way of moves more as a useful convenience than an occasionally necessary tool?
A: Great question. My impression, based on the wording of the requested move closing instructions and my observation of closes performed by admins, is that G6 deletion is the default method for dealing with redirects with minor history that block a move. My understanding was that the swap procedure was a next-best approach available to page-movers as a workaround. Based on that, my default would be to switch to using G6 over pageswap in most of these (redirect with minor history) cases, but the framing of your question makes me think you might prefer swaps as the default procedure. I can see pros and cons there. I don't want to get too into the weeds of what's already a bit of an "inside baseball" topic here, but I'd definitely be interested in having a discussion about this at WT:RM and hearing the views of experienced closers.
Optional question from Idoghor Melody
13. Would you ever block an Administrator when necessary? And would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking an editor who isn't an admin? If not, what would you do differently?
A: As I mentioned above, I'm more interested in doing admin work related to content (e.g. closures at RM and similar venues) rather than conduct, so I wouldn't expect to do much blocking of anyone. If I were to wade into this area, I would want to develop experience with straightforward cases (e.g. obvious vandalism and spam) before dealing with more complex ones. Since admins are experienced editors who have earned the trust of the community, any case where they might need to be blocked will probably be a lot more complicated than a run-of-the-mill spammer or purely disruptive account. So I would probably leave such cases to a more experienced admin. The one exception I can imagine would be if I happened to be the first to observe an admin causing serious disruption due (presumably) to their account being compromised. If I observed this, I would issue a quick emergency block and refer the case to the Administrator's noticeboard.
Optional question from Paradise Chronicle
14.Thanks for volunteering. I have seen your soapbox, and I saw your support for stubs. I have gone through your articles a bit, and saw many have nothing to do with stubs. Do you want to add anything to to your support for stubs? I myself felt a bit puzzled, but else I guess you will make fine admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have written a few short stubs, for example: The Quartier Latin, Starvation Blues, CBC Wednesday Night, and Bergantina. I don't have anything in particular to add about stubs, beyond what I wrote in the linked quasi-essay.
Optional question from Goldsztajn
15. Thank you for volunteering. I'm well aware that many of us edit in waves and our interests vary over time, but I noticed in the nomination a comment about your participation at AfD. According to the AfD Stats Tool more than 1/2 and a bit less than 2/3 of your actions at AfD occurred over a three day period in February 2019. Whereas in the last six months, there appears to be only 16 !votes. I'm conscious of not drawing conclusions regarding AfD stats and an editor's views, and given that, I was wondering if you could give some indication or comment of where you sit (or perhaps you feel you do not) within the spectrum of inclusionism/deletionism? Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: That's funny, I didn't realize my activity there was quite so concentrated in time, but looking back, that makes sense. Early 2019 was the very beginning of when I started falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole, so I would have had brief spurts of activity in different areas as I tried on different ways of contributing to see what fit. As for the inclusionism-deletionism spectrum, I personally think this framing leaves a lot to be desired, and I don't think my views can be easily placed along this axis. I will say, I think WP:GNG is a really, really good policy. Simple, elegant, and works really well in practice. I think a good SNG should be understood as complementing GNG rather than replacing it. When it comes to judgement calls on whether GNG is satisfied (particularly in deciding whether the coverage given by a particular source is "significant"), I think it's important to bear in mind the reason that GNG works so well: because, without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you're probably not going to be able to write a verifiable, neutral article of non-trivial size. If someone has managed to create such an article, that strongly inclines me toward considering GNG satisfied (even if each of the individual secondary sources only has, say, a page of coverage).
Optional question from Volten001
16 Hello candidate... Thank you for your contributions. You seem to be a fit candidate for admin and you already have my support. My question is pretty straighforward but kindly answer if you can. If you get the community's approval and become an admin, would you be willing to volunteer in the simpler tasks such as welcoming new editors, or even offering advice on areas which you excel in?
A: I'm not as diligent about this as some other editors (such as those who regularly monitor the Tea House for questions from new editors), but when, in the course of my regular editing or watchlist-reviewing, I see a good faith editor struggling or making a mistake in an area that might be new to them, I do try to reach out and point them to relevant policies and resources. And if anyone comes to my talk page seeking advice, I would of course try to help them out if it's related to an area I'm familiar with (e.g. article naming policy, RMs, GA reviews, image licensing), or, if not, try to direct them to someone who can help them. (I can't say this has happened to me much in the past, but I can imagine it might be a more common experience for admins.)
