View source for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voorts

<div class="boilerplate rfa mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #f5fff5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a '''successful''' [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]]. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it</strong>.''[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]

===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voorts|Voorts]]===
'''Final <span id="rfatally">(156/15/4)</span>; closed as successful by [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) at 21:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)''' <!-- Template:finaltally -->

'''Monitors''': {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}

====Nomination====
{{user|Voorts}}&nbsp;– Voorts joined the project in 2022, but I came to know him through [[WP:NPP|NPP]] in late 2023, and I’ve been paying closer attention ever since. I’ve been impressed with his ability to show good judgement in closes, weighing in as a third party in discussions, and in efforts towards dispute resolution. I’ve found he takes the time to ask the right probing questions, to reflect and grow if he’s challenged, and to show humility and admit when he could have done better. I’ve been thrilled to watch him grow and explore other areas since then, doing so thoughtfully, carefully, and with attention to detail. 

In addition, his content work speaks for itself, having promoted [[User:voorts/GAN nomination log|12 articles to good article]] and [[User:voorts/FAC nomination log|7 to featured article]] status, 5 of which he received [[WP:Four Award|Four Awards]] for. His temperament, patience, and willingness to help would be an asset to the admin corps, and I hope you’ll join me in supporting him. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
; '''Co-nomination statement'''
Voorts came to my attention via his strong nominations at FAC on topics as varied as [[Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.|law]], [[October 1 (film)|film]], and [[Well_he_would,_wouldn%27t_he%3F|a political aphorism]]. In addition to his content work, he has found the time to engage in necessary administrative tasks, including carefully reasoned discussion closes and new page patrol. He has the varied experience and even temperament that are the hallmarks of a successful candidate, and it is my pleasure to co-nominate him in this first-post-admin-election-RFA. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:'' I accept, with thanks to Josh and Vanamonde for the kind words. I have never edited for pay and never will. I have never edited under another username, except for [[User:TechnicallyVoorts|my sole alt account]].

====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 actively contributing to Wikipedia for a bit over a year and half now. During that time, I have come to appreciate the importance of behind-the-scenes tasks that ensure the smooth functioning of the community and its machinery. I am volunteering to be an admin because I am willing and able to take on additional responsibilities to help with those tasks.

::I primarily plan to use the tools in the areas of deletion and user (mis)conduct. Those areas align with my current backend interests, which are participating in AfD, patrolling with NPP and RCP, opining at AN and AN/I, providing third opinions, and [[User:Voorts/Important close log|closing discussions]]. I am potentially interested in using the tools in other areas, such as at AE and in SPIs, but I would first have to learn the ropes and feel fully comfortable with any relevant policies, guidelines, and norms.
:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
::'''A:''' My content contributions. I have [[User:Voorts/Created articles log|created articles]] (and earned some 4As along the way), and brought several of them to [[User:Voorts/FAC nomination log|FA]], [[User:Voorts/GAN nomination log|GA]], and [[User:Voorts/DYK log|DYK]]. The articles that I am proudest of are ''[[Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.]]'', which I brought from [[Special:Permalink/1175149720|an unreferenced stub]] to FA after an editor [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Public domain in 1948|asked a question about the case]] at [[WP:LAW]], and [[Costello's]], a short article on a slice of old New York City.
:'''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:''' Yes, I have been in conflicts. An example: In December 2023–January 2024, I was in a [[Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 3#Close peer review|conflict over a discussion that I had closed]]. After the close, some editors came to my talk page and requested that I overturn my closure; I declined and suggested a close review at [[WP:AN]]. Thereafter, another editor overturned my closure without discussion, and things ended up at AN/I in a roundabout way. I’ll admit that at that point I probably should have just dipped out of that particular conflict, but instead I continued to post defensively at AN/I. After all was said and done, I sought a [[Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 3#Close peer review|peer review]] of my close and have since incorporated the feedback that I received into my closing practices.

::I have been in conflicts both before and since that close, and I anticipate that as an administrator who would continue to close discussions, I will face more—including when I get things wrong. I plan to deal with editing conflicts in much the same way that I currently aim to: remain civil, assume good faith, follow our dispute resolution processes, and seek advice of more experienced admins.

----
<span style="font-size:110%">You may ask optional questions below. There is a [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor|limit]] of '''two questions''' per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.</span>

'''Optional question from [[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]'''
:'''4.''' From the two discussions we've had on my talk page regarding closing discussions (see [[User_talk:AirshipJungleman29/Archive_3#Closure_at_ANO_2011_talk_page|#1]] and [[User_talk:AirshipJungleman29#Declining_of_merge_close|#2]]), I seem to have formed the preconception that you are slightly bureaucratically inclined, if that makes sense from context. I'm not saying that's bad—different perspectives are generally good for any enterprise—but would you say that's a fair assessment, or am I just letting a very limited sample size bias my thoughts?
::'''A:''' I wouldn't call myself bureaucratically inclined (although I am a lawyer, so sometimes I might get a mild case of lawyer brain). I think [[WP:NOTBURO]] is an important policy and I have made NOTBURO closes. When the first discussion occurred in July 2023, I don't think that I fully appreciated NOTBURO and I certainly would not have made a similar close challenge today; after re-reviewing everything, I think it was reasonable to rely on the previous discussion in evaluating that RfC's consensus. Regarding the second discussion, which we had a couple of weeks ago about a [[WP:PM|proposed merge]], I do not believe that a close is required for every discussion. I agree that [[WP:WHENCLOSE]] states that when editors have reached a resolution and moved on, a close is neither necessary nor desirable. However, editors did not reach a resolution in this proposed merge discussion, and I believe that it is usually desirable to close discussions about article notability. (As an aside, I think that a no consensus close would have been within closer's discretion, and I would not have challenged such a close, but I [[Well he would, wouldn't he?|believe]] that there was a consensus to merge.)

'''Optional question from [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]]'''
:'''5.''' What did you consider when deciding whether to run for adminship via RFA versus the recent trial election?
::'''A:''' There were timing issues with myself and the nominators, we had been planning an RfA before the election dates were announced, and I did not consider running in the elections instead because I did not feel that changing plans so close to the original date of nomination was prudent.

'''Optional question from [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]]'''
:'''6.''' First, thank you very much for making yourself available. My question relates to a comment you made in September regarding [[Unicorn Riot]] at [[WP:RSN]]. I haven't looked into this source much, though I think I'm inclined to agree with what -- I believe -- your position was with respect to their RS, in that they are RS.<br/>In any case, my question is not about the conclusion you reached but how you arrived at that conclusion. In your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1245097272] you explained research you'd done into Unicorn Riot's editorial process and seemed to indicate the results of your research into their correction policy validated their reliability. Can you explain your view as to the role editor-originated primary research contributes toward determination of source reliability, versus research by RS such as [[WP:USEBYOTHERS]]? (To put it another way, is the mere presence of a Correction Policy on a source website sufficient to assure reliability or do we need to validate the correction policy is actually being applied and,  if so, is that type of robust content analysis the role of editors or the role of other RS?) Thank you! [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''A:''' I believe that both are important and that this question cannot be answered in the abstract. [[WP:USEBYOTHERS]] may, but will not always, provide evidence of reliability (defined by [[WP:REPUTABLE]] as “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). In the ''Unicorn Riot'' discussion, editors pointed out that it has been used by other reliable sources, including in academic journals, weighing in favor of finding the source reliable. However, use by others will not always mean that a source is generally reliable. For example, ''[[WP:NYTIMES|The New York Times]]'' occasionally credits the reporting of the ''[[WP:NYPOST|New York Post]]'', notwithstanding that Wikipedia editors have determined that, on balance, the latter is [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]].

::The guideline that I was relying on in the ''Unicorn Riot'' discussion was [[WP:NEWSORG]], which states that "the publication of [[Correction (newspaper)|corrections]] and disclosures of [[Conflict of interest|conflicts of interest]]" is a sign, although not a guarantee, of reliability. I found that their published corrections and independence policies were sufficient to establish reliability when combined with the fact that ''Unicorn Riot'' was founded and is staffed by experienced journalists. I also saw no indication that they do not abide by their policies, but would have reconsidered if other editors had provided evidence of unretracted falsehoods.

'''Optional question from [[User:North8000|North8000]]'''
:'''7.'''   You probably already thought about this one when deciding to run.  It looks like you had a few edits starting 2 1/2 years ago and then really got started 1 1/2 years ago and then did several years' worth of work in those 1 1/2 years.   Could you elaborate a bit on.....do you think you acquired the and scope of experience during that relatively short time period to do a good job in the areas that you intend to work in?  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 01:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC) 
::'''A:''' Yes, I do. As I noted in response to question 1, the main areas I intend to work in are deletion and user conduct. Regarding deletion, I regularly participate in AfD discussions and nominate articles for CSD and PROD, through which I have become familiar with relevant policies and guidelines (see my [[User:Voorts/CSD log|CSD]], [[User:Voorts/CSD log|PROD]], [[User:Voorts/BLAR and merge log|BLAR and merge]], and [[User:voorts/Proposed merger log|proposed merger]] logs, as well as some [[User:Voorts/XfD log/Select XfDs|descriptions of selected XfDs]] that I have participated in). In particular, I try to participate in contested AfD discussions, as I believe my !vote is of more value in a discussion where consensus is currently unclear, but might develop. Outside of deletion discussions, I regularly participate in discussions at [[WT:N]] and [[WT:NBIO]], and I have published [[Wikipedia:How the presumption of notability works|an essay]] on the presumption of notability. I believe that I have participated in and closed enough AfD discussions to be an effective administrator in that area. Our community has wide views on notability, some of which may gain traction in one discussion, others in a different one, and I recognize the difference between !voting in a discussion and closing a discussion. (I would be happy to expand on my closing philosophy, if you or another editor would like.)