Optional question from Atsme
17. Well, now that you brought it up, which of your vital organs is most important to you? j/k On a serious note, I was impressed with the number of GAs you've promoted/reviewed, so I took a quick look at the articles you created. What jumped out at me is the substantial number of articles without a Talk Page. I went ahead and added a TP for Beauty filter (my area of interest as a photog) but was curious as to why you didn't create the TPs when you created the articles, and if you are willing to create them before you get really busy being an administrator? Happy editing, Atsme 💬 📧 18:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: As an editor, I actually personally like having a red talk page link over a blue link to a talk page that's empty but for some standard templates, since it signals in advance that the reader is not going to find any existing discussion about the page. (And until very recently, this position was part of the documentation for {{Talk header}}). So I don't generally proactively create talk pages for articles I create (unless I'm going to immediately start a discussion, e.g. here). But I certainly don't begrudge editors who like creating missing talk pages as a form of gnoming work, adding wikiproject templates and such.
Optional question from Beccaynr
18. Thank you for volunteering - I reviewed your comments in the August 2021 RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people as well as your comments in the Full birth name in lead sentence of biographical articles section of your userspace soapbox, where you describe MOS:DEADNAME as a "great policy" and ask Why aren't we applying it to everyone? as part of your discussion of MOS:BIRTHNAME. Can you please answer your own question, with reference to the MOS:DEADNAME guideline and any other relevant policy: why does MOS:DEADNAME not currently apply to everyone?
A: Reviewing it, I can now see that the argument in the last paragraph of that mini-essay that you've quoted is extremely muddled. The "That's a great policy. Why aren't we applying it to everyone?" statement was in relation to a specific sentence from MOS:DEADNAME that I quoted immediately before. But, that exact quoted wording no longer exists in MOS:DEADNAME, and when it did, I'm not sure it actually had the meaning that I was reading into it (I think I was understanding it as saying, basically, that in the case of deceased trans people, their deadname may be included somewhere in the article if widely reported in RS, but if the subject was not notable under that name, it should not be placed in the lead sentence as a matter of due weight). I'm going to delete that paragraph since it's not very cogent (but here's a permalink to the old version in case it helps anyone trying to follow along), and I think the overall argument the mini-essay makes about due weight as applied to birth names stands much more clearly without the comparison to MOS:DEADNAME.
So my question was not "why does MOS:DEADNAME not currently apply to everyone?", but rather "why does [this particular provision of MOS:DEADNAME which I was probably misinterpreting] not currently apply to everyone?". The answer to that question is, well, MOS:BIRTHNAME exists and dictates that a subject's birth name should generally be included in the first sentence of the lead (without regard to how widely it's reported in RS, or how relevant it is to the subject's claim to notability). I understand that, from the perspective of our policy on biographies of living people, a deadname has a very different status from other sorts of former names in terms of its ability to cause harm to a living person and violate their privacy, and that an important function of MOS:DEADNAME is to lay out these BLP considerations, but my (sloppy) comparison was not intended to refer to that aspect of the policy. (Sorry for the long response, but there was a lot to unpack here.)
Optional question from Reaper Eternal
19. I'm probably just blind, but do you have a link to your good articles somewhere? I clicked the articles on your userpage, but none of them were GAs.
A: You're not blind, I just don't have them listed anywhere. But they are: The Hobby Directory, Wormwood: A Drama of Paris, Sunshine & Health, The Chameleon (magazine), and The News (musical).
Optional question from 3PPYB6
20. In recent years, our RfA processes have become increasingly stringent. You are currently an editor with less than 10,000 edits. Currently, any editor with less than 15,000 or 20,000 edits would generally be doomed to fail. What are your thoughts on this and how would you address the Wikipedia community about this issue?
A: Assuming that's true, I would find it troubling. Edit count is a very noisy signal for measuring experience. Some of my individual edits (mostly article creations) represent several hours of work. Others represent just a few seconds each (e.g. when I use JWB to repair wikilinks en masse following a page move). An editor's edit count will be extremely sensitive to what kind of work they prefer (whether that's more on the side of small, high-volume, tool-assisted edits, or more in-depth contributions), as well as incidental details around their editing process (e.g. if they're writing a new article, do they draft it locally in a text file until it's ready to go, or do they build it up gradually on-wiki in the Draft namespace?). I'd like to see the community be receptive to adminship for an editor with well under, say, 10,000 edits, if that editor can present other evidence of a record of high-quality contributions to the project.
Optional question from North8000
21. You already have my support either way, but I'd like to ask this: I think that you already 3/4ths covered this, but would you agree that at this point you don't have enough experience in the relevant areas to be making heavier duty conduct-related decisions such as blocking experienced editors on wp:ANI discussions?
A: Yes.
Optional question from Andrew D.
22. What's your position on the new Universal Code of Conduct, please?
A: What a doozy of a question! As a baseline, I think Wikipedia's self-governance is quite effective. As I said in my answer to Q4, I think the decision-making process of consensus, arrived at via public discussions which all editors can view and participate in, is fantastic. This makes me generally wary of any top-down efforts from the Wikimedia Foundation that undermine our self-governance. My understanding of the incentives and processes that drive the WMF is spotty, but what I have seen often makes me uncomfortable.
The wording of the UCoC itself is mostly anodyne and unobjectionable, but I have concerns about how they will translate into concrete processes and enforcement mechanisms. There are aspects of the enforcement guidelines that skeeve me out (mandatory training sessions for admins, and a requirement to pledge their "regard and adherence to the UCoC"), and while the document pays lip service to transparency, my concern is that these new processes will ultimately result in less transparency, and therefore less accountability. That said, I think the ostensible purpose of the UCoC is noble. I care a lot about civility, and our community's tolerance of insulting and disrespectful rhetoric is sometimes a little higher than I would like it to be. But I don't think the WMF are the ones who should be solving this problem.
Your usage "skeeve out" was unfamiliar so I had to look it up. The Wiktionary entry is brief: "to disgust or repulse". The OED has more, indicating that it's American slang, perhaps derived from the Italian schifare. As I'm British, I'm unsure how polite or rude the word may be considered. It seems a good illustration of the difficulty of policing language here. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Wiktionary definition seems overly narrow to me. My intended meaning was more in line with the OED's gloss of "to make uncomfortable". Colin M (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from RadioKAOS
23. This nomination refers to your interest in article titles. The advice given in WP:ATDAB suggests that parenthetical disambiguation should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that if parenthetical disambiguation is used, the disambiguator should be kept as short as possible. I've done a lot of work on political biographies and this has been widely ignored in the case of this topic area. As one example, there are numerous instances of "Joe Blow (East Bumfuck politician)" when there's not an article or even a redirect at "Joe Blow (politician)". As another example, ATDAB suggests that natural disambiguation should be favored when a subject is referred to as such in sources, even if such a reference is not dominant among available sources as a whole. Once again, this is not followed to any great extent. The editors who for years and years have consistently defaulted to unnecessarily-disambiguated titles appear to take a stance of "Why, this is the way we've been doing it all along", and somehow that takes precedence over ATDAB, a policy. Why has this been allowed to become such a problem?
A: I can't say I can recall encountering the issue you describe of needlessly specific parenthetical disambiguators for politicians, though I agree, that does sound out of line with policy. (And I would be surprised if such a title were endorsed at RM. If you have any examples, I'd be interested to see, if you don't mind dropping a link on my talk page.) As for your second example, the current wording of our policy on natural disambiguation leaves a fair bit of room for interpretation. Where do we draw the line between a name by which a subject is "commonly called in English RS" vs. an "obscure" name? This recent RfC is an example of disagreement about the role of natural disambiguation among some of our most naming-policy-savvy editors, with some arguing that the de facto practice at RM has even drifted away from a plain reading of the guideline. I'd like to see the community move toward a more consistent, consensus understanding of how natural disambiguation should be used, whether that involves rewriting parts of the current guideline or just coming to a more widely agreed on reading of the current wording, but it's going to take time.