::As for user conduct and dispute resolution, I regularly close discussions (such as the [[Wikipedia talk:Large language models/Archive 6#RfC: Is this proposal ready to be promoted?|large language model policy or guideline proposal]], an [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 437#Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the United States Government|RfC on the reliability of Office of Cuba Broadcasting publications at RSN]], a [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 28#Category:Ancient people who committed suicide|mass CfD discussion]], and a [[Talk:List of generation VIII Pokémon#Proposed merge of Wooloo into List of generation VIII Pokémon|merge discussion about a Pokémon]]), provide third opinions, and occasionally offer advice to editors in conduct disputes at AN and AN/I. I would also bring my work experience as an attorney, which often involves mediating disputes, to the table.

::If I decide that I want to use the tools in areas where I have more limited experience, such as AE or SPI, I intend to first participate as an editor and take no administrative action until I feel that I have gained sufficient knowledge of PAGs and learned from experienced editors and admins.

'''Optional question from [[User:Kingsmasher678|Kingsmasher678]]'''
:'''8.''' As mentioned above, you've spent a fairly short amount of time on the project, and I was wondering if that gave you some insight into the current new user experience. In light of this, do you feel that the community currently does an adequate job of on-boarding new editors? [[User:Kingsmasher678|Kingsmasher678]] ([[User talk:Kingsmasher678|talk]]) 02:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''A:''' I think that the community generally does a good job of welcoming new editors in spaces like the Teahouse and Help Desk, at noticeboards like RSN, and through mentorship projects like [[WP:GAMENTOR]]. I think the largest barriers to participation are the complexity, length, organization, and number of PAGs, including some that are duplicative or represent narrow exceptions to general rules (often as a result of a narrowly-framed RfC outcome); our community could operate with a simpler set of rules and a better way of indexing past PAG consensuses.

'''Optional questions from [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]]'''
:'''9.''' Your editing pattern is quite unusual, with a lean towards "backroom" issues from the early months when you first started editing (eg May 2023: mainspace 24%; Wikipedia 26%). Would you care to explain in more detail how this arose? (Genuinely not attempting to insinuate anything here.) 
::'''A:''' Looking back at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Voorts&namespace=4&tagfilter=&start=2023-05-01&end=2023-05-31&limit=500 my projectspace edits for that month], it appears that a little over half of them were to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2023]] (30%) and AfD discussions (22.5%). As for GOCE, I became interested in copy editing on Wikipedia because I did not feel comfortable writing a new article and I have had significant prior experience copy editing, so I thought it would be an easy way to ease myself into becoming a more active editor. (As an aside, I [[Special:Permalink/1157441718|copy edited]] an article that month for the GOCE drive, [[October 1 (film)|''October 1'' (film)]], which eventually became my first FA.) I don't remember how I found out about AfD or why I started participating there early in my time on Wikipedia; I suppose I just like to discuss the meta-aspects of inclusion vs. deletion.

:'''10.''' How do you respond to the mention of [[WP:MALVOLIO]] in the comments? [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 03:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''A:''' I don't think I'm a buzzkill, but if you think I'm bringing down the vibes, [[WP:trout|trout]] me.

'''Optional question from [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]]'''
:'''11.''' <s>You were nominated right after our first-ever trial of administrator elections ended. What made you choose the standard RfA process instead of that?</s> Asked and answered per Q5 above. Instead, I will pose a scenario for you to tell us how you'd handle it as an admin: A user who has edited Wikipedia for years with almost no block history reports an IP to ANEW, claiming it's harassing him by constantly reverting his edits. But, upon reviewing the relevant article history, you find that the edits being reverted—and repeatedly restored—were unsourced, which the IP noted in their edit summaries. [[Speed (1994 film)|What do you do? What ''do'' you do?]] [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''A:''' I would warn the user and the IP for edit warring and explain why even good faith reversions of the removal or addition of content could reasonably be considered [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. I would also explain to the user that "The [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and recommend that the content, since it was challenged, be removed from the article until inline citations are added. Moreover, I would advise both editors to discuss content issues on article talk and use dispute resolution mechanisms going forward. Finally, I would [[Speed (1994 film)|shoot the hostage]].

'''Optional question from [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]]'''
:'''12.''' Asking this based on your comments on GA verifiability in the [[Tamara (given name)]] GAN, do you think it's possible to use [[Template:Annotated link]] in a GA, following [[MOS:SEEALSO]]?
::'''A:''' Yes. I believe that SEEALSO is a limited exception to our rules on citation. The position I took at the [[Talk:Tamara (given name)/GA1|GAN review]] of Tamara was based on my understanding of what the [[WP:GACR|GA criteria]] and the [[Wikipedia:Set index article#Typical information|SIA guideline]] require. In particular, the SIA guideline states: "List items do not require citations if they only give information provided by the source(s) cited in the introduction to the list. If an item gives more information, that should be backed up by citations." (I also note that there were a few other reasons I failed that GAN per my review and further discussion on the article talk page.) I recognize that other editors have expressed disagreement with my views (for example, another editor has pointed out that the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards|WikiProject Anthroponymy article standards]] do not require citations), I am currently re-evaluating my views on the matter, and I would be open to changing them if the issue arose again.

'''Optional question from [[User:KJP1|KJP1]]'''
:'''13.''' Looking back, is there anything you could learn from your approach here,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Low_Pavement,_Chesterfield] and here,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_April_8#Low_Pavement,_Chesterfield]?
::'''A:''' While I stand by my view that there being listed buildings on a street does not ''[[:wikt:per se|per se]]'' establish notability of the street itself, I recognize that I was significantly outnumbered in that discussion and probably would not have opened a deletion review if that discussion had occurred today. I also want to note that I appreciate the difference between !voting in a deletion discussion and closing one. For example, sometimes, I will [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation)|!vote against consensus]] if I believe that there is a compelling dissenting argument that ought to be put on the table. And, in one instance, I [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 9#9 December 2023|endorsed a merge closure]] at DRV when I !voted keep at AfD.

'''Optional question from [[User:HouseBlaster|HouseBlaster]]'''
:'''14.''' Would you be able to talk a bit about your closing philosophy? <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''A:''' Wikipedia discussions are closed based on [[WP:consensus|consensus]]. I understand “consensus” to be a process of compromise that requires careful evaluation of editors' arguments in light of Wikipedia's [[WP:PAG|policies & guidelines]] (P&Gs), as well as the [[WP:UCS|common sense of the community]] and occasionally precedent (such as prior [[WP:RfC|RfC]]s). Consensus (or a lack thereof) may be determined by any editor in good standing who is competent to do so. Administrator status does not give editors any special powers in closing discussions, with the limited exception of discussions that are usually only closed by administrators (such as contentious XfD discussions where deletion is on the table).

::When I close a discussion, I first read the discussion. If I have strong views on the matter and do not believe that I can close the discussion impartially, or if I am [[WP:involved|involved]] in the subject area of the dispute, I will pass on closing or !vote instead. If I determine that I am capable of rendering an impartial close, I will then review the discussion again, taking notes on the various arguments that have been made, and come up with a rough count of editors who support or oppose each argument. Next, I evaluate the strength of each argument, which primarily involves determining whether the argument is based on P&Gs or [[WP:ATADP|generally unpersuasive reasoning]], and usually discard the latter (unless editors have presented a compelling reason to [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]). I then compare or weigh arguments that have been presented using various factors. First, I determine whether editors in the discussion have weighed between or responded to particular arguments. Next, if one side of a competing issue does not have the clear weight of P&Gs behind it, I look at the [[WP:NHC|relative numbers of editors]] who have supported or opposed a particular argument. If a clear majority of editors have supported an argument with more merit than a weaker argument, I will usually find a [[WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS|rough consensus]]. If an overwhelming majority of editors have supported a strong argument, or if opposing arguments have no grounding in P&Gs, I will usually find a strong consensus. I will usually find no consensus only when all of the arguments are particularly weak or there is a true split in opinion and a finding of consensus would require a [[WP:SUPERVOTE|super vote]].

::Finally, if an editor believes that my close is incorrect, I am always open to discussing it. I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments. If I am not persuaded that I was wrong or by the new arguments, I will encourage the challenging editor to open a [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE|closure review at AN]].

'''Optional question from [[User:Daniel|Daniel]]'''
:'''15.''' Hi there, thanks for nominating yourself for adminship. I am considering my !vote, and was keen for your thoughts and reflections on [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 9]] if I may ask for them? Cheers, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 01:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''A:''' This was my first DRV request. (The one discussed in response to question&nbsp;13 was my second, and thus far last.) At the time, I believed that I was correct regarding the need for revision deletion. Indeed, I still strongly believe that we ought not to create articles about minors based on tabloid publications and family associations. Children—even ones with royal titles—should have an opportunity to live their lives without having a Wikipedia page written about them from a young age. Following the underlying AfD, I thought that the oppose !votes were not sufficient to overcome the need for REVDEL, prompting me to go to DRV. Upon review and reflection—and noting that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?sort=last_edit_desc&search=User%3AVoorts&prefix=Wikipedia%3ADeletion+review&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1 I still have very limited DRV experience]—I find myself mostly in agreement with SportingFlyer's point regarding the appropriateness of DRV for contested REVDEL AfDs. As an administrator, I would not intend to close similar discussions (see my answer to question&nbsp;14).
'''Optional question from [[User:RCSCott91|RCSCott91]]'''
:'''16.''' I'm citing that you plan to use the tools [against] User Misconduct. Any editor who has spent a decent amount of time here knows that vandalism feels like an everlasting battle. For my question, I offer a scenario based on real life situations. You don't need to quote policy, just walk us through what you would do, assuming you were the only admin on duty. {{Break}}
'''''Scenario:'''''{{break}}
While checking through multiple GA's you notice an IP user who is adding derogatory words and random links to an article. After the assumed rollback and warning, you notice that they may have done similar to as many as 6 other articles in the last hour; many of these articles have the subject of children shows and games. You are the first person to notice this vandalism. {{Break}}
'''What steps and/or proper documenting for followup action do you take?'''
::'''A:''' I would remove the vandalism from the relevant articles and leave a template warning, and possibly additional note under the template warning, on their talk page regarding those articles. If the derogatory words are [[WP:NORACISTS|racist]], [[WP:NQP|queerphobic]], sexist, etc., I would consider immediately blocking the editor and potentially [[Wikipedia:Revision deletion|revdel]] the offending material if it met the revision deletion criteria (particularly [[WP:RD2]] in this case). If I do not immediately block the editor, I would keep an eye on their edits and block them once they have received [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK|sufficient warning]] if the vandalism persisted. Since this is an IP editor, the block would initially be short per [[WP:IPBLOCK]], but I would extend the block as needed to prevent additional disruption.
<!-- Add your question above this comment. -->
<!-- Use this template to add your question: {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|2=your question}}. If you have two questions, use {{subst:Rfa-question|first question number|2=your first question|3=your second question}}. Check [[Template:Rfa-question]] for further documentation. -->

====Discussion====

* Links for Voorts: {{usercheck-short|Voorts}}
* Edit summary usage for Voorts can be found <span class="plainlinks">[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Voorts here]</span>.
----
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/Voorts|his contributions]] before commenting.''

''Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an [[WP:EXTENDED|extended confirmed account]].  All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.''