Discussion

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

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

Support
  1. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not familiar with the candidate, but I trust the nominators. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A good candidate who will make an excellent administrator. scope_creepTalk 15:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: I trust the nominators, and I particularly appreciate the content creation work. Bsoyka (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: I remember the candidate from his exchange with Persicifolia half-way through this discussion on the expression "wheelchair-bound" on WT:MOS. He certainly seemed to consider other points of view, even if he did not quite finish up the exchange. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per noms. Also good to see someone with an edit count of less than 10k run. 15 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Colin M did justice to my question. I wanted to hear something along those lines and they delivered! I’m impressed. Furthermore if Barkeep49 & Ritchie333 trusts you, I am inclined too to trust you. Once again good work on the remarkable answering of my question. They have given a honest well thought out response to my second question and this solidified my stance on them deserving the mop. Celestina007 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - friendly, good work, and knows when to ask for an outside opinion. Femke (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per noms. For what it's worth, Colin does meet the the most controversial admin criteria. However, everything's made up and the criteria don't matter, so he will do just fine. -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per noms. Justiyaya 17:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support looks good >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I haven't interacted with the candidate but I am happy to support based on nominator, co-nominator and answers to questions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Haven't seen anything objectionable from Colin, so I don't have any concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, precious and with clue in interactions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, no concern at this time and good answers to questions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. User is level-headed, has good answers to the questions, and shows exceptional competency. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --- FitIndia Talk (A/CU) on Commons 20:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support due to general need for more admins. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support no concerns from me, and I respect the nominators and their faith in Colin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, good work at RM. Ruбlov (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Trustworthy, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, good contributor and no issues. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support not seeing any reasons for sitting on the fence. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - A sensitive and thoughtful editor. I reviewed one of their GAs, and while we disagreed on some of the finer points, they communicated with great eloquence. There are emotional aspects to building an encyclopedia, and I think this editor has a handle on what it means to work with others. Urve (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. No issues, deserves the mop. Sea Cow (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nominators ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support seems to have a clue, has some good content to their name, great noms whom I trust. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: Seems to have experience with Wikipedia procedures. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 00:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Experienced user, has my trust. SpencerT•C 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Endorse due to Colin’s expertise in XfDs and CRs. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. ––FormalDude talk 02:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Sure. //Julle (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Thoroughly enjoyed reading your articles on historical photographers and publications! Good luck. DanCherek (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: impressed, in particular, with their ability to politely handle contentious discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Excellent judgment in RM discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. No problems. SethWhales talk 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support' ~ joining the crowd for many of the reasons above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 05:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Will be a good admin. Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Kpddg (talk • contribs) 06:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good head on his shoulders! One would have thought he was already an admin. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, per nominators and good answers to questions. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support —Svārtava (t/u) • 08:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per my RFA criteria, good record with RM closures and Move Reviews. Iffy★Chat -- 10:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I'm positive the candidate will handle the admin duties well if successful. Volten001 ☎ 10:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - per nomination statements. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support—Our standards for adminship have become increasingly stringent, where we have to just pile opposes on people who have less than 15,000 or 20,000 edits. I have no objection to this user becoming an administrator and seriously hope for us to loosen our horrible and broken process. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - trusted user. Thingofme (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Ooh, a candidate for the mop who plans to use the mop for mopping first and foremost. An admingnome, if you will. Yes, I like that idea. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 15:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Looks like a solid editor. A cursory look at their contribs and various stats failed to turn up any red or yellow flags. Happy to support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Have had a few encounters with ColinM and they've all been good. Also, agree with @3PPYB6:'s comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support As co-nom, no issues here. Augend (drop a line) 16:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I've not encountered Colin before but two good noms, some thoughtful answers, ... why not? Cabayi (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, a fine content creator who has a number of GAs to his credit; clearly meets my criteria. No other concerns. GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I am a Novice wikipedian, yet in my time I have seen many great contributions, and yours are no exception. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Main reason: Like Urve, I have noticed Colin is a great communicator, which is a crucial skill for an admin. — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Stroopwafels (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support His opinion on the straight pride Mfd does not concern me even though I think the userboxes were inappropriate. I have no concerns. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - no real concerns. GiantSnowman 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, seems a reasonable person and a good candidate, no concerns. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Level-headed. (Figuratively, probably.) Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support probable net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - I trust they will make a good admin, and I am also satisfied with their answer to my question. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support – Communicative and sensible enough. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support No concerns, would handle a mop well. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - has all the makings of a good 'un. Atsme 💬 📧 22:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support for a net positive editor, although Rhododendrites and WaltCip raise valid points. I trust the candidate to steer clear of what I think of as wedge-issue userboxes. Miniapolis 22:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support: good temperament, strong knowledge of policy and guidelines, and nothing of concern has been raised. Whenever I've seen their name around, it's for something positive and well-written or thoughtful. Thanks for running! — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Having now read up on Cow Tools I am sold on the candidate. I hope he will not find the admin tools quite as misshapen. Haukur (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support generally my bar for these things is civil and has a clue (ie no big deal) ... which is clearly met here. At the same time the neutral comments below and some of the responses to the questions above did give me pause. To me, in asking about inclusionism/deletionism and AfD I had hoped for more than a default to the GNG and its application. The complex, difficult AfDs (and subsequent DRVs) arise because of *how* the GNG is interpreted (what exactly is SIGCOV? how does SIGCOV vary in different contexts? what is OR and synth? etc). However, I'm equally mindful that we are also making assessments of an editor's potential and that as participants in this project here we should all be assessed equally in good faith, and I see nothing here to counter that presumption. That said, I'm happy to support because civil and a clue is as good an indicator of potential as any! Regards and good luck, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, per review and I trust Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, we need more administrators, although you'll have to get involved in conduct stuff eventually. Secretlondon (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Checks all the boxes, don't see any issues. The userbox comments seem like a complete non-issue. Chaddude (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support instant yes. Reviewed a GA nom of mine and gave a review that was independent, thorough, thoughtful and full of good sense. Blythwood (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per nominators. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - I am familiar with Colin M, having seen him around regularly and often; always impressed with his manner and clue. And I respect the nominators, trusting their judgement without reservation. In total, this sums to confident, easy support, for me. I am thankful that Colin M is willing to serve as an admin and hope that more, equally qualified candidates, will follow his example and volunteer their candidacy as well.--John Cline (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. We need more active admins on this site and they are a perfect candidate for one. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - has something they want the mop for, and the measured responses to the questions don't raise any red flags. Neither do the comments below re userboxes. I also trust the judgement of the nominators. Neiltonks (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Very good editing track record, no issues I can identify. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. As a fellow Requested Moves regular, I'm familiar with the candidate and have positive impressions, confirmed by thoughtful replies to questions. No such user (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Their usual bits are good, with good noms, but I wanted to address the concern raised in the neutrals, from editors I respect. I actually view it as a positive, in an admin, that they can take the neutrality we need even if their personal morals would drive them one way. I hold the same position as Colin does on userboxes, and believe they have the right of it. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support thanks for volunteering Vexations (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. A thoughtful editor who can express themselves calmly in discussions and has contributed good supporting work. Definitely a net positive for the project. Loopy30 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Approved for 15 years. - CafeGurrier66 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. My experience with Colin related to requested moves has been largely (if not entirely) positive. Calidum 14:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - no issues. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, consistently civil, thoughtful, and helpful. Rusalkii (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support – Wikipedia needs more admins that are experienced in significant content creation, and Colin M certainly has sufficiency in that. After some cursory snooping around, not seeing any reason to !vote oppose or place in neutral either. Furthermore, Colin M has clearly demonstrated how access to the admin toolset will enable them to further improve Wikipedia. Lastly, the opinions expressed by Barkeep49 and Ritchie333 in the nominations section atop are very convincing. North America1000 16:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support trust the nominators, and cannot remember a time where I had a negative interaction with this user. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Colin M has done a lot of work with RM and even if I don't always agree with them I agree with others that their participation is positive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - per the noms, and my interactions with Colin M, who appears to clearly be here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support This user has contributed significantly in the LGBT+ space which I watch. One example is commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#review of 1950s American published gay erotica 🏳️‍🌈🌈. I see in the neutral comments below that this user is suggested to have tolerated anti-gay free speech. Maybe. I oppose tolerance of negative or hostile perspectives but I do not expect everyone to know all the winning answers for every sensitive discourse. Overall I evaluate this user's position as being on the on the right side of debates in advocating for diversity. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. support per nominators. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per above eviolite (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, don't see anything to cause concern. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - looks like a solid candidate who is hard-working, level-headed, and trustworthy. Nosferattus (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Why not, he seems trustworthy. IsaacAndHisIsaac (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - experienced, level-headed, and articulate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support – solid editor with the right attitude. Thoughtful answers to the questions. Will make a good admin. Schwede66 05:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support—Kurtis (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - good reason for wanting admin powers. Limited demonstration of engagement with the full range of admin tasks, but enough evidence of good judgement in what we have. Decent content editing, good response to question about edit count. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support – Qualified candidate, decent knowledge of policies and record of RM closures. Will make a good admin! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support per nom. A very competent candidate. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support No obvious issues. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Has my trust. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support I see no reason not to support. Rin (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 17:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I thought the answers to the questions to be well thought out. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - Seems like a trustworthy and skilled candidate. They have my support! Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. We always need more sysops who are familiar with the RM process, and Colin M is clearly competent and trustworthy. No concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support per NOBIGDEAL. Lkb335 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support very good content creation and hard work at RM which will be helped by the mop, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  125. The concern raised in the neutral section is valid, but I am satisfied with Colin's response and I otherwise have no qualms with him becoming an administrator. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support per noms and Bluerasberry. I find no reason to oppose, good work, collaborative, etc. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Leijurv (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 05:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support —MdsShakil (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Good candidate. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support — Denisarona (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support — I respect the neutrality on the difficult subjects. I see no reason not to vote support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support — Amazing editor, with a long history on writing about difficult subjects and settling disputes. I think the nominee will go very far if they are given the administrator rights. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support per all above !votes. I believe that this nominee will use their admin rights and abilities for good. Good candidate with extensible track record of writing and settling disputes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. I'm new to the RM area but I've seen Colin do a really fine job in here. His answers to the various questions were compelling too. I'm glad that a fellow Page mover is running for Adminship. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support — I have checked some of his editions and interactions with other users, and I think he would make an excellent admin.--Gorpik (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support — The user seems to be a good administrator. Drummingman (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support I thought the answer to question 20 in particular was a good one. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Terasail[✉️] 18:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Looks good. Per the usual, as an entry level admin, not ready for heavy duty conduct-related items. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support – I did not remember coming across this editor before (for the record, we did have a positive interaction on somebody else's userpage), but have confidence in him already from reading his answers above. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support At a minimum answers to questions seem generally considered and sensible, and I think I'd be on a loser trying to dig up any significant problems, and it seems no-one has found any so far. Best wishes to what seems a good candidate. 21:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
  144. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Looks good to me! Chlod (say hi!) 01:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support no reason not to SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support No qualms. PurpleLights! 03:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. This one goes in the category of "thought he already was one", and for a long time. BD2412 T 03:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. No concerns. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Nothing I can see as a basis for opposing. AryKun (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Good editor. Viewer719/Contribs! 11:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support, without hesitation. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I am confident Colin will make an excellent administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support I don't see why not. SunDawntalk 15:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support for the same reason as above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support No issues, has a clue and isn't a jerk. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support per what I wrote below (moved from neutral) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Candidate passes all reasonable expectations with flying colors. casualdejekyll 19:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Seems fine. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Balanced, dedicated, mature editor. Húsönd 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support I don’t know Colin M at all but they have good nominations and what I see is positive. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Why not? Severestorm28 00:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  165. No concerns at all. My few run ins with them have been very positive. Aircorn (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  166. support per above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support per noms and above. The only thing raised in neutrals below does not really bother me since the candidate clearly only wanted to raise awareness of how majority sentiments can potentially be misused. Personally, I prefer people declaring their biases loud and proud. It makes it easier to spot problematic editing. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support, I randomly checked some contributions, everything seems fine. signed, 511KeV (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support, locking good. - Owais Talk 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support, Looks like this would be an effective admin. Rollidan (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Not known to me (or maybe just not noticed?), but seems a reasonable and useful sort, so I see no reason not to support. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support I'm a bit late to the game here, but I don't see any reason not to support - seems solid. Girth Summit (blether) 16:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support No qualms. He's got the Cow Tools, now give him the Admin Tools, I say. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Trusted, well-qualified candidate. Good noms, good answers. Unlikely to delete the main page. To the candidate: expect more stress--find a way to process it in a healthy way while keeping your course. Even the finest of us run hot from time to time. BusterD (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support I was initially concerned that this user has <200 page moves, which strikes me as being low for someone whose stated focus is RM and article titles. I've now had the pleasure of discussing our perspectives regarding RM and while we certainly see some things differently, I join others here in the feeling that this user will be a cogent and level-headed admin. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support per answers and past record. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support The rationale for this nomination and Colin's answers to the questions are very sensible. What I've seen of Colin's editing over the years has been good, and he should make a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
Neutral - Putting myself in neutral for now. Perhaps this should be framed as a question, but my first pass at posing one felt more like a comment with a ~"do you still think this" at the end, and nobody likes those. Colin can feel free to respond or not (here, on the talk page, on my talk page, etc.). There is an old debate over what kinds of expression should be permitted on userpages, which frequently manifests when userboxes are nominate for deletion. There was an MfD for a straight pride userbox some months ago in which Colin made these two comments. The argument is, roughly, equating expressions of white pride and straight pride with black pride and gay pride -- that they are sides of culture wars which should should all be allowed or all be disallowed. Colin is far from the only person to make this argument, and I'm sure it was more to avoid disruption rather than truly thinking they're equal positions, but it does ultimately rely on a troubling false equivalence that causes me to be reluctant to support (which I probably otherwise would, given his positive contributions). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: Pointless bickering removed. Special:PermaLink/1081567265#Neutral for previous text. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering me a chance to respond. The one point I really want to clarify/emphasize here is that I absolutely do not see these viewpoints as being of equal moral or social value. Colin M (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In doing some additional research to try to come off the fence one way or the other, I didn't find that much. A couple mildly concerning things that I won't bother with here, but nothing to push me into oppose. That brings me back to my original reason for being in the neutral section. Now, I don't think the response above actually gets at the issue. That is, the issue was never seeing those perspectives as having equal moral/social value, but rather treating them as though they're the same on Wikipedia. Still, at the end of the day, I find myself sufficiently reassured by Bluerasberry, whose judgment I trust, via his support vote above. Moving to support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I had forgotten about that MfD that Rhododendrites mentioned, but it's a valid point. There is somewhat of a moral conundrum that Wikipedia faces when it comes to userboxes of political expression. Still, I'm a bit on the fence as to whether that sort of judgment is what we would look for in an administrator, particularly if they will be involved in RMs. Would be a support otherwise. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Toad40 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrals seem to be how they roll. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to stop you. You do what you want. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Toad40, you decide how you want to vote. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 2601:647:5800:1A1F:8CB5:E48C:369D:2C3E (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I can't recall coming across this editor before. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • In question 20 3PPYB6 writes (in part) In recent years, our RfA processes have become increasingly stringent. You are currently an editor with less than 10,000 edits. Currently, any editor with less than 15,000 or 20,000 edits would generally be doomed to fail. I think this is a great example of conventional wisdom about RfA that is wrong and that we're proving wrong at this RfA, where at the time of the question Colin was passing 108/0/2. I think the community is open to a far wider range of editor profiles at RfA than can sometimes be conveyed in abstract discussions and I am pleased that Colin is evidence that my thinking could be correct. Accurately conveying what the community is willing to accept is, I feel, a not inconseuqential element to having more people run both so that potential nominators consider them and so that the potential candidates don't self select out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49—Exactly. Colin M's response describes it very well—edit counts are a very noisy material for measuring experience. For the record I could have 100,000 edits and yet that is nothing, as it is probably just mass-fixing of curly quotes in articles. Meanwhile, someone could have 30 edits creating a featured article, and that is far much more work than 100,000 meaningless quote fixes. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has often made me wonder what the point of the "Grand Poobah Orichalcum Unobtainium Silver Star Medal" stuff is. At best it's another shiny hat to collect, but at worst, I can see the lack of such a "service award" being used as fodder against someone at RFA. Still, that may just be paranoia. It thankfully does feel like editcountitis is less of a syndrome at RFA than it used to be. WaltCip-(talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, I could also see the presence of that kind of service award being fodder against someone at RFA precisely because of hat-collecting concerns. In any case, I agree they're pretty pointless things. SN54129
    Just an additional "+1" to BK49's point Nosebagbear (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't write it off quite yet. I think the long term trend is still present. scope_creepTalk 07:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It being the idea that people need 15,000 - 20,000 edits? I can find other counter examples of people passing, going back to my own RfA in 2019 where I didn't have that amount. I put forward Colin here with less than 10k and I will gladly put forward others with less than 15k without a moment's pause in the future. A successful candidate should be about the wealth of experience and depth of understanding of policy and while that does take several thousand edits but it definitely doesn't require 15-20 thousand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Colin_M&oldid=1081756071"