{{RfA toolbox|Voorts}}

=====Support=====
# [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred;">charlotte</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<sup style="color: darkred;">👸♥</sup>]] 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as nominator. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 21:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# I've come across voorts a few times, but we didn't have a solid interaction until they volunteered to take a GA review on my first big Supreme Court case article, ''[[Heckler v. Chaney]]''. Why they chose to go for my 3000-word newbie monstrosity and stick it out for two months of review is a mystery, but I'm grateful they did, because they had a metric ton of invaluable feedback and they were incredibly patient as I did my best to sort through it all. Voorts is polite, methodical, reasonable, and sharp – doesn't get better than that. Easy support :) [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 21:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#:I see some people are making the argument in the down-below that 12 GAs and 7 FAs aren't enough content creation. Uh... yeah, I'm gonna waive rebuttal on that one. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 21:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#{{ec|2}} Heck yeah. [[User:Dylan620|<span style="color:blue">Dylan</span><span style="color:purple">620</span>]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' ({{ec|3}}, well-standing editor, substantial edits. [[User:Myrealnamm|<span style="color:#0085BD">My</span><span style="color:#ED7700">real</span><span style="color:#2A7E19">namm</span>]] <big>([[User talk:Myrealnamm|💬pros]]</big> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Myrealnamm|📜cons]])</small> 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' net positive.[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 21:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' will be a net positive to the project.<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|<small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)</small>]] @ </span> 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good luck. [[User:Vacant0|<span style="color:#5E9A4A;font-weight:bold">Vacant</span><span style="color:#A24B4B;font-weight:bold">0</span>]] <span style="font-size:small">([[User talk:Vacant0|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Vacant0|contribs]])</span> 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 21:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''', no concerns. [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 21:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''', can't quite put my finger on where we've crossed paths before, but certainly a net positive {{p}} ''also'' per noms, ''also'' per {{noping|theleekycauldron}} — [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • they/them) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' definite net positive with an impressive content creation track record. [[User:PCN02WPS|<span style="color:grey;">'''PCN02WPS'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:PCN02WPS|<span style="color:grey;">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|<span style="color:grey;">contribs</span>]])</small> 22:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per my nomination statement. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 22:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 22:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# {{ec|1}} '''Support''' Wait a- I thought he already was a mop! Like, legit, I thought he already had the bit! [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' &ndash; meets my [[User:Clovermoss/RfA|criteria]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good luck! [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#[[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#Of course! <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#It was just a few days ago that I found myself wondering when voorts was going to be an admin. Easy support! [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' for a fine candidate. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''': I've regularly come across voorts's work through NPP and have never seen issues I can recall. They're easily someone I would have guessed was already an admin. :) [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 23:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A kind, competent editor. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Not a difficult decision. I note in particular some good contributions to FAC including several thoughtful source reviews. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 23:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per <s>Tryptofish. (Not a "Personal Attack".)</s> two fine nominators. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 23:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)) <small>''Edited'' 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
#[[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' His closes at Phase II of admin recall was my first interaction with him. In my eyes they were good closes which got the ball rolling again on the new process. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#000000">[[User:Fanfanboy|<span style="color:#88a3e8">fanfanboy</span>]] [[User talk:Fanfanboy|<span style="color:#80FFFFFF">(''<s>block</s> talk'')</span>]]</span> 00:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#thumbs up <span style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Good candidate. [[User:TyphoonAmpil|<span style="color:navy;">'''Ampil'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:TyphoonAmpil|<span style="color:#FF738A;">'''Ταικ'''</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/TyphoonAmpil|<span style="color:#fcacb9;">'''Cοnτribυτιοns'''</span>]])</sup> 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# I have complete trust in the noms that this is a good candidate. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I got the opportunity to review a [[Talk:Running Out of Time (song)/GA1|GAN]] for them and it was great work.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 01:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Have generally been impressed by what I have seen of their work - convinced by nominators and a quick spot-check that adminship would be a net positive for Wikipedia. See also my comment below under the first oppose. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' +1 <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]])</span> 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 02:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' &ndash; I have always thought that this editor was very competent and helpful, and showed very good judgement in various sorts of cases requiring it. He would make a great administrator. [[User:ChrisWx|'''<span style="color: #1370ad">Chris</span><span style="color: #0a04b5">Wx</span>''' ☁️]] ([[User talk:ChrisWx|<span style="color: orange">talk</span>]] - [[Special:Contributions/ChrisWx|<span style="color: darkgreen">contribs</span>]]) 02:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''', easily. I think Airship's right about his bureaucratic bent. (Sorry, voorts. That's lawyerbrain for you.) I also think that most of the times I've noticed voorts in a discussion it's because I've disagreed with him. Nevertheless I am firmly in support; he has good sense and the right temperament. I'd also like to point out a sample of his careful, detailed GA reviews from the past month: [[Talk:Néo-Phare/GA1|a pass]] and [[Talk:Southshore, New Zealand/GA1|a fail]]. Clear understanding of [[WP:V]] very much in evidence. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''! I've been waiting to see this for a while. I think voorts has demonstrated excellence in several areas of the project and level-headedness in making difficult decisions such as contentious RfC closes. I'm sure he'll do great work as an administrator. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''TechnoSquirrel69'''</span>]]</span> <small>([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|<span style="color: #0b541f;">'''sigh'''</span>]])</small> 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom. Have seen their work and the admin mentality is apt. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 03:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I've seen their work and been impressed. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks great.  Also, Blue Rider oppose looks more personal vindictiveness than anything else.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:{{hidden ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Would you mind striking and rephrasing, @[[User:TParis|User:TParis]]? As stated, this sounds like a personal attack. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 08:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#::I do mind.  This is a discussion and we discuss the supports and opposes.  There is an oppose that looks like a personal grudge and a vindictive !vote has spilled over here. My comment is intended to sway others that are on the edge to pay it no attention.  So, yes, I do mind.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 13:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#::{{reply|Femke}} I wholly disagree that comes anywhere near to being a personal attack. As I touched on below, it is far closer to being a simple statement of fact; and bearing on mind that TBR has just labeled all criticism of him [[Special:Diff/1254910335|as "defamation"]], I think that speaks for itself. It's certainly more within SFR's remit. (Why the hidden ping, by the way?) [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 14:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:::SFR disagreed as well on my talk, so will accept my reading is not the majority opinion here. 
#:::Hidden ping was my attempt to not derail the discussion here, subtle hint to discuss at talk or User talk. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 14:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Nothing bad, great candidate. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">[[User:Bunnypranav|<span style="color:#63b3ed">~/Bunny</span><span style="color:#2c5282">pranav</span>]]:&lt;[[User talk:Bunnypranav|<span style="color:#2c5282">ping</span>]]&gt;</span> 05:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#[[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 05:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# Just got to know about this RFA today. [[User:GrabUp|<span style="color:blue;">Grab</span><span style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Up</span>]] - [[User talk:GrabUp|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]] 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' No red flags. [[User:Mox Eden|<span style="background-color: #483D8B; color: #E6E6FA">Mox Eden</span>]] ([[User talk:Mox Eden|talk]]) 07:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I came across voorts in a couple of excellent closures, delved deeper into his contributions and offered a nom, but was too late :). Full confidence they show the ability to grow, take on feedback, are kind to newer users, and use the tools well. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 08:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Looks great. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 08:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Though I’m not totally convinced by their decision to close [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan audio leaks controversy|this AFD]] as ''keep'', it really feels more like a NC. But I have to admit, Voorts have a good ability to analyze whether a source is reliable—even sources from Global South—definitely a useful skill for an admin! PS. if I’m not mistaken, this will be my first vote in an RFA! --— [[User:Saqib|<span style="color:blue">'''Saqib'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Saqib|<span style="color:#3266CC">talk</span>]] I [[Special:Contributions/Saqib|<span style="color:#3266CC">contribs</span>]]) 09:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I have seen them around, thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Shushugah|talk]]) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Looks good to me. I don't see any issues. --[[User:Ratekreel|Ratekreel]] ([[User talk:Ratekreel|talk]]) 11:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Has both the P&G knowledge and the right temperament for admin work. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 11:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Pretty much exactly what we need in an admin. [[User:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span>]] [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: pink">talk</span>]] 12:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' lawyer brain or not, a good editor. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#Thank you for volunteering. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Good editor from what I can see. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''! We need new admins. It's cool to see this process work so close in time to the admin elections. [[User:JuxtaposedJacob|JuxtaposedJacob]] ([[User talk:JuxtaposedJacob|talk]]) &#124; :) &#124; he/him &#124; 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Seen him around and he seems sound. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' has clue, not jerk '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 16:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)	
#'''Support''': voorts will be a net-positive. I immensely respect Tryptofish and find myself agreeing with the content of their neutral: a sense of humor is necessary when dealing with this project. However, I also don't mind an occasional visit by the fun police to keep everyone's eyes on the prize. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 16:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. After reviewing his contributions [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Voorts on xTools] I'm confident of his editing ability and helpfulness. Overall he primary does supporting and anti-vandal edits in the mainspace. Very few pages with more than six edits. Though he also does excellent work with lots of edits on a small number of pages such as the featured article [[Well he would, wouldn't he?]]. <nowiki><silly></nowiki>And digging way down I find five helpful edits early in the history of [[Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System]]. Finally a plausibly plant editing Admin candidate! Ring his brow with a crown of sunflowers and daffodils!<nowiki></silly></nowiki> [[User:MtBotany|🌿<span style="color:#254c00">Mt</span><span style="color:#326500">B</span><span style="color:#3e7e00">o</span><span style="color:#4a9700">t</span><span style="color:#57b000">a</span><span style="color:#63ca00">n</span><span style="color:#70e300">y</span>]] ([[User talk:MtBotany|talk]]) 16:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Have seen him around, a positive to the project. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 17:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''', [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#Voorts|precious]] --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''.  No concerns. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] -  [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 17:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I am familiar with the candidate's work and think he'd make a great admin. I have no concerns. &ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Voorts has done works that I admire and has qualities I would want to see in a sysop. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 18:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' [[User:Hameltion|Hameltion]] ([[User talk:Hameltion|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hameltion|contribs]]) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support.''' per the excellent answer to my question. [[User:Kingsmasher678|<span style="color:green;">'''Kingsmasher678'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Kingsmasher678|talk]]) 19:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' In my opinion, RfA is a vicious process.  Since Voorts is willing to take the chance on the character assassination inherent in that process, I conclude that they have demonstrated a very strong commitment to Wikipedia, and have earned my support. [[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] ([[User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|talk]]) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Support. Looks great. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 19:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – [[User:Ammarpad|Ammarpad]] ([[User talk:Ammarpad|talk]]) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No concerns. The sole oppose (as of this comment) is not persuasive. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 20:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Has a clue, their edits show me that they would do well as an admin. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 20:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Why not? -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-size:120%;">Fastily</span>]] 21:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:Aoba47|Aoba47]] ([[User talk:Aoba47|talk]]) 21:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Well-reasoned editor, a good addition to the crew with professional mops. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 22:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' and some comments about GA. The process for reviewing [[Wikipedia:Good articles]] has had a growing backlog for years. More people are nominating articles for GA reviews than performing them. This has created two pitfalls for people putting an article up for review that sometimes overlap. First, many articles wait on the list for months. [[Tamara (given name)]] was nominated for review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATamara_%28given_name%29&diff=1221383713&oldid=1221383677 in April], and Voorts began their review months later [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamara_(given_name)/GA1&oldid=1245943553 in mid-September]. That is a process issue and not a Voorts issue. Second, if an article is far from meeting the criteria, it can be "quick-failed". A quick-fail review only notes areas that clearly don't meet the criteria. It does not have to cover all of them if one is far from being met ([[WP:V]] in this case). Quick fails maximize limited reviewer time and avoid spending an entire week failing an article that could not pass the standard. They are often viewed as disrespectful by nominating editors, and there is something inherently unfair about them. The nominator is expected to check back regularly (sometimes for months) waiting on the review, and then the review is just immediately closed. Both of these are process issues. Neither are Voorts issues. And until more people volunteer to pick up GA reviews, they'll unfortunately both remain issues with the process. [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 02:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; no problems with answer to my question, and a lot of good people supporting this candidate. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' will be a great admin [[User:Mujinga|Mujinga]] ([[User talk:Mujinga|talk]]) 03:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Will be a good admin. I have a good opinion of Voorts, and I see nothing brought up by any of those neutral or opposing which concerns me in the slightest. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 04:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Anyone that can bring something like {{tq|I also think that most of the times I've noticed voorts in a discussion it's because I've disagreed with him.}} (cred. [[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]) as part of a support rationale has a temperament that ultimately makes a good admin. [[User:Sennecaster|<span style="color:#066516">Sennecaster</span>]] ([[User talk:Sennecaster|<span style="color:#8E4106">Chat</span>]]) 05:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've read Tryptofish's comments, and I've read the discussion about the closure peer review. [[Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 3#c-Voorts-20240118051300-Firefangledfeathers-20240118042300|This comment]] seems to clearly show {{them|voorts}} listening to feedback about {{their|voorts}} close. I rarely close discussions, but I think the skills to close discussions are really valuable to the project. I don't think {{they|voorts}} will abuse the tools, so support. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--color-emphasized,#000)">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 08:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I sure do! He will totally be a reasonable editor and admin for sure! [[User:JuniperChill|JuniperChill]] ([[User talk:JuniperChill|talk]]) 10:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like the candidate's answers and their record is more than good enough! The opposing side unfortunately does not convince me, especially given the "defamation" comment ([[Special:Diff/1254958362]]). [[User:Brat Forelli|<span style="color:Goldenrod; background: white">'''''Brat Forelli'''''🦊</span>]] 12:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've read and understood the concerns, but this candidate would clearly be a net positive. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-thickness: 10%;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 12:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. They aren't perfect, but we don't expect admins to be perfect. I find The Blue Rider's oppose utterly unconvincing. Tryptofish's oppose required more thought, but on balance I don't find it disqualifying - we allow admins to have views that do not accord with consensus as long as they know not to act contrary to that consensus and I have confidence Voorts will act appropriately in this and other regards. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#:Just for the sake of accuracy, at the time that you posted this, my comment was a neutral, not an oppose. I'm going to move out of neutral, but that will be happening after your comment and my reply to it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#::My apologies, it was Espresso Addict's oppose (which starts "per Tryptofish") that I was referencing. I've not yet read the !votes left subsequent to mine. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 16:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# Glad to '''support'''. Best wishes. [[User:Volten001|<span style="color:orange">'''''Volten'''''</span><span style="color:lime	">'''001'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Volten001|<b style="color:red">☎</b>]]</sup> 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# The closure mentioned in Q10 doesn't raise any serious concerns for me. One's opinions about humour in Wikipedia do not in any case, to me, have any bearing on one's suitability for adminship (unless of course one is [[WP:V|too inclined to joking]]). I also do not think it is fair to judge a closer on the effects of the consensus they find, as long as it was determined correctly. <b style="font-family:Monospace">--&nbsp;[[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#Thanks for answering my question. Happy to support. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 19:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. [[User:Tim O&#39;Doherty|Tim O&#39;Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O&#39;Doherty|talk]]) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Per the efforts to clean up road articles. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - A clueful, articulate and solid contributor. I expect Voorts will be mindful of any tendency toward stubborn wikilawyering when fulfilling administrator duties as expressed in a couple of the opposes. They should be fine with the tools. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#007000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#C75300">Writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Really solid article editing and a calm, sophisticated understanding of policy, such as at previous discussions around ambiguities arising from interpretation of [[WP:ANYBIO]]. A wee bit of lawyerly attitude is entirely forgivable given the nature of Wikipedia in this era of the project. The answer to question 10 is no problem, and I think voorts seems self-aware enough to take feedback and do no harm. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven Walling|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</span> 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - I've seen this user a bit in my time here, usually through my stalking of [[WP:GAN]]s. I think they took the time to throughly review everything and be responsive to questions, so I had a positive impression of them. Looking over their record in greater detail now, I think they'd make a great admin because they are really balanced - equally involved in content creation, and the "backend" side of things like AfD, GAN etc. I think Q13 really shows an ability to understand where they went wrong and improve in future, which is great - that was the standout question for me. I look forward to their adminship. [[User:MolecularPilot|<span style="border-radius:4px 0 0 4px;padding:3px;background:#0369a1;color:#fff">Molecular</span>]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<span style="border:2px solid #0369a1;border-radius:0 4px 4px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#036">Pilot</span>]] 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
# ''Support''' Good luck. — [[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#CC6600;">Sadko</span>]] [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #0c0609;">(words are wind)</span>]] 00:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' A very skilled content editor, and reading through the opposes, there's nothing that gives me pause. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' without reservations. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. [[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] ([[User talk:Neo Purgatorio|pester!]]) 04:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Shocked to learn that voorts has only been here for two years considering how helpful he's been! [[User:ViridianPenguin|<span style="color:#40826D">ViridianPenguin&nbsp;🐧</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:ViridianPenguin|💬]]&nbsp;) 08:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Giving this user the admin privileges will be a net positive. - '''[[User:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#522C1B">t</span><span style="color:#522C1B">u</span><span style="color:#417DC1">coxn</span>]]'''\<sup>[[User_talk:Tucoxn|<span style="font-family:serif">talk</span>]]</sup> 10:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Have had positive interactions with them all round, I don't see a few bad closes as a pattern. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 10:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Charcoal feather|Charcoal feather]] ([[User talk:Charcoal feather|talk]]) 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per 0xDeadbeef's comment. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#—[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Will be a net benefit to the project. [[User:Let&#39;srun|Let&#39;srun]] ([[User talk:Let&#39;srun|talk]]) 13:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The concerns concerning an excess of lawyerness raised in the oppose and neutral section, while not without merit, are not a dealbreaker for me. I've seen voorts around, and, overall, I don't find myself thinking they'd be a bad admin. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 13:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''.  The DRV incidents brought up in the questions gave me some pause, but reading the responses, I think that voorts is thoughtful and I expect will do just fine as an admin. '''[[User:Malinaccier|<span style="color:#003153">Malinaccier</span>]] ([[User talk:Malinaccier|<span style="color:#003153">talk</span>]])''' 14:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' The candidate has strong credentials, and I've been impressed when I've seen him around the project. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I've looked through the opposes since I'm quite late to the gig but there is nothing there that is particularly concerning. I think it is more a state of mind rather than any lack of capability. I think with some help and mentorship Voorts will make an excellent administrator.  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 15:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' '''<span>[[User:Sir MemeGod|<span style="color: #B71C1C; font-family:comic sans ms">Sir MemeGod</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Sir MemeGod|<span style="color :#000000; font-family:comic sans ms">chat</span>]]</sub></span>''' 17:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# Even though I ([[Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 33#Regarding name articles|and other people]]), strongly disagree with his decision for requiring citations for a disambiguation list on [[Tamara (given name)]], voorts has an impressive content improvement career which I believe would make him a good administrator by defending content creators, which, in my opinion, is what administrators are for. '''<span style="font-family:Sergio print;">The [[User:The Blue Rider|<span style="color:#2664F5">Blue</span>]] Rider</span>''' 17:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' explicitly because of the candidates bucreautic interest and attitude towards closing discussions. Yes, the candidate cares deeply about the internal structures and policies of Wikipedia. Why else would one become an administrator? An admin is literally volunteering their free time as a bureaucrat. {{pb}} Likewise, for Q13, criticizing someone for being wrong isn't helpful unless we analyze the reasons why. Looking at the AfD for [[Low Pavement, Chesterfield]] shows that the candidate understands [[WP:SIRS]] and what significant coverage is. The reason why the candidate failed is because every commenter decided to implicitly [[WP:IAR]] and !vote keep because the street has notable/heritage buildings. Sometimes that happens at AfD for reasons unbeknownst to me. I'd be miffed as well, and I respect Voorts for being honest that their views still haven't changed. We need more administrators that will respectfully disagree and push for change to the status quo. That's what being [[WP:BOLD]] is. The most we can expect from someone in that situation isn't to conform their beliefs to consensus, but to acknowledge they're outnumbered and yield to the consensus. {{pb}} I'm not sure what a better response to Q10 would look like. [[WP:MALVOLIO]] is a hyperbolic comparison of the candidate to a character in a Shakespeare play that doesn't like humour. The candidate sees this and cracks a joke. If your concern was supervoting, this should be said. {{pb}} Also, closers '''do''' tip the balance with their preferences. It's very explicitly [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] and the closer is expected to use their own judgement. Ideally, a closer would provide comprehensive reasons for their decision so the community can tell if the close is wrongly decided. Voorts' does this much more than other closers. That makes it easy to find flaws. I view that as a plus. Generic one or two sentence "Option X won" closes are unappealable by design. Therefore the "why" of a close review is more important than a close being overturned. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 17:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# I have seen him around and believe he would be a good admin. I am impressed with the quality of his content work, and the other contributions he has made are equally commendable. – [[User:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:black">'''DreamRimmer'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:DreamRimmer|'''talk''']])</small> 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I waited until further questions were answered, and I'm glad I did, as the responses (especially #14) reinforce the confidence I have in voorts [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#6BAD2D">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#2F3833">rabbit</span>]]
#'''Support''' No concerns, net positive. [[User:The4lines|The4lines]] &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; <sup>([[User talk:The4lines|Talk]]) ([[special:Contributions/The4lines|Contributions]])</sup> 18:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' No problems here! [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I've seen them around in various venues, and have noticed their work at AfD. The content work is a plus. No hesitations or doubts about their abilities; they would be a good addition to the team of administrators. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Normally this editor's active tenure would be too short for me, but the frequency and depth of involvement makes up for it. Net positive, and I don't really see any red flags. With regard to the "Low Pavement, Chesterfield" thing in particular, which seems central to a lot of the opposes, I agree with Voorts and several other commenters in the drawn-out process that the arguments to keep were anti-policy (in particular, they mostly amount to a belief that notability "rubs off" on adjacent topics, e.g. from historic buildings to the street at which these buildings have their addresses, and that idea is flat-out wrong). I'm satisfied by the Q&A indicating considerably growth and reconsideration on Voorts's part with regard to how to assess consensus and do closures, and how to manage conflict that arises regarding closures someone isn't happy with. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#:@[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] - Agree that they were basically arguing for [[WP:INHERIT]]. If you can build up a list of things that are sourced on a street, it still doesn't say anything about that street. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 12:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#::Yep. Additional notes in the [[#General comments]] section. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – Concerns raised here do not come anywhere near close to a level of concern that would make me oppose this candidate. Will be a net-positive. Has a clue, and shows a willingness to listen and to learn. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 04:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good history of content creation; will benefit the project with the tools. '''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#082529">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">T•</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">C</span>]]</sup> 06:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom. [[User:SirBrahms|SirBrahms]] ([[User talk:SirBrahms|talk]]) 10:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' per above. IMO, unlikely to break the project with the mop. Good Luck! <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF">&nbsp; Aloha27</b>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#9E0508">&nbsp;<small>talk</small>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 12:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Reasoning and reasonable; has earned the community's trust. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Maliner|Maliner]] ([[User talk:Maliner|talk]]) 18:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# Hi there! [[User:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:light blue;"><span style="font-size:110%">''Fathoms Below''</span></span>]] [[User talk:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - I see no red flags here, Easy support. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 22:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Bobby Cohn|Bobby Cohn]] ([[User talk:Bobby Cohn|talk]]) 00:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' After going over most of Voorts' edit history in the last year, their metrics, and their answers to mine and most of the questions. It's a Net support. The person shows promise and regardless of some reservations I think they should be trusted with the "mop". [[User: RCSCott91|RCSCott91]] ([[User talk: RCSCott91|talk]]) 23:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I agree with HJ Mitchell's oppose, but it isn't enough reason for me to oppose the nomination, and after that experience, voorts probably wouldn't do the same things in a similar situation.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 01:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Trying to distract myself from [[2024 United States presidential election|the other election]], and we have a solid candidate right here. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 02:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns do not persuade me. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|talk]]) 05:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Ternera|Ternera]] ([[User talk:Ternera|talk]]) 14:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I fully concur with HJ Mitchell's oppose, and dislike AfD nominators who want to contest every keep vote. What consitutes "significant coverage", "reliable sources" and "independent of the subject" is frequently contested. There are always going to be borderline cases, and if your case for deletion relies on your interpretation, good luck but don't expect everyone else to agree. Suppress the lawyer's impulse to argue! Voorts does a good record on content creation. (Admins with poor content creation records should consider that only 25 signatures are required to send them to [[WP:RRFA]].) [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''support'''. [[User:Brachy0008|'''<span style="color:blue">brachy</span><small><span style="color:black">08</span></small>''']] <sub><small>[[User talk:Brachy0008|<span style="color:green">(chat here lol)</span>]]</small></sub> 00:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''', I am seeing nothing here that raises concerns about this active user becoming an active member of the custodial staff. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 02:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Net positive. Would make good use of tools. [[User:Lightoil|Lightoil]] ([[User talk:Lightoil|talk]]) 03:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 03:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''', no big deal. Adminship should be given out like candy like in 2007. [[User:Frost|<span style="text-shadow: -1px -1px 2px #0B00C2, 1px -1px 2px #5000EB, -1px 1px 2px #0044cc, 1px 1px 2px #56CFF5; color: white; font-family: Typewriter;">'''''Frost'''''</span>]] 05:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per [[User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content]] [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 11:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Unlikely to delete the mainpage. Qualified and (based on this process) sufficiently trusted. I'd expect a newly made sysop to take oppose comments here seriously; there are circumstances mentioned which demonstrate the nominee has some seasoning to undergo. Might find themselves a mentor for xfds. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 13:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I think many of the concerns raised by editors here are valid but we all have room for improvement. Based on the rest of the positive work I've seem them do, I think they'll be able to incoprorate the thoughtful suggestions and come out of this a better editor and a fine admin. [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 21:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''': The answer to Q10 is perfectly fine. Content creation is above-and-beyond and displays an understanding of norms across multiple subject areas. Will be a great admin! <span style="color:green">[[User:ThadeusOfNazereth|ThadeusOfNazereth]](he/him)<sup>[[User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth|Talk to Me!]]</sup></span> 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – Admittedly I will concede to some concerns about [[WP:MALVOLIO]]; indeed, I've had some fun police figuratively arrest me before. But it's still important to note that administrative privileges on this site are [[WP:NOTBIGDEAL|not really a big deal]], and administrators don't have to be shining models and perfect at everything in order to succeed. If an administrator does make a mistake, I have full confidence in us as a community to point it out; otherwise, per [[User:3PPYB6/RfA criteria|my very loose criteria that I almost never follow]] (and that voorts has well overperformed a lot of these criteria anyway) and my general concerns about the loss of administrators, I sincerely believe voorts will use that mop well. — [[User:3PPYB6|3PPYB6]] <sup>([[User talk:3PPYB6|T]] / [[Special:Contribs/3PPYB6|C]] / [[Special:Log/3PPYB6|L]])</sup> — 02:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – no issues. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 03:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – Wishing you the best, [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 07:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - no problems here  <small> ✈</small> [[User:mike_gigs|mike_gigs]] <sup>[[User talk:mike_gigs|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/mike_gigs|contribs]]</sub> 14:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Impressed with the attention to reversion of "undiscussed" or "underdiscussed" page moves. Not so concerned about the number of articles created. [[User:SpookiePuppy|SpookiePuppy]] ([[User talk:SpookiePuppy|talk]]) 20:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=====Oppose=====
::<s>The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge of when to [[WP:GAFAIL]] and, more importantly, lacks understanding of one of the core principles of Wikipedia: [[WP:V]], specifically [[WP:CITE]] as demonstrated by quick-failing [[Tamara (given name)]] mainly due to its lack of citations on a disambiguation list. </s>'''<span style="font-family:Sergio print;">The [[User:The Blue Rider|<span style="color:#2664F5">Blue</span>]] Rider</span>''' [[File:Postal horn icon.svg|19px|link= User talk:The Blue Rider]] 00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::linking this context here (without comment), for ease of participants: [[User talk:Voorts/Archive 41#Tamara (given name) review]] <span style="color:#618A3D">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 01:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::In addition, it looks like there's a significant ongoing dispute between The Blue Rider and a number of other editors at [[Talk:Tamara (given name)]]. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::(''extended discussion moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Voorts#Tangential_discussion_moved|talk page]]'')
:::That's an interesting one, I wouldn't require citations for that list of notable people named Tamara. On the other hand, like voorts, I would not have passed the article at GA, and all the other issues they pointed out were entirely correct. Unfortunately the article doesn't have much chance of passing GA at present either (lack of stability). In the end, my difference of opinion with voorts here is far from a dealbreaker when it comes to adminship. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: Yes, the article would definitely be quick-failed for failing criteria 5 at the moment. It was completely abandoned when I started editing it, but since then, an array of editors has become involved, leading to a lot of drama—sigh. I understand that this may not be a dealbreaker for most people, but that's my only interaction with him, and it was negative, so my vote is going to reflect that. '''<span style="font-family:Sergio print;">The [[User:The Blue Rider|<span style="color:#2664F5">Blue</span>]] Rider</span>''' [[File:Postal horn icon.svg|19px|link= User talk:The Blue Rider]] 01:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Per Tryptofish, somewhat unsatisfactory answer to my Q10, and issues raised in Q13. I see an editor who is very fixed in their particular views and does not appear very self-reflective. The legalistic arguments over sources for streets in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Pavement, Chesterfield]] and the deletion review that Voorts brought[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_April_8#Low_Pavement,_Chesterfield] moved me from sitting on my hands to oppose. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 23:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per the unsatisfactory answer to Q10, as well as the concerns raised by Espresso Addict. It seems clear that the candidate will pass at this time, and I hope that as an admin they will display greater flexibility and willingness to listen than has been apparent at times during their non-admin career. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 18:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' (moved from Neutral). I'll start by saying that I've read and thought about every comment under both Support and Oppose that has referred to what I initially said under Neutral, and I thank those editors on both "sides" who said nice things about what I said. I've thought about this hard, and I'm coming down quite firmly here in Oppose. In my earlier comment, I discussed this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests/Archive_3#Close_peer_review]. Aside from those editors who were just angry, there were detailed comments from another administrator, pointing out problems. I see that an editor supporting has noted the candidate's reply to the administrator, but if I examine that reply carefully, I see that the candidate only stated agreement with ''some'' of the concerns raised, and seems to disregard some of the others. In my earlier comment, I made passing mention of [[WP:MALVOLIO]], although it wasn't the central point of my concern. That mention led to Q10, and like other editors, I am very troubled by the answer to that question. Let's face it, RfA is a place to put one's best foot forward, and a candidate can pause and consider before posting anything. That answer is flippant, and doesn't get to the actual concern that was implied in the question. The issue is, in part, whether the discussion close was made with the necessary care, and in part, whether the close displayed a rigidity about postings that were ''intended'' to be humorous (whether they were or not) and were made in good faith. Simply invoking [[WP:TROUT]] and framing the essay page as being about how one should not be a "buzzkill" misses the deeper point about considering how other editors feel. In my earlier comment, I also discussed this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review#Post_close_discussion]. Closing a discussion, and then getting involved in a discussion about what comes next, and accusing others of wanting "a second bite at the apple" undermines community faith that the close was made in a truly uninvolved and neutral manner. Here is the actual close, itself: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Initiation_procedure]. It bears a close look, keeping in mind the discussion that followed. The candidate found a consensus for option B, and relates that consensus to the [[Goldilocks principle]]. As I pointed out in the discussion that followed, one could just as easily make a case that there had been "no consensus"; voorts replied that it was a "consensus", as opposed to a "strong consensus". But the consensus, apparently found through seeking a middle point amongst multiple divergent opinions, had the same effect, "strong" or not. Voorts obviously could not know what would come later, but the effect has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 this], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Shorten_the_recall_petition_period? this], where currently the community seems to be throwing the previous consensus for the previous option B under the bus. The answer to Q14 is, on its face, a perfectly reasonable approach to closing discussions, although it's largely just a summary of existing policies and guidelines. But I feel like there is a ''pattern'' here of making closes that are a bit imperious, a bit prone to, well, not really supervoting, but allowing his own preference to tip the balance a bit. And there's a ''pattern'' of being a bit self-justifying when questioned about possible errors. And closing discussions is a prominent part of this RfA portfolio. Now I consider what might happen if we add the delete and block tools to that, and I worry that we could end up with some questionable use of the permissions, and a limited willingness to be accountable. In total, I don't trust the candidate enough to support. If others disagree with me, that's fine. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I wasn't going to comment on this RfA until I saw the recent opposes, I rarely do as I don't often recognise the name of the candidate and a full investigation of edit history can be exhausting. I would like to say "''I have seen them around''" and leave my oppose at that (it seems that is acceptable for supports) but that would be based on observations at meta about meta issues that are considered irrelevant here. So I base my oppose on "per Tryptofish and Espresso Addict". Character concerns like "very fixed in their particular views" and "don't trust the candidate enough to support". Passionate to a fault is perhaps another evaluation. However, I understand that a feeling initially derived from meta edits may not be a suitable reason to oppose and closing bureaucrats should consider striking my oppose.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] ([[User talk:Commander Keane|talk]]) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' lacks sufficient experience and mainspace contributions. 18.8% page deletion rate gives me no confidence they understand [[WP:N]]. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 06:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#:You're perfectly entitled to oppose, but I want to point out that the "18.8%" is really 3 out of 16, ''all'' of which are incorrectly attributed to Voorts, who was cleaning up after draftifications. No page he actually created has been deleted. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#::Yes 3 out of 16 is 18.8%. Voorts recreated pages after they were deleted. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 07:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#:::I can confirm all three deleted pages are actually taggings of redirects for deletion by Voorts. They were not the original creator of any of these three. The tool is somewhat broken in this regard. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 07:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#:Page deletions don't tell us much about someone's understanding of notability; they can simply be a feature of the sort of work the editor does. Case in point: I've created 16K+ pages, of which 2.6K (16.5%) have since been deleted. Meanwhile, I've created 220+ ''articles'', none of which have been deleted, for notability or any other reason. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#:Good god, ''five'' four awards, two FAs, and four GAs isn't enough mainspace contribution!? What do you want, a full suite of TFAs and a Nobel Prize? [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 21:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - offered an opportunity for reflection in Q.13, what I saw was more doubling down, with a minor concession. The approach is rather absolutist, which a strong dash of litigiousness that others have commented on. With some 15 editors taking a contrary position, I would have hoped for a little more than "I stand by my view". I didn't get it, hence the oppose. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 08:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Weak Oppose''' The only interaction I recall having with voorts was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-referential_humor&diff=prev&oldid=1190991662#Why_the_self-referential_likn_should_be_deleted this close], and the subsequent discussions. While I recognize that closing isn’t an exact science, and our documentation on how to do it isn’t ironclad, most of the closes I’ve seen end up being along the lines of “it matters less what the guidelines say, and more how the editors in the discussion want to apply them”([[User_talk:Thebiguglyalien#Close_at_Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars|one such example]]). I was surprised then, by a couple of things about voorts’ closing in this case – they closed the discussion in favor of their own interpretation of the guidelines that were discussed in a very small split discussion (2-2); and they were [[User_talk:Voorts/Archive_18|dismissive of me]] ([[User_talk:Voorts/Archive_19#One_more_attempt|and others]]) at their talk page, preferring to let an involved IP editor (who would later be blocked for [[User_talk:149.86.189.197|block evasion]] and [[User_talk:81.102.123.104#January_2024|disruption]] related to this very discussion) defend their close for them, and responding more only when pressed. {{pb}} Now, their close’s rejection ended up being [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#User:Levivich_and_Self-referential_humor|out of process]], and they seemed to accept [[Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests/Archive_3#Close_peer_review|feedback on the event]], so I don’t hold the content issue of the close against them. I certainly hope they took that feedback to heart, and work to cause fewer headaches for editors whose discussions they close these days. However, I haven’t gotten over how dismissed I felt, and would hope that should they become an admin, voorts’ puts a bit more care into how they interact with normal editors impacted by their decisions. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 16:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', per KJP and Trypto. None of these interactions in themselves is worth paying too much attention to—we all get things wrong or consensus goes against us and sometimes we can't see why until we have some more distance. And of course, we're not obliged to ''agree'' with consensus; we're entitled to think that the consensus on any given subject is ridiculous, but we ''do'' have to abide by it until we can change it. There was a very clear consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Pavement, Chesterfield]], which quickly became apparent as editors added to the article, but Voorts started by challenging every keep vote and descended to absurdity when editors added more and more coverage and Voorts demanded yet more. Then when the AfD was closed as keep (because there was no other possible outcome), Voorts opened an equally predictable DRV because he felt the outcome was "wrong" (and continued to argue with commenters there until the outcome was beyond doubt). I see a similar pattern in the "self-referential humour" discussion and the GA discussion—a pattern of an editor who not back down when consensus is against them or change their mind when new evidence is presented. That's not a trait I like to see in admins so I must respectfully oppose. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 18:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - regretfully and pointlessly. Too inexperienced and q10 was a not a good answer. I hope I am mistaken. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per HJ Mitchell. The behaviour at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Pavement, Chesterfield]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 8#8 April 2024]] gives me a pause. They appear to have realized and admitted their mistake [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 8#c-Voorts-20240409124100-Sirfurboy-20240409070500|eventually]], however, the fact that they only learned how AfD works as recently as April and are planning to use admin tools in AfD (according to Q1) makes me unable to support. – [[User:SD0001|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #C30">SD0001</span>]] ([[User talk:SD0001|talk]]) 06:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I just dont think that this person has contributed sufficient content in the form of new articles. 16 articles is all? Although I am not very experienced in these votings, I think that aspiring admins need to emphasize content creation.  That is our main job. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 20:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
#:I actually fully agree that administrators need to have experience creating content. It's why I nominated Voorts, who  has written more featured articles than ~91% of current administrators. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' I am surprised to find myself in this section of the RfA, but having reviewed some of the evidence put forward, i am here, along with and for similar reasons as Espresso Addict, Tryptofish and others.  This Request is bound to pass, but i urge the candidate to bear in mind the concerns put forward in the Oppose and Neutral sections and tread lightly when they become an admin:  Having the mop does not make an editor's views necessarily right, and consensus is still a thing  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' per Tryptofish and HJ Mitchell. The response to Q10 to me is less important than the pattern shown of a fixed point of view even when it goes against community input. The DRV on Low Pavement was not terribly long ago, nor were some other examples in this section. Would like to see a pattern of growth and change before handing over the mop. — '''[[User:GhostRiver|<span style="font-family:Georgia; color:#91A3B0">Ghost</span>]][[User talk:GhostRiver|<span style="font-family:Georgia; color:#4997D0">River</span>]]''' 17:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' It's not natural for me to sit on the fence so I decided (see my comment in neutral, below) I need to go one way or the other for several reasons, including [[WP:NOTYET]]. I don't like the brutal inquisition that accompanies these RfAs, which is why I have not voted before. It is likely to pass, though, so I wish Voorts good luck with the mop. [[User:Tony Holkham|<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:#000000">Tony Holkham</span></b>]] [[User talk:Tony Holkham|''<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:#008080">(Talk)</span></b>'']] 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Not ready yet, in my view. Happy to see a further rfa later. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Tim riley|<span style="color:# 660066">Tim riley</span>]][[User talk:Tim riley|<span style="color:#848484"> talk</span>]]</span>''' 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=====Neutral=====
:''<small>(Moving.)</small>'' I'm going to start here at neutral, and see what kind of <s>badgering</s> response my comment gets, and then use that information to move to either support or oppose. First of all, I really like the candidate's content work, and I see that as a significant positive. But, as the candidate notes, they've been doing a lot of non-administrator closes, some of which have attracted controversy. In the questions section, there's a link to this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests/Archive_3#Close_peer_review], where I think there's a legitimate concern about, well, [[WP:MALVOLIO]]. And I'll also note that the candidate made the closes that started us on the path to the current petition to desysop an admin, which isn't exactly working out well. Link to discussion about that: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review#Post_close_discussion]. Now, I think that making difficult closes is potentially a good way to step up and help with difficult tasks. But I also think that there's a responsibility to get the consensus right, as well as to process concerns about the close in an impartial manner, and that becomes all the more important when one wants to become an administrator. Although it was good to ask for peer review of the first of those closes, there was an awful lot of feedback that was negative, and the feeling I get from the candidate's responses is just like ''thank you for your feedback'', without really acknowledging that anything was questionable. I also get a slightly defensive feeling in how this was characterized on this RfA page. And again, at the discussion about admin recall, the candidate responded to questions, in part, by moving to being a partisan in the discussion, which undermines faith in the close. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think it's fair to leave a comment in neutral before going one way or the other. My thoughts on this: first, I'd want to see evidence that this is indicative of a larger problem, which it currently does not seem to be. If he's doing "a lot" of closes, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few that prompted argument (Wikipedians love to argue, after all). I don't know if I would have closed the self-referential humor discussion that way, but while I can understand objections, voorts is on firm ground insofar as one side of the discussion arguing against P&G. I also don't think it's a point against him that he sought uninvolved opinions following a fracas where the participants had strong opinions on the close. I have to object more strongly to your characterization of voorts' admin recall closes, in that it's really unfair to retroactively attribute whatever happens with admin recall to voorts of all people. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 00:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the feedback. I'm now especially interested in seeing the answer to Q10, as I figure out what I think about this. If I take the position of someone opposing – and I'm not there yet – to reply to the things with which you disagree, I'm concerned that this may in fact be a pattern, which is why I'm waiting to see what other editors might say. If you look at the discussion about that first of the two closes, you will see an admin pointing out some specific things that voorts did incorrectly (and I'm not referring here to the editors who were angry about the close, but to someone who gave thoughtful input in the close review), and I'm not seeing voorts taking it on board. As for your taking strong issue about the admin recall close, you are of course correct that it's obviously not voorts' fault that the current petition is what it is. But we went down a long road of bad discussions about consensus or the lack thereof, that would not have happened with a close that was nuanced a bit differently, and we're still feeling the adverse effects of that today. And look closely at the discussion to which I linked. After making an "uninvolved close", voorts quickly started making some pretty strong negative comments about editors involved in that discussion: "a second bite at the apple", and his replies to Joe. Note that a lot of editors were concerned, not just me. That feels "off" for a discussion close; even if voorts only formed those opinions after reading the discussion and making the close, it still comes across as not really neutral. When someone becomes an RfA candidate, and makes closing of discussions a major part of their portfolio, it's reasonable to take care to evaluate what might happen if they close future discussions with the added stature (if that's the right word) of adminship. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I just saw the answer to Q10, and I've gotta say that I'm now getting very close to oppose. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#Looks like an interesting candidate and a fantastic editor! Adding a Neutral for now as a self-reminder to revisit later after they've had an opportunity to respond to more questions. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:<s>Like Chetsford above. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 00:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</s> Moved to '''support'''. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:<s>I see no need to vote, but as this RfA has come up so soon after I became aware of Voorts, I would like to make a point. A few days ago I was preparing to make a substantial change to [[Pembrokeshire]] in respect of the overweight history section, when my first edit in the process was reverted by Voorts without any discussion, despite the fact that I have contributed to the article for years and Voorts not at all, that I can see. [[User:Tony Holkham|<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:#000000">Tony Holkham</span></b>]] [[User talk:Tony Holkham|''<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:#008080">(Talk)</span></b>'']] 09:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</s> {{small|struck as duplicate in favor of more recent vote. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)}}
#::@[[User:Tony Holkham|Tony Holkham]], do you mean [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pembrokeshire&diff=1252389166&oldid=1251335861 this edit]? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 09:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:::Yes. But it's not the edit that's key, but the '''without discussion''' that I should have emphasised. [[User:Tony Holkham|<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:#000000">Tony Holkham</span></b>]] [[User talk:Tony Holkham|''<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:#008080">(Talk)</span></b>'']] 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#I think this is pretty firmly in the realm of [[WP:NOTYET]]. While there is nothing outright disqualifying about the candidate so I wouldn't be  comfortable opposing, there is a concerning lack of content creation at 13 articles, and while it is commendable that he has brought 7 articles to FAC, sometimes quantity CAN be more important than quality when seeing the standard editor's POV. I have also seen evidence of lapses in judgement due to inexperience. In the video game realm he did not retract his merge !vote for Agent 47 even when obvious notability was found and was one of the few who stood in opposition to it being an article, though he admitted the error later. Even odder was his merge close at [[Talk:List of generation VIII Pokémon]]. He stated there was a consensus to keep the article when there was anything but. I'd have closed it as No consensus at most, with several well-reasoned arguments from veteran editors like Czar in favor of merging that were weirdly glossed over. Overall I feel it is jumping the gun. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 20:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:<sub><s>Is this meant to be in the oppose section? Just wondering! [[User:Kingsmasher678|<span style="color:green;">'''Kingsmasher678'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Kingsmasher678|talk]]) 21:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</s></sub>
#::No, it's a "If you can't make your mind up after doing  all that research, or if your feelings and findings are not enough for you to make a firm commitment to support or oppose the RfA, you can place a comment in the 'Neutral' section." In other words, neutral.  [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:::Just realized is didn't see the section about that in the paragraph, will strike.
#:::[[User:Kingsmasher678|<span style="color:green;">'''Kingsmasher678'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Kingsmasher678|talk]]) 22:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:I've never understood why creating an article is seen as more of an accomplishment than adding the same amount of content in a previously existing article. The only difference is that you get to yell "first!" I find 7 FAs being a "lack of content creation" as almost insulting toward people who put in the hundreds of hours of work relative to the few minutes it takes to create an article. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 22:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#::As I said, it is not intending to insult or belittle the work that was actually put into FA's, which I know is intense. But creating articles can teach some things FA won't, like not necessarily focusing on a "safe" article and taking a risk your article might be deleted. This information is useful when you are deciding what articles are salvageable or viable. I still think that "article creation" content making can be distinguished from "article improvement".  [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
#:::Yes, article creation is very easy compared to to improvement to FA standard &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#::::But creating less-polished articles is a great deal better for learning about how deletion works ''from the creator's perspective''. Featured articles are never speedied or prodded, and rarely AfD'd. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
#:::::Espresso summed up exactly what I was trying to say, yes.  [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 05:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
#::{{smalldiv|1=RfA inflation has gotten out of control... <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)}}
# This is a NOTYET for me. Good luck with the toolbox, use it with care. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# Again with NOTYET. Content creation and adminship are two different things. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

=====General comments=====
*Placing myself as a [[WP:MONITOR]]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you for volunteering. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Daniel Case}}, it looks like the candidate had already answered Q11 with the answer to Q5 unless I'm missing something? [[User:Perfect4th|Perfect4th]] ([[User talk:Perfect4th|talk]]) 04:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*:OK ... I'll come up with another question instead. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*I made a comment here, and it was moved to the talk page, where one can see it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
* {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} my opposing vote is derailing with editors talking about everything but the candidate appropriateness to administratorship. Can some order be restablished? Thank you. '''<span style="font-family:Sergio print;">The [[User:The Blue Rider|<span style="color:#2664F5">Blue</span>]] Rider</span>''' [[File:Postal horn icon.svg|19px|link= User talk:The Blue Rider]] 21:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Please see [[Special:Diff/1255072805]] and [[Special:Diff/1255072682]]. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 00:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*:: Thank you. '''<span style="font-family:Sergio print;">The [[User:The Blue Rider|<span style="color:#2664F5">Blue</span>]] Rider</span>''' [[File:Postal horn icon.svg|19px|link= User talk:The Blue Rider]] 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*::As noted on the talk page, I do think that more was moved to the talk page than should have been. I believe the first two level of replies added relevant context, whereas it was less so from then on out. But we can discuss that further on the talk page. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 00:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|RoySmith}} May I suggest as a compromise that you leave a link to this discussion in your message stating that you moved it? [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Noting that comments two levels deep have been restored. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*Responding to {{U|FOARP}}'s comment on my !vote: {{tq|Agree that they}} <small>[i.e., close-review respondents angry with the close of the candidate here]</small> {{tq|were basically arguing for [[WP:INHERIT]].}}<br />Yep. And the purpose of closure review is to determine whether the closer erred in assessing consensus in a manner consonant with policy and sourcing – not to relitigate the {{lang|la|pro}} and {{lang|la|con}} arguments presented in the original discussion (or entertain the injection of new such arguments). The review in this case failed to do its job properly. [More general thoughts on this sort of issue refactored [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Voorts#Tangent on closure-review management in general|to the talk page]], since not pertinent to this candidate in particular.] <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 02:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
* Two pieces of commentary on this candidate stand out to me. The first is the argument that responding to "are you too serious or literal" with a lighthearted answer is somehow disqualifying. The second is the argument that while he's written some of the top 1% of the top 1% of articles on Wikipedia, he's not qualified because he doesn't make himself a burden by spamming a bunch of crappy 2–3 sentence stubs. I would genuinely believe that these arguments were a parody of RfA if I didn't see them here. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 18:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, I'm also baffled at the idea that prospective admins should have experience creating bad articles that are subsequently subject to CSD/PROD. Someone who is RFAing and specifically mentioning deletion as an area they want to work in should not be creating articles which are CSDed/PRODed. (At any rate, voorts does have a double-digit number of article creations to their name, of which they have brought five from nothing to FA standard: how many more do we need to count as sufficient article creation experience?!) [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 12:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Agree with both. Q10 is the ''best'' possible answer voorts could have given, not the worst. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 23:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
----
:'''Support''' I don't see many problems. [[User:Kolano123|Kolano123]] ([[User talk:Kolano123|talk]]) 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''': seems like he would be a good one.  [[User:Travellers &#38; Tinkers|Travellers &#38; Tinkers]] ([[User talk:Travellers &#38; Tinkers|talk]]) 16:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

*<!--

Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization.
EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE
DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE
When closing this discussion, only the line starting with {{RfA/autohold... and its closing brackets }} need to be removed; the rest is the archive bottom text

-->
:''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</strong> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
<!--
DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE
Please add any General comments above the "EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE" line
-->